formula was experiencing pressure that i don't think ever should be the case. so i made the decision instead of complaining about it, doing something i've never done, got involved in a political office. and now i am here and it's rather surreal. ..

and so i think the initiatives such as freezing spending for five years to produce a 400 billion-dollar cut in the deficit that's nice but it's a token compared to what we really should be doing. we have to make some very difficult decisions and have to go much further than $400 million in savings. >> , hersman sutherland, thank you for spending a few minutes here on c-span as we get a chance to know some new members of congress following the state of the union speech. but a long term, long time member of congress -- >> not so long. >> with 87 members that is a long time, congressmen. >> thank you. glad to be with you.

>> you are a democrat in texas, and i want to start by talking about your friend, gabbie giffords because i remember you were on the floor talking about her. she is now in texas. was to light a little bit different than previous state of the union address is? >> i think the president touched the nation when he mentioned in the chamber will clearly we want her to be returned to the chamber and take her rightful place. our prayers are still with her, and not only hurdle of the other families involved, and i single out the family of that nine-year-old baby that lost her life. i want never again anything of this nature to happen in this great nation. we can do better. >> at what point did you disagree with the president when he was talking about freezing domestic spending? for example he talked about

miers' their anything the president said he disagreed with? >> you never want to say that you agree 100% with anyone, but the president get a pretty good speech tonight. i was impressed. he set the tone when he indicated it's about more than putting together tonight. it's also about working together to mauro. as we lead tonight we've got to come back to normal and deal with of the serious business of balancing the budget of dealing with the war and we do more than just sit together. we have to work together. i think he's got a great tone, and i'm looking forward to working together to make a difference for the lives of the american people. >> has your life change coming from the majority to the minority? >> well, things are different, but my agenda remains the same. on still here for those that have been lost, left out and left behind. i am going to do all i can to

make sure we have good health care for all americans, that we've got a good education for all americans, and that we provide the best that we can for those that are willing to go to different places and put their lives on the line for us. america is great for many reasons, and we can never overlook the fact that our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, are there to protect america. >> congressman al green, thank you. >> thank you. god bless you. god bless c-span. >> neighboring texas is the great state of arkansas and brand new senator from arkansas, john bosman. >> as a member of the senate -- >> spent many years over here in the house. >> five terms. >> how did it feel to might as opposed to some of the speeches in the past? >> i really enjoyed it because you can actually listen to the speech. you didn't feel like a jack in

the box jumping up and down on both sides. >> why do you think that is? >> there's a little bit of a different tone. i think it was a positive tone. people i think for a little bit more serious. the idea, you know, sitting with a body on the other side i think was a good one. i sat with -- actually, we got separated as we got in because it was so crowded, which again, is unusual because the fact that so many representatives and senators there it was impossible. but senator kunes from delaware we will probably together 30 minutes coming in. he is a new senator like myself, and just getting to know him a little bit and stuff was positive. >> the president called for a freeze on domestic spending tax increase. >> i think on the freeze of domestic spending is a good start. the reality is right now with our current spending, 32 cents of every dollar is borrowed, and

with gravity it doesn't take much to figure out that doesn't work. so i think we've got to go deeper than that. we've got to get our fiscal house in order. we do that in arkansas, we do that as families, and it's going to take a lot of hard work to figure that out, but it's something we've got to do. >> i know it's very early in the 112th, can you see any differences? >> well, the senate moves at a slower pace. i can testify to that. the day after your elected they are chiseling your name off and putting somebody else in. for instance, the room assignments and stuff are down almost immediately. in a house you've got 20 minutes to make your mind up. if you don't meet your mind up than your there. i think there are now 50 in the senate as far as still choosing office assignments. so it's a preglacial place, but that is not ours. >> do you have your committee assignment? >> no, again, that's another

thing. committee assignments, there's a lot of negotiating between the two leaders about the ratios. they finally established that. and just this afternoon starting that process were actually tomorrow sometime. >> senator, thank you for spending a few minutes with us on c-span. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> members following president obama's first state of the union address. bill gingrey is now joining us. another doctor in the house as we just talked to the senator boozman ophthalmologist. what kind of medicine did you or do you practice? >> obstetrics and gynecology for 26 years, but i don't practice now. i'm not allowed to do that. this is a full-time job if you haven't noticed. so we are very busy, but i enjoy this tremendously. >> congressman, how did this

year field compared to previous years? >> of course being back in the majority on the house side is a wonderful thing. obviously i'm a republican, and we've got great leadership. we are doing things that i feel very confident will be effective and the appeal for the health care act, the obamacare i think was a very necessary first step, and we are going to continue to work towards improving, replacing, passing legislation that truly will be in dhaka cost of health care and also grow the economy and grow jobs. >> now, the president said he was willing to night in his speech to look at the health care legislation and specific aspects and work with republicans but some things were just off the table. >> well, i was very pleased and the health act, the medical liability reform act that i dropped yesterday as the

original sponsor of that bill. you heard the president say that it was time for medical liability reform. i was sitting with david space who is a democratic colleague from georgia. i co-sponsored the bill. both of us cheered long and hard on that but as far as the president saying we don't want to go back and revisit old things, but still we get around the edges, i couldn't disagree more because we feel -- the american people i think mostly feel in all polls that the bill is bad to the core. it's not just around the edges, so we do need to repeal and start over. there are many things we can do of course and will do and the president was wrong on that. the president spent a lot of time talking about education tonight and what we need to do about that, and really many things in health care law, obamacare, things like the increase in the medicaid coverage to 138% of the federal policy level and then putting on

the state that the burden of maintenance, putting handcuffs on our governors so they can't even be innovative in trying to bring down the cost of medicaid, what they're doing is slashing the education budget in the state. so the president is giving with one hand and taking away with the other and i feel that is wrong headed in the wrong direction. >> in the end of your career at the ob/gyn what kind of medical malpractice or you holding? >> it's been ten years, hard to remember exactly but i think it was like $60,000 per practitioner and we had a five member group, so it was a pretty hefty bill. but that wasn't the main cost as john kerry finally realized a number of years ago. but the main cost driver is all the defensive medicine, all the necessary very expensive, sometimes dangerous testing procedures to sort of cover your back. you know, if we don't have

medical liability reform, there would be no dr. rita the arizona medical center to save the life of our colleague, gabbie giffords because the liability would be too high, so that's the kind of thing we are looking at and why it is so important that we pass medical liability reform this year. >> dr. congressman phil gingrey of georgia. thank you. >> thank you. it's my pleasure. >> still here in statuary hall outside of the -- outside the new house chamber, where the president -- right here? okay. a little bit earlier we were talking with republican congressmen sitting with don edwards, democrat of maryland. who was that you were talking to? was it someone from a florida may be? c2 >> the only republican sitting with that group. [inaudible] >> yeah, well, we were sitting around a nice crowd. it was really terrific actually.

>> at what point did you disagree with president? >> their work places i wanted to hear more particularly where the cuts are going to come in the budget, and i want to hear a lot more detail to that. i was pleased to hear the president say everything is on the table, and that means defense and homeland security as well as agencies where there is duplication, and the examples he gave of duplication, i mean, who wouldn't agree with cleaning that up? >> what about his call to potentially health care reform could happen? willing to look at that. >> i think the president was speaking to which all loveless really agree with is what goes on with reform in the process for the 1099. i think everybody recognizes that this probably puts more of a burden than we had planned on our small businesses, and i think that there is probably unanimity across the congress, democrats and republicans that we need to fix that comes to

what he was saying is you know what, this is a beginning and not an end to health care and where there are places we need to fix things that guaranty quality-of-care and affordability, then we will do that. in other areas you know what, it is a pretty good law and we are going to keep it. >> congressman edwards, is gabbie giffords a friend of yours? >> she really is and in fact today we have been organizing science and technology committee, and i sit next to gabbie on the committees of its particularly poignant to miss her today earlier in the day, and i just am looking forward to having her back. she has been a great leader and mentor for me on science and technology especially oversight of nasa, but it was a difficult day. >> have you adjusted how you operate? >> i think what we are doing is we're doing like a lot of members looking at what's going on in our district offices and

the security. i think our district offices are frankly more vulnerable. they don't have the security that we have here in the capitol. we are looking at events, and not taking any extraordinary precautions but where we think there's a need to engage our local law enforcement we will do that. and we don't want a lot to stand in between us and so many well-meaning constituents who just want to engage and have questions and want to challenge us, and sometimes even in the most passionate way. >> congressman don edwards joins us here in statuary hall. the president's third state of the union address as we continue to talk to members of congress. in iowa conversations and now to the other, democrat of california. first of all, sir, tell us where your district is. >> i represent the tenth congressional district, which is on the east side of the east

hills. we are talking walnut creek and then over into the county, fairfield, all the way up to the university of california davis. good country. >> what did you think of the president's speech? >> i liked it. i liked it. he laid out an agenda for america's future, one in which we can rebuild america. we can make it america once again by using the innovation, the economy that's out there. our technology, research, education, talking all the things together and paying for a lot of it by e eliminating the subsidies that are going to be khalil industry, subsidies that have been there for a century. very successful, fabulously profitable industry. they don't need that subsidy. we needed for the green, clean technologies of the energy future, moving away from the 18th and 19th century energy and moving into the 21st century. >> what about the president's call to freeze domestic spending

>> what does that mean? across-the-board trades? he also said, and i think this is much more important, picking winners, things we need to do in the eliminating or reducing those things that we don't need to do. across-the-board, useful for a speech, but that isn't going to deal with the educational programs that he talked about. those are going to have to grow. some things are going to have to shrink. but in total, and i think this is what he meant, for the total budget not to grow, but rather to shift resources around. and one very, very important place where i disagree with the president. $120 billion a year stint in afghanistan on a war we are not going to win, eight war that is zapping on necessary resources here at home, sending them far, far away to a rather bad effect. bring that money home, spend

money there on economic social development, leaves are like focus on al qaeda, which is another parts of the world and focus there. go after al qaeda. but in this war in afghanistan. and i don't mean in 2014. i mean now. >> as a member of the armed services committee the president called for opening up off campus colleges -- >> good idea. my son was a ma rotc bredesen and the university of california berkeley. it's a good thing. we've got -- we need to have a balance. the academies are terrific, but the need to be balanced by schools all across this nation so that our military is made up of many different points of view and rotc is a very important part of that. >> john garamendi, thank you for your time. >> thank you. and now we want to get reaction from memphis tennessee. congressman steve cohen, a

democrat from tennessee. congressman, you've been in congress now for a couple of terms. how did this state of the union feel as opposed to others? >> this state of the union was addressed to the new 100 told congress that has to be bipartisan the republicans having the majority and the president touched on issues that appeal to the democrats and republicans and i think it was wise to do that. it was about jobs. that's the big issue and we need to put people to work. he talked about innovation and harnessing our creative spirit. he talked about historical figures, the wright brothers and einstein, what ever. but, we need to harness the innovation. we need to certainly invest in infrastructure, which is important in memphis with our airports, federal express. we send more goods around the world than anyplace else. railroads that come through our city. so we have a d and infrastructure, that's something we cannot stay in. we have to be strong. infrastructure produces and moves your economy.

it's important for memphis and america. we've done some meetings in the country building the interstate highway system, sending a man to the moon, women into space, and we can do what we want to do. and he gave us goals of having 80% of energy being from renewable sources, that solar is important anybody but particularly in memphis where we produce solar panels that sharpened factor in comes the wind and solar and even nuclear and clean coal, those are energy sources need to look at in the future and i was very important. and i think there green economy is important as we hit those issues. he talked about getting out of iraq, which is a milestone. >> now, congressman, you mentioned at the beginning that to the bipartisanship is a little bit more evident in this state of the union. you've got quite a bit of press coverage on recent remarks you made on the house floor. if you could, would you change what you said? >> the reaction wasn't good and i certainly learned from that, and i am not going to say

anything about germany or anybody in germany in the past or future. it didn't respond it wasn't what i intended, and i got a lot of flak from that. nobody likes getting flak. i've got a lot of republican friends and i think the republicans understand. i sat with connie mack and i had other options with dan burton and dannel rohrabacher, and i've got republican friends i'm going to maintain. the understanding and i think we are going to go for the nec good way. i'm not steve cohen is a magician. i can't take things back. >> have you felt a change in your life here in the house going from the majority to the minority? this is your first time in the minority pt islamic ase. i felt some for sure. i was a committee chair. now when the ranking member. the ranking member is not the same position and you do more message being the legislating and i guess that is what i was doing last week is messaging. i had the opportunity to talk to joe scarborough and explain what i said last week was a special order. special orders when not too many people listen.

it's not to make a statement that you want to get coverage on or to make a statement that you think is going to affect, you know, the discourse. he didn't understand. he's a former congressman and didn't know a special order. it's interesting i didn't know that. that puts a different aspect of it. it's not like i have a press conference at the hill, but more emphasis on messaging when you are in the minority. part of the reason i did the special order, to get the message across and health care was important. the president was strong on a commitment to support health care, to support the 26-year-olds and under 26 on their parents' insurance, not preexisting conditions become a basis to deny coverage, and that's important. there is so much good and health care bill. >> , cohen, thank you for stopping by c-span. >> you're welcome. my favorite station. >> glad to hear that. >> starting to empty out a little bit in statuary hall.

it's about 11:22 p.m. on the east coast. about an hour and 15 minutes or so since the president finished his speech and left the capitol on his way back to the white house, 2 miles down pennsylvania avenue. but we are still talking with members here in statuary hall, and we are now joined by the freshman senator from utah, mike lee. senator, welcome to washington. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> what's your experience been like the last few weeks as you get used to being a senator? >> it's been great. i'm enjoying getting to know my colleagues and trying to find my way to the restroom, and it's been a lot of fun. >> first state of the union. give us your impression. >> was interesting. it was an electric atmosphere. i was encouraged by some of the things the president said. i was happy to hear him talk about enforcing an earmark than with the veto pen and hear him talk about making sure we don't have a second highest corporate income tax rate of the world. that's a good thing and it is

desired to simplify the tax system generally. also happy to hear him make reference to the fact millions of americans sacrificed much in order to live within their means and the desert to have a federal government that does the same thing. in the same speech though, i heard him say a lot of things suggesting that he intends to engage in a lot of new spending he called the new spending investment, but it really was more of a speech about spending than it was about cutting, although we've made nominal of service to cutting. >> have you talked with former senator dennis since you beat him in the convention? >> yes. >> and how is your relationship? >> good cordial relationship. >> is he in utah? >> i'm not sure i think he's still in washington. >> senator mike lee, republican senator from utah. thank you. and we are almost out of time. here in statuary hall and in fact we are going to call it a night. thank you for being with us and

listening to reactions from members of congress follow the president's third state of the union speech.

next the health oversight government reform committee met earlier to consider and adopt rules for the 112th congress. ranking member e. elijah cummings offered several amendments for changing the rules package. this is one hour and 35 minutes.

>> the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order.itteen i want to welcome you all here. timing is everything. all would chairman towns please come to the center place he finds comfortable. >> if you'll bear with us for a moment. i asked german towns, who is anr ordained minister to do the opening prayer for this ord

congress. would you please all rise. >> let us bow our heads because we need to pray here. creator and god, we gather in your presence to begin our work gaer in yoof the american people. let the will to do what is righo supercede the titles of democrat or republican. help us to understand that weat are one nation under god. let us realize how important it is that we work together, understanding that there is nonh big i and little u. helpless to use this opportunita to lift people up. give us the wisdom and guidance to better stewards for our an ge

fellow citizens. help to correct the mistakes we have made in the past, and whens have made in the past and when we are not able to agree, help us not to be disagreeable, because we know that the bigger we make your name, the smaller our problems will become. so we come today lifting up your name, knowing the world will never be what it ought to be until we are what we should be. oh, father, as we close, bless gabby giffords and her staff and her family and bless the staff this committee. help them to stay focused and realize that many are depending on us to get rid of waste and fraud. in your name, we pray.

>> chairman, before we begin and while there will be no doubt you are still the chairman and always will be when i address you, the committee would very much like to give you this ceremonial, very big, very heavy gavel with your name for your service to the committee. thank you. >> thank you very, very much. thank you. thank you. >> and mr. chairman, before you -- before we begin the official work, i would like to remind you that you are now only one artist rendering away from having your portrait in our committee room, which is being

painted as we speak. so let us all work together to make sure you can make that happen at the soonest possible time. >> i'm so anxious to hang it, i might hang it in here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a quorum being present the committee meets to consider a resolution adopting the rules of the committee for the 112th congress and to announce subcommittee assignments. ranking member cummings and my fellow committee members, i am proud to introduce the republican members of the committee on oversight and government reform of 112th congress. mr. connie mack of florida has been a valued member of congress and is vice chair -- or i'm

sorry the chair of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere at the foreign affairs committee. notwithstanding those duties, i look forward to working with him on the government oversight and reform committee and have asked him to take a vice chair role. mr. walberg has returned to the congress an we welcome him to the committee. i know he'll be a strong voice on restraining government spending. i'm glad that he joins us from south central michigan. mr. langford, as a new member, is prepared to solve complex problems. he will represent oklahoma well and has managed more people that are probably more difficult to manage than even members of congress. mr. amash brings another perspective from michigan. he understands how to engage fellow citizens as a representative truly should.

congresswoman burkle adds perspective from upstate new york to the committee, something we welcome here. additionally, she is a former assistant new york state attorney general and a licensed nurse. i look forward to working with her on multiple issues that obviously she has gleaned over her career. mr. gosar of arizona brings his experience in dealing with the nation's health care system to this committee and we welcome him to the committee and have asked him to be the vice chair of the subcommittee on health. mr. meehan of pennsylvania brings his skills as a u.s. attorney and district attorney to the committee. we need to ask questions and get to the heart of issues, and i believe he has uniquely that talent for a freshman -- rephrase that. a unique talent from his district and a talent that we

are adding to this committee on several of our new members. mr. labriando is a former state legislator in ohio. his experience will serve us well as we go after waste, fraud and abuse. we look forward to having him back in a seat that previously was held by another member of this committee. mr. walsh of illinois brings his dedication to service to the committee. he is an advocate to control government spending and innovative solutions for the problems which our nation faces and welcome. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, is new to the committee. he brings to all of us a perspective, as i said, not unique but unique from his district as a prosecutor.

he came to this committee by asking first to come to this committee because he believed that his background and ability to look for the truth would benefit all of us and i agree. mr. ross is a skilled former state legislator and attorney. he is ready to get to work for the people of florida and america and, again, has the kind of experience that will help us get to the truth. mr. guinta is a former mayor of manchester and was picked by his community by a fairly large mar margin from a large number of people that wanted to come and join this committee. i was thrilled to have him join us. dr. desjarlais has practiced

medicine tennessee for almost two decades, and i believe his common sense solutions and understanding of what is likely to be the most complex issue faced in this congress will add greatly to this committee's work as we try to find ways, as some say, to bend the cost curve of health care. mr. farrenhope of texas also joins the 112th congress. i look forward to working with limb to make sure the government lives within its means, something that texans understand, but perhaps is lost on many other states and certainly on this body in the past. a fellow job creator, mr. kelly, of pennsylvania. has answered the call for public service. he is not young. he is not inexperienced, and he does not lack from a history of signing the front of a paycheck not just looking forward to the back. with that, i would recognize the

ranking member, mr. cummings, for the purpose of introducing the democratic members. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and first of all, let me congratulate you on your chairmanship. i also thank you, mr. chairman, for having chairman towns to open up with a prayer. as a son of two pentecostal ministers, a really appreciate prayer, i appreciate it all my life and i want to thank chairman towns. let me welcome back all of the members. our old members and new members. and mr. chairman, we, on the democratic side, have all but two of us have served on the committee in the last congress. and i also want to welcome back two new members, and i say "new" in quote, bruce braillely who represents the first district of iowa. and john yommic who represents the third district of kentucky. that he both previously served

on this committee. they are great members and we are happy to have them. and i know they will bring a lot to our discussion, as we all join together addressing issues of waste and abuse and the seeking of the truth. and so those are our new members and we're excited to be here, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the committee will now consider the resolution for adopting the rules. the purpose of the rules before us today -- the proposed rules before us today were distributed to each office last friday. in addition, the drafts of the proposed rules have been shared with the ranking member, mr. cummings, and his staff for at least the last two weeks. mr. cummings' staff raised a number of concerns with proposed changes to the rules and would work in good faith to address those concerns.

it is my hope that throughout the congress, we will be able to work together in the same way. however, the most significant and welcome changes to the committee procedures in this congress are not made here today, but in fact, were done january 5th, with the adoption of the house rules. the new house rules require three days public notice of committee markups. the legislation to be marked up must be on the committee website 24 hours before the markup. the amendments are now required to be posted online within 24 hours of their adoption. role call votes are now required to be posted online written 48 hours of the vote. and witnesses' truth in testimony disclosures must be posted online the day after they testify. i think we can all agree that these worthy and overdue reforms

not only give the minority more notice in excess, but also make the committee more open to the public. and after all, if we're going to open government, it should begin here. in addition, with the cooperation of the speaker's office, we have made video of all the committees' hearings available online. as a first step in what i view as a gesture of goodwill to the previous majority, we are putting all of the hearings held in last congress by chairman towns and his democratic subcommittee chairman online. as to subcommittees, the most significant changes in the committee rules is the creation, or if i will, the re-creation of seven subcommittees. prior to the change four years ago, we had seven subcommittees.

however, they've been reorganized as we've re-expanded to do more work at the subcommittee level. the subcommittee on the federal workforce and u.s. post service and labor policy will have jurisdiction over federal civil service and u.s. postal service, as well as labor policy in general. this subcommittee will be led by chairman ross and ranking member lynch and will have vice chairman amish online. the subcommittee on organization efficiency and financial management will have jurisdiction over the economy, efficiency and management of the government operations and activities, federal property and reorganization of executive branch. this subcommittee will be chaired by mr. platts who has previously chaired subcommittees here and has returned to the committee. i'm informed that mr. towns will

work as a partner in this, as the ranching member, and connie mack, who i mentioned earlier, will be vice chair of the subcommittee. the subcommittee on health care, the district of columbia, census and national archives, will have jurisdiction over policy, the district of columbia, the census bureau, federal records in addition to oversight of federal health care and food and drug safety, something that we began in the last congress on a buy partisan basis. this will be led by chairman gowdy and have been vice-chaired by vice-chair gosar. it will have oversight over national security, homeland security, foreign operations. this subcommittee will be led by

chairman javes, mr. cheernny will be the ranking member and vice chair will be mr. labrador. the subcommittee on regulatory affair, stimulus oversight and government spending will have jurisdiction over regulatory procedures, as well as oversight over the stimulus policy, federal spending generally, the subcommittee will be led by chairman jordan, ranking members kucinich and vice chairwoman ann marie burckle. the subcommittee on t.a.r.p., financial services and bailouts of public and private programs will have oversight over financial and monetary policy, banking, housing and insurance regulations. as well as financial crisis and rescues. this subcommittee will be led by chairman mchenry, mr. quigley

will be the ranking and vice chairman, mr. giunta. the subcommittee on technology information policy, intergovernment relations and procurement reform will have jurisdiction over public information, federal information technology, data standards, procurement and grant reform and unfunded mandate reform. this subcommittee will be led by chairman lankford, the ranking member and the vice chairman might be there are kelly. and i might note this subcommittee is the one that we spent so much time in a bipartisan basis trying at the full commit to get data standards and transparency imbedded into government. i look forward to being very personally involved in the subcommittee activities because i personally think that this is the legacy that chairman towns

and i leave behind, if we can make government more transparent through the kind of interoperable and transparent data basis that we envision. the background memo distributed to all members on friday describes all of the changes in the subcommittee rules and without objection, it will be included in the written record. hearing none. before yielding to the ranking member, i want to address two issues that the ranking member has raised proactively. with regard to subpoenas, the committee rule allows the chairman to authorize and issue subpoenas, and it has not been changed. the same rule has been in place since the creation of this committee in 1995, throughout both democratic and republican chairman. four other house committees also

enjoy the same standard of the chairman, being able to authorize subpoenas. additionally, other committees allow recess and other cases in which the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena. however, let us understand, we were the first to have this, and it has seldom been abused. education and workforce also has it, foreign affairs has it, ways and means has it, the select intelligence committee, in addition to our committee. energy and the commerce, rules, science, homeland security, natural resources and small business have slightly different but in some cases the ability to have a chairman issue a subpoena without a vote of the committee. in a letter to me, the ranking member said that my predecessors had an agreement that in fact would change that.

i have seen a kol colloquy that indicates an additional process behind consultation, however, during the very good two years that chairman towns and i enjoyed, we had no such agreement, and yet, subpoenas were issued after consultation in most cases. and i am not here today to complain about any differences that may have occurred. i understand that the chairman had a responsibility. he met his responsibility, and both sides worked with it. as you know, again, consultation is not required by the committee, or by -- for myself or for my predecessors. however, i believe it is a worthwhile practice. and it is my intention to

consult prior to a subpoena being issued. the ranking member has also raised concerns about minority access to committee records. as many of you know, this is a recurring and contentious issue for all committees. the house rule on committee records are very general, and of little help in crafting a practical policy on sharing committee records. it is up to the chairman and ranking members together to strike an appropriate balance for sharing records. on this committee, in particular, with its broad oversight powers to investigate any matter at anytime, it is especially important the committee records not be indiscriminately released to the public without proper vetting and fact checking. while ranking member cummings and i have -- sorry, while

ranking member cummings and i have more to work on to do -- more work to do in the coming to understand proper sharing of committee records, i am prepared to clarify the policy as much as possible today. documents received pursuant to committee, formal document request, by myself, a subcommittee chairman or ranking members, should be shared with the other party. i repeat, documents received by a committee pursuant to a formal document request shall be shared with the other party. however, the ranking members ask for copies of correspondence between myself, actually issued while i was a ranking member, and a growing number of private entities and individuals regarding regulatory barriers to job creation.

while it is and has been my stated intention to share this correspondence with the minority and the public shortly, i cannot agree to a policy that required i share a copy of every letter i receive with the ranking member, nor do i think the ranking member is prepared to share with all of us correspondence between the now minority and the white house in a realtime basis. similarly, the work product of the committee staff, confidential disclosures by whistle-blowers and other sensitive investigative materials should not always be shared. nor do i believe the ranking member desires to share everything his staff writes -- desires everything he writes with me. certainly, whistle-blower's contact both of us.

in the other order, there is fact checking and confirmation before that, and ultimately, the committee is always joined in granting whistle-blower status. i will continue to work in good faith with the ranking member on a reasonable and workable policy regarding committee records and hope that we will come to a mutually agreeable understanding. and now i yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want to thank you for recognizing me. let me start again by congratulating you and without a doubt, mr. chairman, you're one of the hardest working members of congress, and i really mean that. i've seen that already in the month that we've been working together. and every one of us wishes you well in making our government more effective and efficient. i can say for every single one of our members, we are very much concerned about waste, fraud and abuse. we are very concerned about

government working properly. and so we look forward to working with you as we address these major issues. mr. chairman, you are now our chairman. you're not the chairman of the republicans. you're the chairman of the democrats and the republicans, and we're very pleased about that. you are this committee's leader. and in fact, mr. chairman, you are our chief spokesman. your words carry the official imprint of the committee, and your actions carry great weight and authority. i know we all have our disagreements, in fact, we'll discuss some serious concerns i have today regarding subpoenas and access to documents. but i just wanted to remind the chairman of something that my two pentecostal minister parents used to say all the time. they said, you can go -- you can go -- you can go far, if you go together. you can go fast, if you go

alone. before i took this position as ranking member, i served as the chairman of the subcommittee on the coast guard. as a matter of fact, i just left that position a month ago, where i conducted strong bipartisan oversight. as a matter of fact, mr. chairman, the number one thing that i wouldcy to the coast guard over and over again is that i refused to allow them to be caught up in a culture of mediocrity and they know that. we held them to a very, very high standard. and we plan to hold this administration to a very high standard. for example, with regard to the coast guard, i worked with the chairman and the ranking member on the committee on as well as to hold substantial hearings and investigations into the deep water acquisition which sadly had been marred by millions of dollars in failed acquisitions.

together, we also offered the coast guard our authorization act of 2010. the first authorization act to be passed by congress in four years. i note that several portions were considered individually in the house and passed in a bipartisan manner and without one single vote in opposition. the overall authorization act passed the house by a vote 335-11 on the floor. and the final version on the senate passed house by unanimous consent. it didn't matter to me who was in the white house. i sought out solutions. and i achieved them working in close consent by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both chambers. so i was especially humbled when the coast guard told me they were honoring me with the highest award. we brought them kicking and screaming but they made a difference. they present this award to a member of congress who demonstrates long-term vision

and leadership and who makes substantial contributions to the men and women of the united states coast guard. i often call them our femme blue line at sea. i hope that you and i can work together in the same bipartisan and constructive manner. i commit if i do disagree with you, i will do so most respectfully. always with the primary goal of working out a solution that serves both of our interests, but more importantly, the interest and integrity of this committee. and more importantly the interest and integrity and the goodness of the united states of america. i want to thank you, mr. chairman. and at the appropriate time, i'd like to raise a number of specific issues relating to the proposal that i hope we'll be able to resolve. >> i think the ranking member, for his opening statement. and we will hold the record open until the end of the day for members who would like to submit additional written statements.

we will now open the resolution for consideration. without objection, the resolution adopting the rules of the committee will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. the resolution has already been distributed to each of you and is in your folders. the clerk will designate the resolution. >> committee resolution offered by chairman darrell issa, the rules of the committee on government oversight and reform. >> does any member wish to speak on the resolution? >> mr. chairman, i have inquiry. >> of course. >> mr. chairman, let me say i appreciate your willingness to work with us on some of the rule changes you proposed. working with your staff, we were able to resolve many of them, including the rule on audio visual coverage as you mentioned a little earlier. and we really do appreciate that. staff for working so diligently. but i do have an inquiry about opening statements. earlier versions of the draft

committee rules that have prohibited members from making oral opening statements. this rule was derived, i think, and mr. chairman, i know there may be a number of hearings that we may want to limit opening statements, because it takes so much time. i understand that. my question is, whether you commit that the majority and minority will be accorded equitable treatment in being permitted to give opening statements? >> i think the gentleman, pursuant to the rules, at anytime, we will ensure that we have an equal and back and forth opening statements. it's the intention of the chairman, when we have hearings which are time sensitive or limited time or which there are guests, particularly administration guests, have limited time, remembering although it changes back and forth, there's always one side who would like to have a long

statement bashing administration. and another side who would like to have a long statement defending and say how bad it was that the other guy's opening statement bashed. so for that reason it will be the ordinary and customary procedure to ensure that the chairman makes an opening statement, or the subcommittee chairman. his or her counterpart would make an opening statement. and then it would generally be mutually agreed, written the time, whether they went farther. if it is an absolute constraint, i will empower the subcommittee chairman under the rules or myself to not go further. and it has been the practice of this committee, and i think all of us who are returning know, it is a common practice when there is a constraint to limit it to just the chairman and ranking member. i have the about the within the rules and house rules the ability to deny myself an opening statement. as you know, mr. cummings that

is rare that any chairman does that. but i will pledge to you if i deny myself one, thus denying you one it will be because the importance of the individual speech is so critical that i forego the good work of my staff and your staff and we present it for the record. it is my intention, though, to try to have as much listening to people and then asking the questions as possible, notwithstanding that, i believe that if we go beyond the chairman and ranking member that is on a mutually agreed basis and we'll alternate. lastly, because i want to be thorough, at anytime in which a subcommittee has done work, and it comes to the full committee, it will be the ordinary practice to have at least four opening statements. the chairman and subcommittee chairman who have worked on it. the ranking and subcommittee ranking that have worked on it. because i believe that if the work of the subcommittee has been done properly, if anyone's

going to forego an opening statement, it should be us. so i think you're going to find there's no real change in the practical execution. we don't intend on somehow denying people. but we will always announce the start time and the anticipated finish time of the first panel, and that will probably drive the consideration. additionally, if i may, every committee has to deal with how people are received from the standpoint of when they will speak, when they will ask questions. it will be the policy of this chair, subject to your deciding on your side of the aisle, which has been normally the policy, and mr. towns and i worked this out, i will consider that people are present at the gavel, and a list will be brought to me from both sides. i will call them in that order. if you need to change that order, that will be your decision for your side of the aisle. i will always allow you to

decide who speaks in which order but we will initially start with the order of there being present at the gavel. on my side of the aisle, i might note that i do not plan on having very many exceptions. so those who were here first, especially the junior members down there, you arrive on time, senior members do not, i do not intend to have a senior member arriving late immediately preempt you after you've been waiting for an hour. but again, i respect the fact that the ranking member will make that decision on his side of the aisle. we will try to stick very strictly to that because i want to award the members who picked this as their first committee and will be here promptly as always. the gentleman yields. >> of course, i do. >> first, of all i want to express my appreciation for what

you said about the subcommittee and ranking members have a chance to speak. one thing quickly, will mare khan will you give me notice when you and i are not going to speak. the staff, i don't want them to spend all night preparing a memorable opening statement and we not give it? >> i will commit to you, although when they're put in the record, sometimes, they look even better. i will commit out if we believe a hearing has a limited time, we will notice what as quickly as we notice the committee because the point that we notice the committee, i would expect we'd e ae to tellou ..d start time and finish time for our witness. i would ask if you have a similar situation on witnesses that you've asked to come, that you also let us know, so that we do not find your witness expecting to stay longer or leaf shorter. >> i'd be happy to do that. >> thank you very much. does any member have an amendment to the resolution before us. >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment. >> clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment to the rules of the committee on oversight and government reform offered by representative cummings. amend rule 12-d by inserting at the beginning the following. >> without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. and the gentleman from maryland is recognizes on his amendment for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> the amendment, mr. chairman, would require that the chairman seek agreement of a ranking member before issuing a subpoena. if the ranking member objects, this member requires the chairman to call a vote of the committee. this standard seeking the concurrence of the ranking member on committee votes has been the approach of all committee chairman since the mccarthy era with one exception, and from 1997 until 2002 when representative burden served as chairman, he issued more than a thousand unilateral

subpoenas. 1200, i'm sorry. [laughter] 1200, not gone or forgotten. once a chairman, always a chairman. [laughter] he issued more than 1200 subpoenas in the clinton administration without the concurrence of the ranking member or vote of the committee. this approach led to serious abuses and abandoned by representative tom davis, a republican who became chairman in 2002. it's true that the rules provide the chairman with authority to issue subpoenas. issuing a subpoena is such an extreme exercise of congressional power, that it should be undertaken only with dwreement of the chairman and -- agreement of the chairman or backing of the full committee. i notice several of your members

are former u.s. attorneys and attorneys and they can fully appreciate the significance of a subpoena. when representative davis handed over his gavel in 2007, exactly like we are doing here today rntion he asked to follow the same approach, and mr. waxman did. let me make something clear. i did not want to offer this amendment, but it was my impression that the chairman would not be submitting these subpoenas for consideration of the full committee, and it's my understanding in our conversation just prior you have a response to that, and so anyway, back then, chairman davis said to chairman waxman, representative davis and waxman, this is what he said, he would never under any circumstances

ask a committee to vote on subpoenas even if it was extremely controversial. this is a mistake because it prevents an open and honest debate. davis said concurrence or a vote of the committee would ensure that the issues are fully discussed so that the members and public can fully understand what the committee is doing. i completely agree, mr. chairman, and the only reason not to adopt this approach is to avoid a full hearing before the committee and the public. this is exactly what leads to abuses of authority, and i ask the members to vote in favor of the amendment, and mr. chairman, let me be clear, this is, you know, all of us certainly come here from our various districts representing and most instances over 700,000 people, and i think that if there is and all of us want to be included and inclusion does

not mean obstruction. it means being a part of a process, and you will hear my consistently talk, mr. chairman, and i know this is something you are concerned about because we've talked about it is the integrity of the committee, and i would think that if there is disagreement between the chairman and most respectfully the ranking member, that those matters would be what -- put before the full committee. to be frank with you, i think it's a good idea to have the full backing once the subpoena is issued, and with that, i ask the members to vote in favor of the amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize myself to speak for five minutes on the amendment. not an opposition not principles you mentioned. first, for the former ease seems chairman, i will try to deliver

some of the words he may be too shy to deliver. abraham lincoln suspended habeas, and my understanding stopped the post office from delivering during an insurrection. no one looks at abraham lincoln and says, my goodness, what a terrible president. they consider the times. now, chairman burton made mistakes. i understand there's some who received subpoenas, and it had to be corrected. at the same time, i will not judge the time when i didn't serve in congress or what he faced. ii know a great many people left the country to avoid subpoenas, went to jail over the crimes they committed. they were real things that happened, perhaps not 1200, but many. in those ensuing years since i watched that as a civilian if you will, and i watched his

successors with successor presidents in many cases find other ways to do discovery, other ways to get most of these things done, i think for different times, a different procedure is appropriate. we are in different times today. we are not up vest gaiting the white house. i have no intention at this point. i have no reason to investigate the white house. we are requiring and insisting that government agencies be held accountable and we expect them to come before us voluntarily. i do not expect to have the first solution to an agency or individual working for the government or formally working for the government to be a subpoena. i certainly do not expect to have to subpoena people to hearings. having said that, every chairman faces a subpoena now and then. some of them are because individuals say i can't speak unless you give me the immunity that a subpoena gives me so that i can't be sued for coming and

speaking about matters that others may find somehow private or not to be disclosed. i have viewed the records, and i find that it's not been the policy specifically in spite of the colloquy to do required votes for even when a ranking member objects. having said that, it is my intention to consult and to get your concurrence on most, if not all, subpoenas. additionally, i take seriously your statement which is that if we cannot come to an agreement, a vote of the committee may be the way to resolve difference of opinions between us. i don't see any of those between us today. i don't think you're going to like everyone i ask to come. quite frankly, and we had this conversation in the past, there is a possibility you're going to

want somebody subpoenaed, and i may not want it. this happened with my predecessor. we resolved it. it was contentious. it was difficult, and a threat of the full committee was part of the process. chairman towns did the right thing. he did it on his own, and he did it written the way he thought it should be written. he did it to protect the integrity of this body. if the subpoenas have -- the subpoenas bore a lot of fruit. from the lesson ed towns and i learned together, i expect that if you want a subpoena, i better take it seriously, and if i want a subpoena, and you really object, i'm going to take your thoughts on why you object seriously. to be hon e, i will -- honest, i will ask other members # of my committee if i'm doing the right thing, and by the way, not just the former chairman. i will undoubtedly talk to other members on your side saying am i

nuts? am i wrong? is this somehow a subpoena that's outside the mainstream? i don't intend on simply writing subpoenas end leslie. having said that, there will be time, times during recesses in which consultation would be over the phone, and a volt would not -- a vote would not be practical or even possible. i believe we should maintain the rules as they are, work together, and bear in mind that if this didn't work, it will be very public, and each of us pays the price for being unreasonable. in this case, i believe it's reasonable to maintain the rules, reasonable to pledge to you that i expect to consult with you more even than chairman towns did because i intend on notifying you personally if we intend to send a subpoena out and not through a staff correspondence, and with that, are there any other further --

mr. burrton? >> real briefly, i'd like to say that i agree with everything that you said. i would just like to make one brief comment about the period within which i was chairman. we had this severe question about illegal campaign contributions coming from all over the world, and the reason i issued the number of subpoenas # that i did was because we were trying to get to the bottom of that. as a matter of fact, we had over 100 people take the 5th amendment or flee the country because they didn't want to testify. it was a very difficult time. these are different times, and i appreciate what you just said, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to speak in support of the ranging member's amendment, and really place it in the context of what is happening in our country. americans across this country are calling for a more civil

political discourse. they are calling for a more bipartisan approach which is results oriented, not bickering and partisan attacks, and i complement you on a lot of your public rhetoric that's been bipartisan and inclusive. you stated on fox news, you hope that this committee will be operating in a "less partisan manner," and i congratlate you on that, but your actions today are different. they are not bipartisan at all. you stated with this proposal and in a meeting yesterday with ranking member cummings that you will not seek concurrence and allow committee to vote on subpoenas. my question is how is this bipartisan? it's opposite to the tradition of this committee. representative chairman clinger in a letter to ranking member

curtis collins explained his approach in exercising this authority, and i'd like to place his letter in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i shall not authorize such subpoenas without the vote of the committee. i believe this demoralize the long standed practice of the committee to issue a subpoena." i'd like to say in recent history, one of the most contentious or two of the most contentious committees that reviewed and went into depth into issues was the 9/11 bipart san and the iran contra mission. they had an agreement they would do everything together, subpoenas, meetings, everything was inclusive, and i truly believe that the work of these two committees were among the best of this congress ever did. they came forward with really important proposals of how to

make us safer and to really move our government forward in a way that is positive, so i would speak strongly in support of ranking member's amendment and vote in support of it and respectfully call upon the chairman to turn his rhetoric into the reality of the rules of this committee of making them truly bipartisan, inclusive in the traditional of clinger and davis and some of the others and ed towns that were inclusive in the way they went forward in issuing subpoenas and working in a positive bipartisan way. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> i most certainly will yield. >> thank you. i want to make clear what i said today was to clear up a misunderstanding that the ranking member apparently had in the meeting yesterday. i did not intend and do not believe that i said i would

never seek. just the opposite. i would consider seeking full committee votes. as a matter of fact, i'd consider seeking that even if the ranking member and i agreed on the subpoena because i believe that there is a high chance that a very significant subpoena will happen during the next 2-4 years in which it will be better to have the entire committee consider the subpoena and stand united. i think the point about bipartisan, that is something we will seek. we simply will not asked to be compelled to do it. >> will the gentleman yield? >> [inaudible] >> i will in a second. i respect the gentleman's statement, but the reality of a law or a rule is far stronger than seeking, and if you truly believed in being up collusive and bipartisan, you'd let the rules stand and not take away the respect that the minority has in terms of this important power of the subpoena.

i yield to my good colleague and friend from new york. >> thank you for yielding. let me say that, you know, we also have a lot of prosecutors here that a subpoena is a very serious thing, and sometimes you subpoena people who making $50,000-$60,000 a year. they have to get a lawyer. we have to be very concerned about using subpoenas, and also, i want to say one other thing. this is not a super ethics committee. i want to make that very clear, and so the fact that we don't get involved in terms of, you know, subpoena in that area, and let's look at it fiercely, have dialogue, and i say to you in my days as chair, you know, gentleman yield two minutes? >> i'd yield the distinguished former chairman an additional two minutes. >> thank you, thank you very

much. let me say sometimes i know it's difficult, but the point is that i think that there's no problem conferring, you know, # with a subpoena. you might delay it a couple hours, but the point is what difference does it make when you look at a person who might have to get a lawyer who is making $50,000-$60,000 a year or to come in and take time from his or her job to spend a day. it would take a day here regardless if you come from maryland, virginia, or washington, d.c.. once they come in there's opening statements, and then vote for the next 2 hours, and of course; the person is sitting there. we have to take this very, very seriously, and not just do it because we can. on that note, i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. anybody else who needs to be recognized? the gentlelady from dc. >> yes, mr. chairman, i really

seek some clarification based on your own opening remarks. you cite in your letter a case or two involving prior chairs, mr. towns and mr. waxman, where the committee rules on getting the concurrence of the ranking member on a vote were, in fact, not followed. at the same time, you say and use the words rare exceptions. you indicated that a vote might not be practical or possible or we might be in recess. so my question is very straightforward. do you intend as a general practice barring rare exceptions to seek the concurrence of the

ranking member and a vote as a general practice which would, of course, not bind you to the exceptions that you specifically cited. >> the gentle lady yield? >> i'll be happy to yield. >> understand that the rules have not changed since 1995. these have been the same rules for the committee on both sides. the rule does not call for concurrence, however, there is a long tradition of consultation. i intend to continue that consultation, although it has not always occurred as we said. i intend to do so. chairman towns and i consults a lot about subpoenas, people coming before the committee, and so on. it is always, in my estimation, preferable to do it by a concurrence of the ranking member whether we come to a vote

of the committee or not. it is my recognition that 11 committees should perform in congress have the authority of the chairman to write a subpoena, that authority is no different than administrative law judges and all other people in government. it should be taken seriously and done only when necessary. that's my expectation. i know that -- >> if i would reclaim my time. >> of course. >> as we open this session, it does seem to me if that is the case, that some accommodation could have been found before today's meeting so that there would be an understanding that the general practice of the committee was not sought to be changed so that we would not be divided on this very first session because i believe i see some real possibility of accommodation. be glad to yield to the chairman

on that. >> of course. that's exactly what i'm trying to concur with the lady on is that we intend on continuing within the parameters of the history of this committee. i 4r not -- i will not be exactly mr. burrton, mr. waxman, or mr. towns, but since this committee existed in 1995, there's the position that the chairman has a authority to write a subpoena, most commonly informs in advance, and has consultation with the ranking member, and i expect to do that. i would also say there's an ever-declining number of subpoenas from this committee. i would very much hope that we can continue that tradition. my predecessor issued less than his, and his predecessor -- no, let me rephrase that. my predecessor less than mine,

mr. waxman exceeded mr. davis, but all of them were less than mr. burton's time. we have to get tools for people to be before us. i might note for the gentlelady that we made deposition reform that we insisted that the full house provide anyone asked to be deposed which is in effect more common for the committee to have an absolute right of members of congress present until they are waived. we are asking people to make sworn people before this -- sworn testimony before this committee in a more fair way. i hope to continue a trend that mr. towns did that is less subpoenas, more cooperation, and less ranking on doing one side or the other. we set a good example in the last congress, and i hope we continue it. the gentleman from ohio.

sorry, do we have someone on this side? the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i may ask the chairman, is this section of the rules regarding the subpoenas the exact same a as the last congress? >> it's identical. >> well, that's absolutely fascinating that the now minority didn't see to change the rules when they had the votes to do it and the majority to do it. i ask my colleagues to be aware of the history here. this is the same operation of the rule, same exact language as the rule in the last congress with the democrat chairman and a majority of democrats in the house, and so accepting that same language i think was reasonable. i certainly appreciate the chairman's change to the deposition authority. i think that's important to note for the committee and public to know that that is a substantial change. giving witnesses more rights in

this congress than they had in previous congresses, and with that, would -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> i might note the gentleman makes a good point, but i might note on september 11, 2009, during a time of great cooperation with the chairman we all respect, jennifer who was the lead counsel, received at 4:30 p.m. the following. this afternoon, we are going to serve subpoena on media ratings counsel for documents per taping to arbatron's use of the personal people meter. signed john. i ask unanimous consent that be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. first time i got to do that. the fact is, that that was an exception. i don't know the detailses, but staff sent it through. the chairman signed it.

it was a friday afternoon. we received it after the fact and after business hours. it was not an unreasonable subpoena. it was not one in which we screamed and yelled how dare you go after the information, but it was wog with no con -- one without consultation. we have to be careful in light of that. we got told after the fact, and we didn't have normal consultation. the gentleman from north carolina is acutely aware it is so much better to have the consultation, and i expect to do it always. i yield back. >> reclaiming my time, i appreciate that and express to my colleagues it's my hope to vote and get moving, and with that, i yield back the remaining balance of my time. >> other folks on your side? >> thank you mr. chairman. it's important not just for this committee, but for the congress

to be able to have clarity about the process under which this committee exercises the power it's given by the congress, and frankly with all due respect i don't believe up to this point the chairman's explanations added clarity to this debate over the amendment that says that with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, subpoenas would be issued. now the word "concurrence" is an important word here. if you look at the letter coming from march 6, 1996 written by a republican chairman of the committee on government -- >> would the gentleman suspend? >> i want to -- >> if the gentleman suspend. >> i want to make my point. >> i want you to make your point, but be aware you are speaking on an amendment. as long as you speak on the amendment, that's fine. please consider that you do not speak about general agreements

and so on. i tolerated a great deal, and i will tolerate more. your time will be added back. >> under what point does the chairman interrupt me? >> i'm making a point of order to the gentleman. the point of order is please speak to the amendment, not to general agreements. i have, myself, allowed both sides to talk about general agreements. if you want to speak to the amendment, the gentleman is recognized for the full 5 minutes. >> as the chairman of the committee on government reform and oversight stated in his letter to members of the committee on march 6, 1996, he said the proposed rule requires that if a subpoena is required in a case of an affidavit or deposition in a travis manner, i will not authorize a subpoena without your concurrence or the vote of the committee. know, the chairman in this

debate made the following statements that he would consider, that he would consider consulting, that its his intention to consult, that its preferable to concur, and to listen to the chairman's statements. you would think you would be supporting the amendment. instead what we have here is, i think, a rather dangerous equivocation on the issue of subpoenas. this is not a small matter because this is not about you, mr. chairman. with all due respect, and i do respect you, this is not about you. this is about the power that this committee has working through the chair to be able to issue subpoenas, and to do that without the concurrence of the ranking member, and i would further say of the committee itself, i think is to speeb aside -- steep aside the concerns people

have about the institutional protection of witnesses because this isn't just about us. this is about the people we would call before us, so i think that this is an issue that members of the committee ought to be exercised about because of the implications that the action that will be taken, that we will take today will have on the next two years, and on every hearing that follows us. i am not someone who came here to cover up for the obama administration. anybody who knows me knows that when i say that, if there's something wrong over there, i'll be the first one to call them on it, but i am someone who believes that this process needs to be move in a way that is fair and impartial and doesn't degrade the oversight capacity and responsibilities this congress has, so, you know, we can quote abraham lincoln about his suspension of habeas corpus during an insurrection, but

barring an insurrection, mr. chairman, i can't understand why you would not agree with mr. cummings's amendment. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i certainly yield. >> can i ask the gentleman when you didn't offer this two years ago when it was so important? >> we have a whole new congress here. [laughter] you know what? i appreciate -- >> please. >> because the chairman was ready to cooperate. as a matter of fact, so well that in this morning's or yesterday's "politico," it said that chairman towns was not only fair, but he lost his job because he was too fair. now, i don't think that, mr. chairman, you are looking at a

change in your caucus, but i believe the question we're raising is one that we've established the precedent that republican chairs have gone along with concurrence. now, i wish you would speak to the fact of why you will not go along with concurrence because you've cited what happened in previous congress with respect to mr. towns, but this is about you, not mr. towns. you're the chairman now. >> time expired. recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess i'm a new member to the committee, and i'm a little confused. we're arguing about an amendment from the minority side. they want to amend the rules, a rule that was their rule last congress; is that correct? i mean, this is the same exact rule, and now that their the minority, they want to change it?

>> the gentleman is correct. >> it seems to be hypocritical to come in on the other side of the aisle and say the rules were good enough for us when we were in the majority, but now we're in the minority, we want to change them. i hear about bipartisanship and the intentions of the chairman and power of the committee, but all i hear is this hypocrisy of on one hand the rules were good enough, and on this hand, now we're the minority, they are not good enough. it's really a shame at this point. i mean, i think if you want a bipartisan vote, stick with your votes in the past. a bipartisan vote would be to defeat this amendment. let's move on to do the people's business. part of the reason why i came to this committee is because i'm tired of people in the administration and other people avoiding when we have questions, so, mr. chairman, with all do

respect to this committee as a new member, the hypocrisy of the minority now to say this rule was good enough when we were in the majority, but now i want to change is disappointing. i think the american people are watching this and asking what is it that the other side stands for? >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to yield. >> thank you very much. we have -- i certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but we've been forced into this position because we're not talking about the rule. we're talking about a practice, and the practice of the committee, and we wanted to read a call qee back from 2007 between davis and waxman, but that was disallowed. at that time there was an agreement between them that it would go to a vote if there was

disagreement, and so you've got two things happening here. you have a rule, but there's a practice. i know as an attorney you can identify with that. nobody's trying to -- >> it's hypocritical. if i can reclaim my time -- you can talk about the intent all you want, and i think, you know, we can judge the chairman on that as we move on, but you're looking to change the rules, and mr. chairman, i think this is now becoming one of those things where one side doesn't like it. the other side does like it. i don't think we'll get further with anymore debate on this, and i call for the vote. >> call for the vote is not in order. does the gentleman yield back? >> mr. chairman, on that, i ask the previous question. move the previous question. >> the previous question has been requested. can i ask the gentleman to

withdrawal his previous question and allow one more from the other side to speak? then we'll close it off and move to previous question if that's okay. >> yes, your prerogative, mr. chairman. >> mr. tyranny is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. it's unfortunate that on the first day we're hearing claims of hypocrisy. i hope we don't go there. it's not the practice of the committee to get involved in that. you know, last section, mr. flake and i and the sub committee on national security had a good relationship. that was because we accepted each other's word, and that's the history of this committee, and the reason why the motion was made to amend was because we haven't heard the words of previous committees that they have customarily done in practice. i hope this chairman considers to do that to tell us it's your intention and you will consult with the ranking member and get his concept before the subpoena's are issued and goes

to a vote to the committee. it's been the long standing practice of that. we don't need to seek an amendment because we take the chairman's word if he did that just like previous members took the chairman's word whether they were democrat or republican in the past. the only example that the current chairman cites of mr. towns not following that approach is a late afternoon letter, but i note the chairman didn't object to that, and in fact, sense this is on record of sent 13 say k he boric -- saying he worked closely together and helped me get subpoenas and information time and time again. we have to do it together whenever possible. the only other time the claim was made by the chairman is back in 2005 in the case of teri skhiavo. we should not be about unilateral subpoenas. we are taking the chairman's word to consult and get the agreement of the ranking member or take it to the full committee

of a vote on that. we have not heard those words of assurance as has been the case which is why we move to amend. i yield back. >> previous question is ordered. yep. are there any further comments? i move the previous question. okay. all those in favor of the cummings amendment cig any by saying i. >> i. >> opposed? >> opposed. the no's have it. role call and the clerk will could the roll. >> mr. burton votes no. mr. turner votes know. mr. mchenry votes know. mr. jordan votes no.

mr. mack votes no. mr. wailberg votes no. mr. langford votes no. ms. burke votes no. mr. labrador votes no. mr. mien votes no. mr. walsh votes no. mr. ross votes no. mr. guinta votes no. mr. kelly votes no. mr. cummings votes yes. mr. towns votes yes.

ms. norton votes yes. mr. terneny votes yes. mr. clay votes yes. mr. lynch votes yes. mr. cooper votes yes. mr. conley votes yes. mr. davis votes yes. mr. welsh -- mr. murphy votes yes. ms. speer votes yes. >> the clerk will report. >> on that vote, mr. chairman, 22 noes, 15 yes. >> the amendment is not agreed

to. the chair recognizes the gently di from california for a question. >> thank you. i want clarification on what the new provision that provides a member of congress or member of the committee can be at depositions. does that mean participate in the depositions or present to observe the depositions. >> will the lady yield? >> yes. >> that's a good question. there has always been a right for members to attend depositions. the rules of the committee which we can furnish you have a procedure whether they are staff or members alternating back and forth. because we're an investigative committee, we have a long set of procedures in which staff, and i'll shortcut it, we give three days notice of a deposition, both the minority and majority show up, and there's a procedure of back and forth and time limits. your side obviously, i suspect

your staff ac wee esk to your time. it's the back and forth within that. if another member arrives # from the other side, the same thing occurs. if ten members show up, they do not change the deposition. it's simply a question of whose time are they speaking on. it doesn't change whether staff are doing it or members. a person being di deposed must have one or more members present or they are not deposed by staff. this was a series done by staff only under a previous chairman which it was believed then, the minority, my side, that there was a tendency towards potential abuse because staff has a lot of time, not accountable to the voters, and they could, in fact,

if you will, be tough on a deposition, somewhat abusing the fact that that person is paying their own money for their own lawyer and so on, so we felt if the light of day by being able to have a member of congress there, the congressman's time probably on both sides being important that this would reduce or eliminate abuse. that was the reason that we lobbied the speaker for it and got it into the rules. it will apply to this committee all the time and apply to any other committee that may be granted deposition authority at some future time. >> so, if -- reclaiming my time. if i understand you correctly, then that means that the time allotted per side remaps the same if a member of the committee chooses to participate, it would come off the time that is set aside for that particular -- >> the gentlelady is correct. >> would the lady yield?

first of all, this is a good rule because as was said and mr. towns has brought this up, in many instances people were dragged into depositions and as one who conducted many depositions, i think it's good to have certain limitations, have members present if nothing else to make sure that the process is a fair one. that position can be very expensive. number one, you have to prepare the witness. number two, you have to appear the deposition, prepare documents, and then there's follow-up and things of that nature, so a person could easily spend $200 an hour and lawyer fees are higher than that in many instances and that's a lot of money. i think trying to respect witnesses and trying to be careful, mr. chairman, about who we're calling into the deanings, i think the chairman assured me we would talk about those things and make sure we're

not deposing people who don't need to be deposedded. is that a fair statement? >> obviously that would be a fair statement that we want to limit those just as we will subpoenas. with that, i understand that the gentleman has an additional amendment? >> yes. >> the ranking member is recognized for the amendment. >> i have an amendment at your desk, mr. chairman. >> amendment to the rules of the committee on oversight and government reform offered by representative cummings strike subsection d of rule 12 and insert the following. d1 -- >> consider it as read and the ranking member is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, i'll be brief. i think this is an amendment we can all agree with. mr. chairman, one of your primary objections to the previous amendment seemed to be it would not allow you to issue emergency subpoenas, and i can certainly understand that. in other words, there could be

cases when an individual sought by the committee as a risk or is about to board an airplane out of the country, and in these cases, waiting the committee to vote on a subpoena could prevent us from getting the information we seek, and as i've said to the chairman on numerous occasions, we, too, are seeking the truth and we want the process to work. the amendment addresses this concern directly. it requires the chairman to seek minority concurrence on a committee vote and also includes an exception for emergencies, and in those cases it requires the chairman to notify committee members within three days after the subpoena is issued about the nature of the emergency and the efforts to contact the ranking member. it also requires the chairman to explain why waiting for committee vote would prevent us from obtaining the information sought by the subpoena. this is a common sense compromise that i think you should be able to support, mr. chairman. in fact, let me give credit

where credit is due. this is the exact proposal you made at this committee's organizational meeting back in 2007 and this is what you said at that time. "-- i just might suggest other committees that i serve have a procedure which i believe would if we cannot accept the concurrence, their procedure is a consultation, a full vote of the committee unless the chairman finds it to be extraordinary meaning that for some reason, in this case, the subpoena would have to be issued in a hurry." you went on to say, mr. chairman, that this approach would not take away from any of the chairman's power, but establish the steps he should follow in these cases. given this was your idea, mr. chairman, i hope you accept the amendment and urge the members to vote for it. >> the chair has no interest in changing the rules as they've been for the previous congress, and would oppose the amendment.

i call to question, all those in favor of the cummings's amendment signify i. all opposed, no. no's have it? roll call. >> mr. issa votes no. mr. burton votes no. mr. platts -- mr. turner votes no. mr. mchenry votes no. mr. jordan -- mr. mack votes no. mr. wailberg -- mr. langford votes no. ms. burkel votes no. mr. labrador votes no. mr. meehan votes no.

mr. walsh votes no. mr. ross votes no. mr. guinta votes no. mr. kelly votes no. mr. cummings votes i. mr. towns votes i. ms. ma maloney votes i. ms. norton votes yes. mr. tyranny -- mr. clay votes yes. mr. lynch votes yes. mr. cooper votes yes. mr. conley -- mr. quigley votes yes. mr. davis votes yes.

mr. well much -- mr. murphy votes yes. ms. deer votes i. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, i wish to be recorded as voting i. >> mr. conley votes i. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> on that vote, mr. mr. chairman, 20 no's, 14 i's. the amendment is not agreed to. is there any other amendments? >> i know if he'll be back in time, but i want to vote to a final inquiry. if he gets back, we'll get back to that. i have an inquiry on how you interpret the rules in the committee record. i know you mentioned things

earlier, but i want to be clear. >> i don't mind the inquiry, but i want to get to the final vote, and we will not adjourn until after this is discussed. hearing no more amendments, the question now occurs on the committee resolution. all those this favor of adopting the resolution, say i -- all opposed? in the opinion of the chair, the i's have it, the resolution is agreed to. mr. ranking member is recognized for his inquiry. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. house rule 10 provide that both republican and democrat staff is treated equally with respect to the committee records. that means that one side gets it and the other side gets some as i understand it. that's basic fairness, but certainly that's not what's been happening. on january 14, you send a letter to the department of homeland

security requesting information about the department's policies on the freedom of information act requests, and i want to thank you, by the way, for getting that letter to us about a half hour before this hearing. you did not provide it to us before then, and back on january 16, 2011, your spokesman stated publicly your letter of based on other documents obtained by the committee according to a press accountant. on sunday, oversight panel spokesman, frederick hill, said i sent the letter "because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the rhapsody of officials on that manner. after reading that story, we requested copies of both the letter to department of homeland security and the additional documents referred to by your spokesman, and your staff did not reply.

hear my questions regarding to the document access rule. first is your letter to dhs signed on test 14th as committee record, and if so, i mean, why did it take so long for us to get it? is that the practice we have to wait two weeks to get a letter? second, are the additional documents referred to by your spokesman committee records and, if so, why, you know, don't we have those? >> i appreciate the inquiry and colloquy. it's our intention to deliver all produced information on a bipartisan basis whether it's produced to the minority or majority. what i mean by that is if the administration comes and gives you documents and the documents are pursuant to request, you must turn them over to the majority also. if i receive such nchtion, i

must -- information, i must turn them over. whenever possible, we're going to een courage the administration -- encourage the administration as they have done in some cases in the past to simply deliver duplicate copies, to deliver to both of us so there's no doubt and relatively easy to wait for a clerk to report it. production made to the committee will be deliver delivered to the nonpartisan staff for them to determine whether it is a committee record and distribute it. we rely on them. several of these people, the clerks have been under mr. towns and myself and some of them even his predecessor. we are going to try to use that. i look forward to working with yo you on -- you oncoming up with a standard for correspondence. terrorist not the practice of this committee for correspondence to be shared fully whether it's from the minority or majority. correspondence today as you know

is primarily e-mail. there's a huge amount of it. e-mail is not cc the same way. i look forward to working with you and the staff over the break to come up with a procedure to designate the chairman and ranking committee members because there's a vast amount of course response going on some of which is not shared, but i want it to be shared i callly -- equally on a basis that is decided by both of us. when it comes to discoverable material, i expect the staff to ensure a copy is made for the minority or that the administration or other body delivers to both of us the information. >> thank you, gentleman. the other -- i think the issue here is timing. in other words, if we say, for example, have a letter that goes

out january 14, we get it on the 25th and how soon can we expect to get these documents that you were just talking about? in other words, timing here on the hill can be very significant. if we get something 10-1 days after the majority gets it, it can certainly be to our disadvantage. our staff wants to prepare. they are working hard as yours is, and they need to be able to do that, and so i was wondering what you had in mind. >> i appreciate the gentleman, not for this colloquy at the moment, but i appreciate the inqirly. unfortunately to the right is the former chairman of the committee, and i pledge to you that we will work to -- because of the increased amount of digital davis data we receive in addition to paper to shave off time from what mr. tops was able to do. moreover, we are using our

mutually agreed to nonpartisan staff to be the arbiters of making sure these are copied and districted in a -- distributed in a timely fashion. we have to get these requests. again, i look forward to working with you on resolving a standard for correspondence. >> when can we get the documents connected with the dhs letter? i know we got the letter and the spokesman referred to some documents that caused you to write the letter. i was wondering when we could get those. >> i'm being informed by the staff that the response is due this coming friday. i assume that you'll have it if it arrives before 4:30, this coming friday. >> i ask that because your spokesman said you had them. that's why i ask that. >> you believe what you read in the press? >> i believe your spokesman.

>> if we have anything, it will be provided. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to do some housekeeping. >> mr. chairman, i wasn't finished. >> we'll come back. the ranking members assign members to the subcommittee. these assignments have been made and are in your folders. without objection, we ask those assignments are included in the record. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> going back to the industry letters, and i have one inquiry about the rule. you sent the 160 organizes asking for job killing regulations, and i understand you did this as ranking member at the end of december. my staff contacted your staff to request copies of the company's responses on the following dates, january 4, january 6, january 7, january 12, and

january 14. our requests were ignored. yesterday you sent a letter explaning why your letter and your letter stated this "as these materials are part of an ongoing oversight effort, i have chosen to have my staff focus on receiving, organizing, and analyzing the response to the letters. i expect to be able to make an initial analysis as well as all our responses received as of today public no later than february 2011. " we received a letter today, and if i read the letter that you wrote us today, does that mean that we are going to get the actual responses to those letters? i just want to be clear. >> i thank the gentleman. as i said, we clearly want to get to a correspondence understanding that is not previously been there so we can have our staff's know when to

share and so on. however, it does mean that the intention is to deliver all of our correspondence, something that has not been done to you at that time. the only reason we want to finish the correspondence is quite frankly, we believe it's extremely important that when correspondence is released that is properly be vetted. we are going through to make sure that if it becomes public it would be inappropriate like any other e-mail or correspondence, but i look forward to delivering this to you in its original form, but also coming up with an agreement as to future cor correspondence. >> i appreciate that. we didn't want to have to rely on the ma seniority's analysis because we've got some good people who can do their own analyzing, so we really appreciate that. ..

finally, mr. chairman, i want to make -- i want to have this right. are you -- with regard to transparency, are you willing to make sure that -- that december was the month -- let me go back. when you -- are these records -- are you claiming that because these records were done, and letters were sent before you became chairman that they are not official records or they are. you follow what i'm saying? >> i think the issues have been resolved. we have a trail of each of our view of this correspondence. i look forward to working with the gentleman on resolving the issue of how in the future correspondence will be shared and with that the committee stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations]

a justice department official said earlier that criminal investigations are being hurt by internet providers who do not keep records to show who is using their services and how they are used. the deputy assistant general testified about data retention rules and prosecuting child pornography on the internet. this is almost two hours. >> welcome to the first subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security. i would especially like to welcome our witnesses and think you for joining today. i'm joined by my colleague from virginia, the distinguished ranking member of the committee bobby scott, the chairman of the full committee, mark smith from

texas, and the chairman emeritus, john conyers of michigan. today's hearing examines the will of data retention as a law enforcement tool to investigate the distribution of child pornography on the internet and other on-line crimes. many internet service providers, i psp, retain data that can be used to identify the operator and user of a website but maltol ips peace retain this data and lifetime such data is obtained it often varies from one provider to the next. the issue of data retention is not new. in 1999 then deputy attorney general eric holder said certain data must be retained for reasonable periods of time so that it can be accessible to law enforcement. in the 12 years since the endorsement of data retention the size, scope and accessibility of the internet has increased exponentially. they can now use the internet to

facilitate any crime including the illegal gambling, prescription drug. these criminals have the luxury of putting themselves and then anonymity of the internet provides making their apprehension significantly more difficult. when law enforcement officers began an investigation in developing information that will assist in identifying an offender they are often frustrated to find that information relating to scriber information or information that would otherwise identify the perpetrator as not retaining in a uniform manner. the current law requires providers to preserve such data upon the request of law enforcement. but the preservation of data only works if it has been retained. intranet crimes are often complex, multi jurisdictional and international. this can result in investigations before all in for some officers are in a position

to request data from the providers. when information is developed sufficiently, the investigators they need it may be too late. without uniform retention the records that are desperately needed to be communication to a certain person or computer may be lost forever. this issue not only impact federal investigation of longline crimes in the national security matters but state and focal law in force and investigation as well. the international association of police adopted a resolution in 2006 expressing its support for data retention 38 in the investigation of crimes. through the use of the internet and the telephone the services providing law enforcement officers with an expectation of certain data will be available ensures that our limited police resources are properly resigned

and not sent on a wild goose chase for information that no longer exists. simply put, no matter what type of investigation is, investigators ultimately have to identify the person. the service providers who was the key to identifying the person behind an e-mail address or internet pravachol address. retention of the records is paramount fighting the crime in an internet age. it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement, the ranking member of the subcommittee the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to working with you and the new chairman of the subcommittee. today's hearing is meant to be informational to help us begin the confirmation about the desire to become feasible the and consequence of retaining the the regarding consumers internet use. no one disputes data retention

can help get vindication prosecution of those who engage in trafficking of child pornography on the internet. the question is whether we should seek to answer how we can best investigate the crimes consistent with the rights and liberty of all and consistent with the cost benefit of such a policy. we want to incur the legitimate needs to allow investigating prosecuting offenders to use internet to commit crimes particularly those who use it to commit sex crimes against children is critical to understand the nature and the scope of any problem under the current law before we report to fix it. currently many companies already retain significant amounts of data, some up to 12 months. unless there is a lack of empirical research by the law enforcement request on the current law and the instances in which the data is not available. we should also review the law enforcement is doing with information they presently have. i've been informed the industry

already a force of for 100,000 feeds a year to the law enforcement and less than 10,000 prosecutions have been brought the last three years. we are looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. at the last thing we need is more a. we should also recognize there is a lack of clarity about the types of requests will enforcement is making and whether such -- much of the desired information is already available. these reasons we should consider whether we need a comprehensive study of data retention and putting current practices and costs associated with various proposals of data retention policy among other questions and some of the questions are what kind of data we are talking about retaining whether it is all the content or just the site information. this way we will ensure the public policy ultimately adopted will be evidence based

cost-effective policy. apart from the technological factual issues that must be addressed if we are to consider such policy societal costs associated with data retention approximately 230 million americans who use the internet very serious privacy concerns and first amendment concerns a implicated in the discussion we must ask ourselves whether it is prudent to require telecommunications companies to retain large amounts of personal and sensitive information which would be attractive targets for computer hackers about millions of internet users in order to get a minuscule number of users to engage in crimes against children online. we need to consider alternative policies that specifically target those suspected of wrongdoing without requiring that the consumers, to compromise the right to free speech when they choose to use the internet. the notion of preserving large amounts, what amounts to be

virtual potential claim to the crime scenes is an ineffective way to go about the important business of protecting our children. this is particularly true when the unintended consequences of such a policy or industry private interest and free speech may be substantial as some of the witnesses will explain today. when we consider the right of privacy and retained data we should also consider -- we should take the opportunity to consider retaining information on gun purchases by those enjoying the second amendment rights. the final point to keep in mind several aspects of the data retention policy run counter to the idea we should always consider the cost benefit implications of any new regulations. the data retention policy can be expensive. this is a huge government expense and to get a sense of the possible cost congress appropriated $500 million to implement the communications law enforcement act a few years ago and this did not involve ongoing

costs such as data retention well. should the industry be expected to observe the cost we should be clear what the costs are and the benefits will be so i look forward to hearing testimony from the witnesses and hope we can have a productive conversation about the complexity of the data retention policy. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding a hearing. >> thank you mr. space. the chair recognizes the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like you i think our witnesses for being here today, and it's nice to be on the same side of the administration or maybe i should say and what they are on our side of the works well regardless. i also want to mention, mr. chairman, i heard mr. scott's remarks right now and i am confident we will be about to find that between privacy and protecting children.

mr. scott mentioned having a conversation on that subject and i look forward to that as well. mr. chairman, it may be difficult to believe but according to the u.s. justice department of the trafficking of child pornography images was almost completely eradicated in america by the mid-1980s. purchasing or trading the images was risky and almost impossible to undertake. the advent of the internet reversed this accomplishment. today child pornography images nutter the internet and pedophiles can purchase, few or change this material with virtual anonymity. parents who once relied on the four walls of their homes to keep their children safe are now faced with a new challenge. the internet has unlocked the doors and open windows into our homes. fbi director robert mueller told the committee in april, 2008, quote, just about every crime has gravitated toward the internet and in certain cases the internet provided the vehicle for expansion that

otherwise wouldn't be there, and this is certainly true with child pornography. the statistics reflect how serious the problem of child exploitation has become. so it's a national center for missing and exploited children created a cyber line 12 years ago. electronic service providers have reported almost 8 million images and videos of spit sexually exploited children. according to that, child pornography images increased 1500% between 1995 and 2005. an average increase of over 100% a year. the number of reports to the cyber to one of child pornography, child prostitution and child sexual molestation and online sexual enticement increased from 4500 in 1998 to 102,000 in 2008. an average increase over 200%

per year. as many as one in three kids received unsolicited sexual content online and one in seven has been solicited for sex online. more robust data retention will certainly assist law enforcement investigators on a wide array of collectivities but such requirement would be especially helpful in the investigation of child pornography and other exploitation matters. the investigation of these cases is becoming increasingly more complicated and the perpetrators have become increasingly more sophisticated in the methods of concealing their activities. when law enforcement officers to develop leads that might alter roughly result in saving a child or apprehending is demographer difference shouldn't be frustrated because records were destroyed simply because there was no requirement to retain them. every piece of discarded information could be the footprint of the child predator. last congress i introduced the internet stopping adults facilitating today's youth

safety act of 2009. among other things that will require providers to retain records pertaining to the of identity of user for least two years that insure the online footprints of predators inaki based. data retention preserves critical evidence from the on-line crime scene said that investigators can apprehend the predator and potentially save a child from further explanation. the internet is a great value in many aspects of our lives but it's also involved in to a virtual playground for sex predators and kaput files and a trafficking child pornography. the loss of a child's innocence or even worse, their life, is simply too high a price to pay for not retaining certain data for a reasonable amount of time. i look forward to hearing from witnesses and working with them to combat one of the fastest-growing crimes in america. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the new chairman emeritus of the

full committee, the speaker being the old chairman emeritus. the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thanks, chairman sensenbrenner. it is with some reluctance that i joined the next chairman like you, but here we are, all together. this bipartisan thing is getting frightening because we are all waiting with anticipation tonight at 9:00 to find out just how far the 44th is carrying this thing. already chairman smith and the department of justice have hooked up, and people liked the constitution project and aclu and david cole.

i won't mention myself because i will be sitting next to a republican tonight and i don't want to get any flak. but i suppose this hearing is very necessary. i am impressed with what the center for democracy and technology is doing along with the other dissidents one that i listed. and i'm worried about privacy rights and data retention and creates, as bobby scott said, it creates some big problems including identity theft.

i think the internet industry ought to be concerned about this , and let's see where we can go on at. if this cooperation continues, and the subcommittee, we've got to look at the federal prison system. there are a number of other projects that perhaps the department of justice and the subcommittee on crime can be working on and i look forward to working with all of you on the subject. thanks, chairman sensenbrenner. >> without objection other members will be made it part of the record and without objection, the chair will be

authorized to declare recess during the votes in the house. is now my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses. jason esters sestak the assistant attorney general at the department of justice. he also served as a special one was to get it council and the justice department office of inspector general and assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. mr. weinstein previously served as the chief the violent crime section in the u.s. attorney's office in baltimore and a multi agency effort to curb violent crime in that state. he received his bachelor's degree in politics from princeton and jd from george washington university law school in 1994. without objection, the statement and the other witnesses' statements will appear in the record. each witness will be recognized for five minutes to summarize their written statement and the

chair recognizes mr. weinstein. >> good morning, chairman sensenbrenner, conyers and ranking member scott, members of the subcommittee. mr. chairman although i was leading on the bears let me congratulate you. >> you're forgiven. as we know the explosive growth of the internet and other forms of communication have revolutionized nearly every aspect of our lives but at the same time it's also revolutionized crime. increasingly, the internet and other forms of electronic communication are exploited by criminals to commit a staggering array of crimes from hackers who steal tens of millions of bank card numbers and gangs to order issues for their rivals. predators' to sexually abuse children and post images of that abuse on line and of course the terrorists. these canals to get in touch of the internet because of its global nature and the speed with which allows them to operate. unfortunately as an added benefit for them, the internet

also forwards them a kind of anonymity. federal, state and local law enforcement officers investigate and prosecute these crimes need to have certain information about the identity and activity if criminals who commit them in order to identify and arrest the perpetrators. that information is on contant data. it's about the criminals and their communications with others opposed to the content of the communication. the government under current law is allowed to use lawful process which is a subpoena, court order or search warrant to require providers to furnish the data but it's only useful if the data is in existence of the time the government seeks to of tenet and for that reason the data retention by companies that provide the public with internet and other communications services fundamental to our ability to protect public safety. currently, that despite the diligent work by law enforcement officers all levels, critical data has often been depleted by providers before the law enforcement can obtain that process. the gap between providers

retention practices and the need of all enforcement can be extremely harmful to the investigations that are critical to protect the public from predators and other criminals and the problem is exacerbated by the complexity of investigating crimes committed using on-line means. the crimes are difficult to detect and they may not be discovered or reported to the law enforcement before months and months have gone by and they are even more difficult to investigate. the end of the time-consuming process of evidence from overseas. they require months and months of work obtaining records from a series of providers as agents attempt to follow this trail of steps to try to cover their tracks and render themselves anonymous. unfortunately, when providers haven't retained the data needed for a sufficient period of time important investigations of serious crimes may come to a dead end. to be sure, most providers are cooperative and that we are appreciative. many providers in fact already collect the types of data we need to solve crimes because the

use that to operate the networks or other commercial purposes. the problem is often simply the data is entered and long enough to meet the needs of public safety. however some providers don't retain the needed data at all. a provider retention policies in place very among the industry and they are subject to change attwell. in short, the lack of adequate come in uniform and consistent data retention policies threaten our ability to use the tools congress provided the law enforcement to protect public safety. in setting the retention policies and practices companies are often motivated by completely understandable desire to control cost and protect the privacy of their users but this factors must be balanced against the cost of public safety of allowing criminals to go free and actually protecting privacy requires not only the we keep personal information from criminals who seek to steal it but also ensure law enforcement has the data it needs to catch and prosecute the same criminals. developing inappropriate data

retention requirement will mean balancing the interests involved. balancing the impact on privacy, the provider costs associated with retaining the data for longer period and cost of public safety when critical on contant data has been deleted. congress has a critical role to play fostering the discussion and balancing the interest and today's hearing is a step in the process. as we embark on the discussion it's important we be clear this is interrupt giving the government to keep law enforcement new authorities. it is about making sure the data is available when law enforcement seeks to use the authority to congress already provided. my primary goal today is to explain the nature of the public safety interest in the data retention. today i'm not in the position to propose a position that the justice to read the books for work with working with the industry groups as we seek to develop such a solution. finton for the opportunity to discuss this issue with you this morning and i would be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time.

>> thank you, mr. weinstein. john douglas serves as the chief of police for the police department in kansas. he began his law enforcement career at the police department and 1973. he currently serves as the co-chair of the national advisory committee for the regional computer forensic labs astana peace served in numerous positions during his tenure at the olberman park police department as well as other various professional positions and putting the past president of the kansas association of chiefs of police. chief douglas has received numerous awards and putting the clarence kelly award for excellence in criminal justice, the administration in 2000, the fln award and of the clarence peacekeeper award to the chief douglas received his bachelor's degree from the university of kansas and master's degree in public administration also from the university of kansas.

mr. douglas. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee. my name is john douglas and i serve as a chief of police in kansas, a suburb of kansas city. i'm here today on behalf of the international association of chiefs of police representing over 20,000 law enforcement executives and over 100 countries throughout the world. i am pleased to hear this morning to discuss the challenges confronting the u.s. law enforcement community and the need to further the clarity on data retention issues. in the united states there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and well over 800,000 officers who control state highways and streets of the communities each and every day. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. a great number of the officers also served on the internet, phone and a deed of logs and other communication as the investigate crimes. each day federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies investigate cybercrime cases ranging from bank

intrusions to frolic on intellectual property, terrorism, economic espionage and unfortunately innocent images or child pornography crimes. that preservation is a key component of any investigation when criminals access the internet through in iset or internet service provider or send text messages, e-mail and other day that it creates important records and other information and every case where a criminal or civil action is envisioned there is a need to preserve thirdpartywatch.com and business records related to these connections which specifically demonstrate the suspect service provider is connecting with the victims' service provider or through another infrastructure. when law enforcement suspects a crime has been committed we request to subpoena, court order or search warrant to obtain from a service providers such as customer records, connection and formation were stored data. tikrit support case from california that wouldn't have been solved without sulfone data

from verizon wireless to the july 26, 2006 her and her infant son were murdered in their apartment in san diego. torrey was found strangled in the living room and the baby was found strangled and hung from his crib and one of the adjoining bedrooms. this horrifying crime scene triggered an exhaustive 18 month investigation. the case was ultimately sold exclusively by the circumstantial of events including cellphone text message content and to our data from verizon wireless. the defendant denied any involvement in the killings and provided an intricate extensive allied. investigators focused their attention on dennis, almost immediately because he was rumored to have dinner plans with her on the night of her murder. he denied the rumors of dinner plans and the victim's cell phone was examined for text messages between the two of them supporting such rumors. in most interesting twist all

incoming and outgoing messages prior to 6:30 p.m. on the night of the killings had been defeated. the victim's cell phone provider was contacted but the text message content wasn't stored by the assault on provider therefore couldn't be recovered. over the months the victim's phone was subjected to extensive forensic analysis in the hope of recovering some of these messages. the defendant's cell phone carrier, verizon wireless come was also contacted and investigators were told incoming content dictum to defendant text only was preserved for only three to five days but in the stroke of good luck this incoming data still existed and was preserved. it later proved to be pivotal proving the defendant's guilt. the text message content proved not only the defendant lied to investigators and that the two did in fact have plans to meet the evening but also that the defendant was checking to see if the victim and her son were alone in the apartment. verizon also provided that our data from the defendant's phone.

this coupled with additional testing showed the defendant's evan bayh was false and he was not where he said he was. furthermore, the time of the killing the cell phone off of the tower was only 500 yards from the victim's apartment. this was the single most important piece of evidence linking the defendant to the killings. preserving digital evidence is crucial in any modern-day criminal investigation. while the law enforcement has success in the process because we are aware of the speculation concerns we are not always successful. many times we face obstacles in our investigations from the locations of victims to their locations of the perpetrators. in closing comfortable domestic trouble, and local law enforcement are doing all we can to protect our communities from increasing crime rate on the specter of we cannot do it alone. we need the full support and assistance of the government and

clear guidance and regulation on the retention to a bus successfully in prosecuting the most dangerous criminals. >> thank you very much, chief. the executive director of the united states internet service provider association. ms. dean has been active in telecommunications and internet policy in washington, d.c. for more than ten years and is a member of the international academy of digital arts and sciences. she started her own firm in 2006 where in addition to continuing to work with usis p.a. she volunteers with an organization in singapore that brings of the sanitation solutions to underserved villages in the developing world. she received her bachelor's degree in 2000 from american university. >> chairman sensenbrenner, ranking member scott -- >> could you pull the microphone a little closer to you?

thank you. >> i am the executive director of the united states interest service providers as addition. since january, 2002, our members major internet service network and portal providers have focused on policy and legal concerns related to law enforcement compliance and security matters including cybersecurity and notably the fight against on-line child exploitation. for years our members have participated in efforts to examine the issue of data retention particularly in the context of child exploitation and putting dialogue of the department of justice and with state and local law enforcement. we welcome the opportunity to continue the discussion today. before addressing data retention my but like to tell you about our efforts in the child protection arena. in 2005, we published sound practices for reporting child pornography, a project between

u.s. ispa and the center for missing and exploited children. we updated the practice to reflect new requirements been pleased by the 2008 passage of the protect our children at a bill they strongly supported. last year we developed sound practices for the subpoena compliance with the national association of attorney general's. we also supported the technology working group which reported to congress in june with their examination of industry reporting practices and the their retention. the u.s. ispa members have been active in various internet safety task forces in putting the technology coalition and the financial coalition against child pornography. members maintain 24 by seven response capabilities come offer law enforcement and guides, frequently interact and conduct training for investigators and prosecutors. as i held our actions demonstrate, u.s. ispa is committed to the fight against online explication and we

support law enforcement efforts to bring on line criminals to justice especially those who harm children. we appreciate the critical role electronic evidence plays in those efforts. service providers report tens of thousands of incidents of the parent child what pornography every year and because the protect our children act, all providers are now required to send robust reports including subscriber information historical and geographic data and the images themselves through the cyberattack line. at the point of receipt, providers automatically preserve the account and hold on to the debt for 90 days awaiting the legal process. the novel approach to preservation about it in the reporting statute was derived from preservation authority that has long existed in the electronic communications privacy act read it gives law enforcement authority to require providers to preserve evidence needed for investigations for up to 180 days without issuing

legal process. we believe the effective use of preservation, a targeted of delegable tool is key to addressing the will enforcement needs to read you this ispa has examined the data retention proposals and each time has concluded that a uniform retention mandate is certain to present significant challenges to the communications industry as well as merriam unintended consequences. these challenges include potential conflict of new obligations and regulatory burdens, new questions about user privacy and standard for law enforcement access towards the the, technical and security risks and delay when retrieving data all which could negatively affect law enforcement investigation. many challenges played to the european union at into the implementation of the directive as we discussed the issue today a similar dialogue is taking

place within the e.u. as they reassess their approach and consider alternatives like preservation. unlike preservation, d the retention raises eight questions about the borat, scoop, duration, liability and cost, costs that go beyond dollars. these are all critical considerations the require close examination by industry and commerce. in closing, gabus ispa remains committed to the dialogue but we have concerns about the effectiveness and implementation of the data retention. we worry that the indirect cost to innovation, privacy and the speed and accuracy of investigations. based on our experience we continue to believe targeted approaches like preservation are the best and most effective use of available resources. we have received this upper ten deepak to present views on the topic and look forward to working with you and your staff to read thank you. >> thank you. john morris jr. serves as the general counsel with the center

for democracy and technology in washington, d.c.. he is the devotee of the internet standard technology policy project. he's also involved in the center for democracy and technology work on cybersecurity, privacy and neutrality. prior to joining the center mr. morris was a partner in the law firm. additionally mr. morris served as the director of the cdt broadband access project. he received his bachelor's degree from jail and jd from law school. mr. morris? >> thank you very much, chairman. ranking member scott, chairman emeritus conyers and members of the committee, on behalf of the center for democracy and technology i would like to think of these opportunity to testify today. child pornography is a horrific crime and we of to applaud the efforts by this committee to increase resources available to prosecute this crime.

data retention mandate would raise a number of serious privacy free-speech concerns at a time when there is a growing concern about privacy and identity that the growing concern of the commercial misuse of personal data and the growing concern about the intrusion of the federal government to the personal lives of american citizens congress should be hesitant to require service providers to create databases to track the internet activities of 230 million. this morning i would like to set aside briefly the privacy free-speech concerns i address in my written testimony and instead focus on the fact that data retention mandate would harm innovation and competition on the internet and the ability of the internet industry to compete in a global on-line marketplace which in turn directly affects the ability of users to participate and speak in the on-line market.

ms. deanne address to the retention concerns the internet service providers have. let me look at the other end of the communication and address proposals by law enforcement that source data be retained by any on-line services that allow users to communicate with each other and the proposal that has been made to have services like yahoo! or google or facebook retain data is truly breathtaking and would be devastating to the services to existing services and certainly knew innovators and startup services. the reach of the proposal cannot be underestimated. the proposed mandate that would reach most web sites and online services and putting all web 2.0 networking sites, blogs, sites that allow political or other commentary, the great majority of the e commerce sites and almost all modern new sites like "the new york times" or fox news

.com. in this deal with the law in force that is proposing is also astounding. looking just at facebook as an example, facebook users post in the neighborhood of 2 billion chat messages every single day. when combined with other postings facebook alone would have to create and maintain a data retention database containing more than 1 trillion new records every single year. the size of the data retention database alone would be larger than all of the content. looking beyond facebook in 2009 there were two under 47 billion e-mail messages sent every single day and of law enforcement is asking the congress to order that every single one of these messages be reported and tracked. over the course of a year, this mandate would require a database of more than 19 trillion

records. this doesn't even include chat messaging as a preferred method of communications. who would pay for this? internet users. what would the impact be on on-line services? some larger companies might survive but smaller companies would be run out of business. in posing an unfunded federal mandate on anyone who allows users to communicate online can only have one result. there would be fewer businesses able to compete in the marketplace. this would entrenched providers to harm competition, are men of vision and ultimately the users. congress should not mandate the creation of a normally in tracking database with hundreds of billions of records tracking innocent citizens wherever they go on line. as a final critical point addressing the child pornography and i worked in this space a fair amount over the last ten

years and every task force on serve on, every working group by serve on, i learn that law enforcement is overwhelming these cases. they don't have enough prosecutorial resources to prosecute all the cases they have. so congress i really urge the congress to look at the question as to whether having more data retention will in fact lead to more prosecution of this horrific crime. the voluntary retention data presentation orders allow law enforcement to target suspected criminals and we urged the subcommittee not to go down the path of the imposing data retention mandates on this entire industry. >> thank you, mr. morris. the chair has written down the proximate order of the appearances of the members of the subcommittee. we will call on members for five minutes in the order in which they appear alternatively by

size. i will start by recognizing myself for five minutes to but i want to direct my question to ms. dean. it seems to me that one of the problems that exist in this area is that there is not a uniform standard for how long the data has to be retained. it varies by a internet service provider. would your association be willing to propose such a voluntary compliance order, picking it time and cooperation with law enforcement for the retention of this data in order to eliminate the congress stepping in? >> thank you, mr. sensenbrenner, mr. chairman. first i guess i should say we are here today because we are interested in the conversation and we are interested in all opportunities to sit down with

law enforcement and figure out of there is a solution in the problem that we described today. u.s. ispa is always willing to be part of the dialogue with law enforcement at all levels and i think the questions raised already today in the opening statement are really what we should have the discussion about. we need to learn more from the law enforcement about the breadth of this kind of requirement, who they want to keep the data and specifically what do they want to act and for how long? >> let me say i am a firm believer of carrots and sticks and i am tossing you care at now and there is a desire on the part of both the administration and congress to legislate in this area. i am tossing you and or to put in the water to try to bring your industry together to deal

with this problem on a voluntary basis. mr. morris has had a whole list of questions that need to be answered. the fact is if you are not a good rabbit and don't start eating the care it i am afraid we are all going to be throwing a stick at you so this is an opportunity for you to come up with some kind of a solution to all of the problems that go with law enforcement and mr. morris have discussed. are you on board or show it to give back? >> i can tell you i have heard you and i assure my members have as well as they are dedicated to this issue and absolutely set a law enforcement. >> we are listening. i yield back my time. mr. scott? >> thank you. mr. morris, you talked about the cost of the data retention in

general. can you give some kind of a dollar amount, percentages, what are we talking about in terms of cost? >> truthfully, mr. scott, i can't -- >> some of the data retention services retain huge amounts with negligible cost. are we talking about anything significant? >> i think simply the challenge of creating a data base that would allow access to literally trillions of records is an enormous financial cost. >> can you give something with a dollar amount in front of it? >> i can't. if you only immelt can give is the vast majority of content and web sites on the internet or available for free for $0 to their users and to those sites are close to the line on a

day-to-day basis as whether they will make money or not, and the actor will cost of any sort of federal mandate would be debilitating to those sites. >> ms dean, you've been offered carrots and sticks. right now is it true to our industry is providing approximately 150,000 leads to block enforcement every year? >> in terms of the reporting incidents of child pornography to the center according to statutory obligations i believe the number is around there. for the record we could find out what the precise number is. yes, service providers to report tens of thousands of reports a year. >> the way that you report, do you have a mechanism or somebody sends a picture you can ascertain whether it is a profile of what is known child

pornography and that goes right to law enforcement is that right? >> the standards they are required to transfer the images for referral is apparent. we don't know what is and is not child pornography. so either by technical means or from user complaints when we come upon such material, we box it up with all the information we have and >> transmitted. >> mr. weinstein when you get this information what you do with it? you've got about 400,000 the last couple of years, hundreds of thousands of leads. do you have a staff to follow through on those today? >> ranking member scott, let me address both of those in order. when law enforcement gets referrals from the national center those are distributed to all in force that the federal level depending on the part of the country the referral comes

from. under the protect act of 2008 there is a mandatory retention period by ips peace the ticket when they actually become aware of possible child and pornography and they make a referral to the cyberattack line as indicated. the problem with that requirement although it is a useful tool is that it is limited in its effectiveness. in the one it doesn't apply to other crimes of child exploitation but even in the realm of child exploitation, that obligation to retain and report only kicks in when the isp has discovered or become aware of the child pornography and this doesn't oppose any obligation on them to do any monitoring of the network or make affirmative efforts to find the child porn. >> can you keep up with the tips you got coming in and with the across-the-board budget cuts you're looking at a loss of potentially thousands of fbi agents. can you keep up with what you are getting today? >> it's fair to say the scope of the problem out cases the

resources we have available to fight it. >> you said something about if we pass something for the data retention is it true this might be used for all crime and not just child pornography? >> it's my view of congress were to go down this road and create a data retention requirement that is the most sense for all crimes, not just child exploitation. >> now is the information we are talking about just think specific or to include the content? because it was pointed out that the content that information wouldn't have been helpful. >> it is the opposite of that, sir. it wouldn't be content information, it would be -- >> we don't have the bill in front of us but are you suggesting that we have content being preserved or retained as well as just the site information? >> i'm talking about non-content

information, isp addresses assigned. >> if we have that that what mr. douglas used the text messages wouldn't have been available. seabeck as i understand they are generally not retained by providers. >> mr. douglas was on with text messages having the crime. seabeck the content of the message was important. >> they are cases in which the internet user -- >> your proposal content not be retained? >> i think one of the issues congress should engage in the discussion on is whether it should include content. my view is the most useful when formation is on content. >> if this information is available would it be available for private subpoena? >> that is another issue i think is worth discussing whether it

is available to law enforcement or private litigants. my interest is making sure it is available to the law enforcement. >> if we pass something like this do we need to turnaround and have some regulation to protect privacy? >> i think the questions, five or six questions congress should asked. number one, some of these -- number one what data needs to be retained. the issue we've been discussing. number two how long it should be retained for. how we need to retain it and who would have access to it whether it would be law enforcement or private litigants as well. number five is whether some additional protection for consumers are necessary with a need to be legislated or something the industry can do on its own to enhance privacy security of the network. >> making sure we follow through in particularly helpful continuing to seek more information and more tips than you can follow through on. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas,

mr. paul for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. did you say that every year your business supply will enforcement 190,000 tips? >> nope. there is a statutory obligation under 20 to 58 that requires providers it's much broader than -- >> put to the taste of how many do you provide? >> last year over 140,000. >> right. >> those the two who? local, federal? >> the center for missing and exploited children, and the experts deal with it from there. >> all right. mr. weinstein, how many federal cases were made on child pornography in 2010 or 2009? give me a figure i can understand. >> i would be happy to, congressman, i just don't have

an available, my own retention is and what it should be but i would be happy to provide a number to you. >> can you give me a ballpark figure? it wasn't 145,000 was it? >> i don't believe so. >> do you have any idea how -- >> i don't and i want to give you the information at local level, too as you know great many cases are prosecuted by state and local law enforcement and the task force which the department helps fund and exists in every state. >> with the gentleman yield? there is a report from the department of justice that lists 8352 the last four years. >> recommitting my time since about 2000 here, chief douglas, how many cases since you are the chief to you know how many cases local law enforcement have made in any given period of time? >> i can't give a specific number. i can tell you however we have

in a city of 170,000 people we have a three person unit working on it full time and as far as i know, none of those cases came through the channels we are talking about so they are working on their own needs in significant numbers outside of the arena that we are talking about. the exact number i can't give you but i can tell you we are working several cases two, three, four, every single month. >> can you supply the committee that the that? and mr. weinstein, you as well. appreciate that. i'm concerned about the broad idea of federal legislation of any area, certainly i think people that engage in this kind of criminal activity ought to get their day in court before a jury as often as possible.

but do you see any federal or constitutional concerns, mr. weinstein, that you are encouraging us to come up with the legislation about the broad concept of more storage, personal information? >> congressman, to the extent the collection of data creates privacy risks or risks to people's anonymity, those risks exist today right now. much of the data we're talking about today the law enforcement needs to solve these crimes is already being retained by a large number of communication providers for their own commercial marketing purposes. that includes isp, "the new york times," a lot of websites you visit every day. the mandatory data retention but on the extent that time to make sure it was applied universally across the industry. to the extent there are risks to privacy from the database is existing those risks exist when

you open your account and they exist on day for 30, 180, 365. what a provider keeps the data for a year they now have the obligation to protect it. there is no system foolproof but irresponsible predators take steps to safeguard the networks and we can always do more. in terms of the impact of to privacy of law enforcement as i said in my opening remarks what we are not talking about, expressly increasing the authority of law enforcement to get that data. the authority that congress already provided and that we exercise consistent with a statute and constitutional obligations everyday are the same that will govern access to these expanded databases kept for longer periods of time. law in prisoner cannot obtain that data unless the process is used and that would continue to be the case. the ultimate safeguard against law enforcement abuse is we are subject to supervision of congress, the courts, the