related to the health food store happened before he was elected so they would say it isn't within their jurisdiction. and i should say i said ted stevens waw defeated in 2010 but it was 2008. >> emma dumain and you can find her work on twitter and rollcall.com. tomorrow we will take calls about the indictment is here from ron johnson who talks about his law suit that challenge a bill that pay for health care bills of staff. and then we will talk about the racial wealth gap in the united states and kate tim who covers technology for the hill will talk about a proposed fcc regulation that will allow broadband providers to charge

fees for faster data and video streaming. live tomorrow at 7 a.m. eastern. and fbi director james comby will speak at the anti-definition league and then a talk about u.s. policy and spending and later campaign finance rules will be discussed. >> c-span's newest book sunday at 8. a collection with interviews with the nation's top story tell e tellers. >> most concentration camp stories are someone coming from a civilized family. they are taken to the camp and all of their other relatives are killed and they have to behave in an inhuman way and have to

tell about their descent into hell and survival. this story is different because he was born in hell and thought it was home. >> blaine harden, one of the many voices of our c-span interviews. >> fbi director james comby spoke earlier talking about hate crimes and home grown terrorism threats for about 30 minutes. good afternoon. it is an honor to be here. two weeks ago, a madman with a warped view of what america should look like shot and killed three innocent people who were just doing what normal folks do on a sunday afternoon.

he targeted individuals who were strangers to him, for no other reason than that he believed they were jewish. mindy corporon lost both her father and her son that day-a loss most of us cannot begin to fathom. at a church vigil just hours after the shooting, she talked about the randomness of what had happened, how her father had offered to take his grandson to a singing competition while the a singing competition while the rest of the family juggled other activities. in her words, "we were in life; we were having life. and i want you all to know that we're going to have more life, and i want you all to have more life." the loss of these three people-the loss to their families, their friends, and their communities-underscores the reality we face. we confront individuals, here at home and

abroad, who seek to steal life. they seek to inflict great harm, and no one is immune. no race, no religion, no ethnicity, no way of life. and so we must do everything in our power-in government, in law enforcement, and in society-to stop them. we must do everything in our power to educate people about diversity and the strength that comes from our differences. and we must do everything in our power to bring those who act on such hatred to justice. you are well versed in the threats of the day, but let me take a moment to define the terrorist threat from the fbi's perspective. as you know, national security is our top priority, and that isn't likely to change. overseas, the terrorist threat is complex and ever changing. we

are seeing more groups and individuals engaged in terrorism, a wider array of targets, greater cooperation among terrorist groups, and continued evolution in tactics and communication. al qaeda central isn't the dominant force it once was, but they remain intent on causing death and destruction. al qaeda affiliates continue to present a top threat-al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, al qaeda in the islamic maghreb and isil-the islamic state of iraq and levant-among others. we also have citizens traveling overseas-especially to syria-and radicalizing there, and then coming home. and they are traveling from all over the united states to all parts of the world. as the boston bombings illustrate, we face a continuing

threat from homegrown violent extremists. some call these individuals "lone wolves," but i think that gives them too much dignity. i like to think of them as "lone rats." [ applause ] these individuals are self-radicalizing. they do not share a typical profile; their experiences and motives are often distinct. they are willing to act alone, which makes them difficult to identify and stop. this is not just a d.c., new york, or los angeles phenomenon; it is agnostic as to place. we also face domestic terrorism from individuals and groups who are motivated by political, racial, religious, or social ideology-ideology fueled by bigotry and prejudice-as we saw in overland park, kansas.

we in the fbi have a strong working knowledge of these groups and their general membership. here, too, it's the lone offenders that trouble us. they stand on the periphery. we may not know of them because their actions do not predicate an investigation. most of the time, domestic extremists are careful to keep their actions within the bounds of constitutionally protected activity. and for the fbi, protecting those civil liberties-such as freedom of speech-is of paramount importance, no matter how hateful that speech might be. we only get involved when words cross the line into illegal activity.

you help us police that line. you know all too well that in a heartbeat, hateful speech can become violent, even deadly. hate becomes hate crime. we often speak of domestic terrorism and hate crimes in the same breath, and there is a fine line between the two, and certainly overlap in some cases. for that reason, we must look at each incident through both lenses, to make sure that we bring the best resources to every investigation. hate crimes are different from other crimes. they strike at the heart of one's identity-they strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. the end result is loss-loss of trust, loss of dignity, and in the worst case, loss of life. hate crimes impact not just

individuals, but entire communities. when a family is attacked because of the color of their skin, it's not just the family that feels violated, but every resident of that neighborhood. when a teenager is murdered because he is gay, the entire community feels a sense of helplessness and despair. and when innocent people are shot at random because of their religious beliefs-real or perceived-our nation is left at a loss. stories like this are heartbreaking. they leave each one of us with a pain in our chest. hate crime has decreased in neighborhoods across the country, but the national numbers remain sobering. and numbers are only one part of the calculus. from the fbi's perspective-and yours-even one hate crime is one too many. at the same time, we need to do a better job of tracking and reporting hate crime to fully understand what is happening in our communities and how to stop it. there are jurisdictions that fail to report hate crime

statistics. other jurisdictions claim there were no hate crimes in their community-a fact that would be welcome if true. we must continue to impress upon our state and local counterparts in every jurisdiction the need to track and report hate crime. it is not something we can ignore or sweep under the rug. we must also work together to educate folks-at the community level, in schools, in workplaces, and yes, in law enforcement-to help prevent hate crime. the fbi works with the adl to host civil rights and hate crime training for our state and local counterparts through a number of programs. we have made law enforcement and society training mandatory for all national academy participants, just as it is for all new agents. together, we created the hate crimes training manual-a fantastic resource for our law enforcement

partners across the country. and the adl, of course, has even greater reach; you trained more than 12,000 law enforcement personnel last year alone, and i want to thank you for that. this past january, your north texas/oklahoma office worked with the fbi's dallas division to sponsor a one-day seminar for more than 160 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers from 40 different agencies. and of course, we are educating ourselves, too. since 2010, fbi employees have participated in more than 105 training sessions sponsored by the adl on extremism, terrorism, and hate crimes, in 17 states and here in the district. your own michael lieberman, director of the civil rights planning center, will speak at an fbi civil rights conference in boston on may 13, and in san francisco in june. prevention also means working closely with community groups and their leaders. it means listening to their concerns and letting them know what we can do

to help. and it means building relationships of trust so they know they can call us and count on us to protect them. every one of our 56 field offices has a strong community outreach program. we are reaching out to communities where there may be feelings of suspicion or mistrust. as the saying goes, the time to patch the roof is when the sun is shining. not when the hurricane hits. and when we cannot prevent a hate crime, we will do everything we can to find those responsible and to help heal the victims, their families, and their communities. the fbi's office for victim assistance offers a wide range

of services, including emergency housing and food assistance, cleaning of personal effects and crime scenes, help in applying for victims' compensation, special services for children, and assistance in finding counseling. for the wider community, victim specialists have met with congregations and neighborhoods to help cope with the aftermath of a hate crime. they have helped churches, synagogues, and temples damaged by arson to find temporary meeting space. in times of crisis, they provide much-needed information and guidance for all affected groups.

in the wake of the shootings at the sikh temple in wisconsin, for example, victim specialists assisted with death notifications and funeral arrangements, in keeping with the sikh tradition. they made arrangements for family members to travel to the united states and coordinated with the state department for expedited visas. they translated brochures and important documents. and they identified culturally appropriate mental health resources for the victims, their families, and others impacted by the attack. these diverse challenges illustrate the need for true collaboration. over the years, the partnership between the fbi and the adl has grown stronger. yes, we serve different functions, but we share common values and common goals. we both work to protect the lives and liberties of our fellow citizens. we are both building communities that stand united against crime and terrorism. and we are both committed to promoting and defending freedom.

not freedom in some esoteric sense-but freedom to walk down the street without being harmed freedom to ride the subway without being endangered freedom to be who and what you are, without judgment or derision. these are the freedoms we all cherish, regardless of race, creed, orientation, or ethnicity. yet freedom takes work. it takes vigilance. and it takes patience. and when you are trying to change the world-when you imagine a world without hate, as you do-patience is more than a virtue. it is a necessity. last year, the adl marked its centennial. for any organization to mark 100 years of service is incredible. but to do so with such a record of success is doubly impressive. your advocacy for such a wide range of issues and constituents is nothing short of amazing, from anti-semitism to voting rights and immigration issues from gender and lgbt equality to anti-muslim prejudice from the separation of church and state to cyber-bullying.

you pushed and prodded for the passage of comprehensive hate crimes legislation. it took more than 30 years, but as i said, patience is a necessity in your line of work. your leadership in tracking and exposing domestic and international terrorist threats is invaluable. your experience in hate crime prevention and investigations is essential. your research has helped agents and analysts as they conduct threat assessments and prepare intelligence reports. and the training you voluntarily provide-at conferences, in classrooms, and at the community level-is eye-opening and insightful. if this sounds a bit like a love letter to the adl, it is, and rightly so. since 1913, you have advocated for fairness and equality. for inclusion and acceptance. you have never been indifferent or complacent. and the word "silence" simply isn't part of your language. upon accepting the nobel peace

prize, elie wiesel spoke of the danger of silence. he said, "i swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endured suffering and humiliation. we must always take sides. neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented"" you have never remained silent, no matter how difficult the issue. we in the fbi believe the same. we must never remain silent, no matter how difficult the case no matter how long it takes to seek justice. and, like you, we must always, always side with the good. that is why all new agents tour the holocaust museum, so that they can see and hear and feel-in a palpable, nauseating, and gut-wrenching way-the consequences of the abuse of power on a massive scale. i will continue this practice as we resume new agent classes at quantico. for just as we must never forget the atrocities of the holocaust, we must never forget the responsibilities we hold as a law enforcement and

national security organization. but i will also have our new agents visit the martin luther king memorial. i think it will serve as a different kind of reminder-one more personal to the bureau-of the need for fidelity to the rule of law and the dangers in becoming untethered to oversight and accountability. for we know that we will be judged not only on whether we succeed in defeating crime and terrorism. we will be judged on whether we do so while safeguarding the liberties for which we are fighting.

some have suggested that there is an inherent conflict between protecting national security, on the one hand, and preserving privacy and civil liberties, on the other hand. i disagree. in fact, i think the ideas of "balance" and "trade-offs" are the wrong framework, because they make it seem like a zero-sum game. at our best, we are looking for security that enhances liberty. when a city posts police officers at a dangerous park so that kids and families and old folks can use the park, security has promoted liberty. the good people of the fbi are sworn to protect both national security and civil liberties. it is not a question of conflict. we must care deeply about both-in every investigation and every program. i had the opportunity to host the fbi's holocaust remembrance ceremony two weeks ago, and one

of the stories i have heard about that day stuck with me. one of our special agents was talking to his wife about the event, and his 10-year-old son asked what the holocaust was. this father did his best to explain what had happened, but how do you describe, to a child, an atrocity so great it is almost beyond the ability of words? through it all, his son had a confused look on his face. finally, he said, "but why? why would they do that?" and that is the question. it is always the question. why? why would someone seek to harm another person simply because of the color of their skin, what they look like, where they come from, or what they believe?

we may never know why. reinhold niebuhr suggested years ago that prejudice and bigotry are not simply mistakes that can be corrected through education or enlightenment. hatred is not merely an error that can be dispelled by an appeal to rational thought. but some "whys" can be known. we certainly know why we in the fbi must dedicate ourselves to protecting those who would be victims of such prejudice. we know why the members of the adl work so very hard, each and every day, to advocate for those

who suffer from the effects of such deep-seated hatred. and we know why we must continue to stand together to stop those who would act against us-those who would seek to steal life. to paraphrase the words of dr. together, we must plan. we must build and bind our communities and our country. and we must commit ourselves to the glories of love through education, a commitment to diversity and inclusion, the pursuit of justice, and adherence to the rule of law. we must remember that for every attack on someone because of who and what they are, there are a thousand stories of individuals who banded together to build anew, to create rather than destroy. a thousand stories of strength and solidarity, of hope and unity, of kindness and kinship. this is why we do the work we do. this is why we continue to push forward. this is why we must never be indifferent or complacent, why we must never remain silent.

thank you for all that you do. we are honored to stand beside you. [[ applause ] [ applause ] >> i cannot imagine a better way to start the afternoon to motivate people to be supportive and involved with the fbi. thank you. [ applause ] the director has agreed to answer a couple questions. we have a little bit of time. people are collecting cards so

pass them up. i have a couple here. >> free shot at the fbi. >> last friday's "washington post" had a story about federal judges balking at request for investigation. how will the concerns effect this? >> that is a great question. i saw the article. it was about 2-3 judges of the 600 in the country showing requiring measurements for lawful collection. so because it was 2-3 out of 600 it warranted a major place in the paper. people should be suspicious of government power is my view. this country was founded by people who were very suspicious and know how weak people are and

divided it. people should ask questions about government power. i hope people take the time to listen to the answers. i love to be held accountable. it is boring. but i ask people to let me explain to you the involvement i do and the ways in which we only listen to people's conversation or gather their emails are court orders and those things. the challenge for us is that some of the revelations have created a wind storm for all matters that involve government matters get caught up. i understand that. i just urge you to take the time to demand the detailsi. people are saying isn't it terrible the government wants to make encryption or people want

to remain ammnonymous online. with lawful orders i need to find people who kidnap children, involved in terrorist crime. i need to find those people buchlt but you want me to oversight and balance the throw branches so what i do is rooted in law -- three -- care about government power, be unsure of it and ask hard questions and find the place in the wind storm that is american life to listen to the answer and then let's have a conversation. >> thank you. mr. director, you referenced hate crimes reporting and that several jurisdictions report none or zero. how do we overcome the idea that

reporting hate crimes by cities is a scar or be perceived as a scar on their reputations? >> the answer is one community at time which is why this audience is so important. i am in every city in the country. we have fbi field offices all over the places. so are you. it requires conversation and education as to why this matters. why it is in the interest of the community to find and report these things so there can be a response. no body likes to report crime because it means crime happened. but to be effective we have to be transparent about the challenges we face. there is talking from the national level that is important but conversations in the communities make the different. >> there has been a fair amount of press attention describing the new justice department

racial racial profiling guidance that will be issued soon. can you tell us what the guidelines will entail and how does the fbi work to improve trust between law enforcement and communities? >> i think that the questioner is referring to something that le leeked so i think i can talk about what guidelines are coming. i can talk about the culture of this great organization and how the culture is focused and based on the rule of law. people in the organization chafe that we have so many rules and regulations and i tell them it reminds me of when i was a kid in new york and summer evenings and my mom had be in bed at 8:00 and it would be light out and i could hear the kids playing and

she wou i would say how come i can't go out and play and she said you chose the wrong parents. i am proud of the way we govern ourselves and things done in the right way for the right reasons. i am confidant whatever guidelines come out will be consistent with the way why operating already. it is critical especially on the counter-terrorism front. if we are seen as a foreign entity we cannot do your job. so it is important to have the trust and talk about the authority. i am proud of the way we conduct ourselves and i know you will see that.

>> it has been 12 years since september 11th and it seems clear after the bombing in boston the american people don't view the threat of terror with the same sense of urgency. what is the effect of this? that is a great one. >> it is natural and good that people heal from an event as horrible as 9/11. and see that terrorism isn't on the front of their windshield and that is how it should be. it is important we don't loose sight of the challenges we face so that we loose sight of the importance of the tools we have and use. i think it is important to discuss and debate government authorities. what i don't want do is have decisions made without having a deep understanding of why i need them and the challenges i face.

i think it is important people remember that. i think it is very, very important state and local law enforcement remember the importance of this. i talked about travelers to syria and home-grown extremist. those folks are from everywhere is the people likely to see them first are going to be deputy sheriffs and police officers on patrol so i need them focused on the problem, threat and challenge. so one thing i have been talking about is september 11th we were lucky and that luck has been made not to have an attack of that magnitude but we in law enforcement can't take our eye off the risk because it isn't a new york or washington or chicago or los angeles it is an everywhere challenge. >> here is the last one: since september 11th, the bureau has

thwarted a number of terror attacks through sting operations. how do you respond to those that criticize the tactics as entrapment? >> reasonable question. we frequently enketocounter peo especially online who are asking for help looking for ways to kill a bomb. so people ask me questions like this and i say what would you do? we introduce an undercover and see if they are serious and if we should focus on them. we engage them to see are these

serious dangerous people? and we don't walk away. they didn't find us to supply the explosives, i don't know who they might find. so i don't think if people drill into it they would want me to talk away. i think defense attorneys should press on entrapment and the fbi should explain the facts behind each case and why we did what he did. and they will be robustly debated and if you look at our track record i am proud of the way we handled ourselves. thank you. [ applause ] >> members of adl please stand for thanks. >> secretary of state sell br--

celebrates the transatlantic partnerhip and nato relations. treasury secretary jack lieu will active before a house appropriation panel to talk about the treasure department's budget and sanctions against russia. >> there is a lot more disconnection and families broken that should not be bro n broken. and i am talking about good families that go from one job to another and living in that work class and up and down world puts a lot of strain on people and affects family connections and addiction is so poplar now.

i think all of this is contributing to the american story. >> former gang member and political activist luis rodriguez will take your questions sunday on booktv. >> the brooking institution held a discussion on the future of u.s. defense policy and spending on monday. mack thornberry and rick larson of texas state were there. they serve on the arms committee. >> good afternoon, i am from the

21st century intelligence and i would like to welcome you to this conversation. we are going to ask questions of the congressman and try to elicit conversation on strategic and various defense issues then turn to you for questions. eagle was on the independent panel assessing rerue view and worked on the hill and pentagon and she is esteemed and very experienced. and that is a good way to describe the people on my right. they have been in congress for a number of years. they are among the more senior members of the armed service committee.

thornberry is the vice chairman. they have many interest in congress and want to express appreciation to them. i want to start with congressman larson who was next to the district that suffered the washington mudslides and we want to send wishes to the people of washington state. and people to the good state of texas who together with the folks in washington sent us these two wonderful congressman. i would like to start with questions and pass the baton. and i will start with china and first ask congressman thornberry who is back from china for his impressions on how things have been. and then i will ask congressman larson who runs a working group

on that and we will go from there to a couple other subjects and topics. so welcome to both of you and look forward to your impressions. >> i just came back from ten days with majority leader eric cantor and others. we visited japan, korea and china. i would say among my impressions from this visit are number one: the nationalism that exists in all three countries partly for domestic political reasons but yet it creates some conflict or some tension. a and between japan and korea and japan and china obviously. and we were able to meet with the top leaders in china and may

impression is they see china as rising power and a declining pow and they have historical grievances and maybe that is what concerned me the most. i kept thinking back to the history books and what things were like in germany before world world war with the sense of them being a rising power but with the grievance that they would soon be into position to correct in some way. now that doesn't mean conflict is inevitable but the decisions over the maritime disputes you felt the chance of to improve.

>> the trip i took in march was my 9th trip there. and it was a great quote that i would like to point out from a debate from two people of letters. i will not go into their names. they were arguing about china and one was living there for a couple years and there other returned. and the guy who had not said the guy who lived there was too close to china and the guy responded surely there is a medium between never -- living in china versus never being there at all. that guy had never been there at all. i can tell you every time i go i learn how much i don't know and how much is changing in china. i would be concerned about

china's economic rise if it doesn't happen. and that is because the imperative i think from the comm commonnist party is if they don't grow fast enough they will not supply employment opportunities for that undermines the creditability of the party. if they don't deal with environmental concerns that said 60% of china's ground water is polluted and that ought to be a concern and the vast corruption that exists from the top down is a huge creditable party. and there is no junior varsity in the chinese government. it is a commonnist government or not. so they have to get it right. and part of that is making sure the economy grows. and the other part is the

military rise. there are rational reasons it is investing in its military but the challenge it faces is they do a poor job explaining and what they do explain sets up a region for further disputes and possible conflict. this isn't something i think china wants and certainly not something the united states wants but they are claims that many of these countries that are friends and allies of ours have in the area and i think there is some point rewriting of history that goes on on the chinese side about historical claims. and i am not here to solve them today but i think the u.s. has a direct interest to be part of the solution. >> if i could follow-up on this. and a question for both of you.

i would like too ask you what you think the next step is bu d building on the president's trip. and i am not trying to start a dispute, the armed service and you are known thworking togethe. but what the does the united states have to do to build on what the president accomplished and deal with the crisis as they develop? >> for our trip we were just ahead of the president by a day or so in japan and korea and our focus was to emphasis we agree

with the president and will stand by treaty commitments and there is no dispute about that. so i think that is is kind of step down. r reassuring friends and the bases in the philippines are positive steps and encouraging our allies not to let the differences between us divide us. so i think number one is build new friend and reassure our friends. and we have to spend more on defense. what china and the host of other countries respect is strength and that is numbers of ship and a variety of other things. so we have to be strong. i just -- there is not another

way to put it. >> if i could follow-up on that issue to clarify where we should be on the budget. there are a mb of baselines that we could measure to be stronger. there is the possibility of sequestration and there is the president's budget which is a little above. there is congressman ryan's plan which might be slightly different and maybe you could say a word more about that. and the plan that governor romney and ryan ran on. do you have a specific proposal you would advocate? i

>> i voted for the house budget and we had the number we are moving toward and that increases defense beyond that. i don't know if there is a magic number. but i do know the world is watching what we do. if china, putin, whoever you want to say thing thinks we are not capable of increasing defense, being strong and having the capabilities we need do deter them they will be more aggressi aggressive. what i am focused on here is what is the world seeing of us now and i worry about that. increasing and showing we are serious about putting our money where our mouth is in defense, i

think, is a strategic imperative regardless of the specific number. >> congressman? >> which question? >> where we should go on asia policy. >> okay. i think the president's trip was largely successful in terms of assuring our friend and allies that the united states is a pacific country and that the rebalance is real and the president's putting some reality to that. but it goes beyond -- in the defense community, just like anything else, it is all about us in any other community. the defense folks think about defense. health care folks think about health care and if it isn't about that it isn't about anything. rebalance is about defense, trade, diplomacy, economic

security -- it is about all of those things. so the effort to pass the tra transpacific partnership is continued support in the community. we had an ambassador opening up from our perspective the opening of burma is an important aspect of that and continuing to reassure friends and allies. a rebalance is about many parts of what the united states government does. the rebalance is a work in progress but it is work. and it progresses. with regards to the broader budget question, you know, i have today as we sit here very little hope that congress will readdress the sequester when it returns and that is today as we sit here. i expect to be sitting in my

office at midnight sometime during the end of some year in the future possibly voting on a change to that. the point is nothing focus on a mind like hanging and we will be approaching that point at some point in the future. right now, neither party, i think is willing to make the concessi concessions to lift the sequester caps or get rid of it all together. i would note our ranking member adam smith said this clearly and i think i was asked to do this because i look as close to adam smith as anybody else in congress. so we are trying to trick you into thinking i am. i am funnier.

no one gets a carve out. dealing with sequester is about dealing with discreationary and mandatory spending. not just defense, non-defense, or whatever budget. that is the challenge we face. and one is for the heathier long-term process of the federal budget as a whole. >> one more question on this part of the world. congressman thornberry, you mentioned treaty obligations and i know this is a delegate subject especially for government members because explaining how we would do that has downsides. but i would like to ask anything about if we wake up tomorrow and

china takes one of the inhabited islands -- what do we do? and it is coming to you sitting congressman. do we have to have a military response that is symmetric? someone said we would have to kick them off. that is the answer? some could be sanctions and other non-direct but resolute responses. do you have a strongly view on that? >> we need to be clear we will stand by our allies according to the treaties whether it is japan, south korea or whoever. countries need to know the united states is a reliable

friend. newspaper article this morning talked about the military preparing a range of militarily options for a range of possibility and that is what we expect the military to do. do the planning and give policy makes options. until we know the situation i don't think we can say what option is appropriately. i do worry, and i don't mean to shift subsejects, but the slowl ratcheted up sanctions doesn't seem to be working. so it is important to make clear we have the full range of options should a country decide to take some aggressive action. ...

>> should do one thing if another thing happens because there might be also of options to choose from if something happens, and it would not all the military as well. reassuring allies that the trees mean something is important. our treaty allies would probably define exactly what they believe we ought to do as a result of any action. but we may have very different

ideas about what is the most appropriate thing to do which is the negotiation that takes place between the united states and our treaty allies. we have done several things in europe as a for instance to reassure our friends there, deployment to poland, additional deployments to the baltic states. but new sanctions go along with other sanctions. i think they have targeted the right folks. there are not many folks who run russia. they are all friends of the leader there, the president. going after those folks is a great start. it lets the russian leaders know that there is a penalty to them. also, i think the experience of

crimea who might have been a great national thing for russia to do, but so far it has been a disaster for premiums and crimean russians as well where things are hardly run down there right now as a result. there may be a self limiting factor of how the leaders in russia see the rest of the eastern ukraine based on the crimean experience. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. this immense opportunity to talk about this. but of bin. just getting of an airplane and hobbling all over town. they're is a lot to worry about faugh. polls show that americans are increasingly concerned about u.s. foreign policy, what they perceive as growing numbers of challenges and threats, not necessarily in what they perceived but what is coming out

of washington. they're out there saying we have a lot of challenges. of these concerns justified..

at some point her in order to make the investments we need in the future it might make sense for us and not make investments in things we had in the past. it is difficult to do that for a lot of reasons. one of them is congress. they want to of of the things. one of the things i want to point out, be sure that people named about this defense budget.

and big enough for us to maintain and operate. those of our that three things that every member of congress asks. sometimes congress knows the district better than the defense department and have a better feel for the sense that -- the capabilities and commitment that takes place on the ground. but the same token you tend to get wrapped up and preserves thing to about preserve things that may not not to be preserved. it tests. bin and just don't think correct to assume we're not making investments or correct to assume that a bigger budget is a bigger -- better budget. there have been a lot of ways.

but certainly like to see an do a better john upton by completing a clean audit to be spent been well in. there are a lot of things that i think we could do. finally, i don't think the russian president has a concern about our defense budget. he's more concerned with how we will use it today. moi. >> i'm persuaded it is true that we have a greater number of complex threats facing a smell

when than perhaps ever before. you list of a lot of the bill, things around the world as well as new demands of warfare. he did not mention space. al qaeda has not gone away. as a good deal and i and others have testified we have a tremendous number. at the same time under any scenario we have limited resources to deal with those threats. that is a huge part of for a challenge. a dome of a disagree. part of what congress needs to do is get more defense of the money we spend. they're is bipartisan effort to try to do that through reform, cutting overhead.

we absolutely need to do that. on a bipartisan basis working with the pentagon as we go through the regulations that govern acquisition. they're is a lot of work. that is not going to do enough to solve all of those issues. you have to do a lot of reform to get another carrier or refloat -- refuel the one that is halfway through its

of things. again, my point is not that there is magic number. my point is the world is watching. the world has some doubts about us through a series of events. and it sends a clear message when we make clear on a bipartisan basis we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves, interests, and melons that message is important. >> i just want to know, he has not given himself enough credit. he is leaving that.

>> you never worked harder this issue. i second the gratitude. one quick question before we opened it up, the president himself thinks many the spend more on defense. let's just put that aside. he is admitting head there are hundred and 15 extra billion dollars. and so there is a pretty strong statements that it may not be a lot more, but it's probably required. i don't know. perhaps was not true. the politics of grilling the defense budget have changed. in recent years the congress has been going on.

it has become a deal where if you agree it has to grow, the conditions are now an artificial how far wall. it complicates -- it puts all federal prurience of the same level. i personally don't interpret the constitution that was. i don't think it's as important. the protection of the nation's citizens and our way of life. that's what that implies. and so what -- if the president and the defense budget this to grow beyond the levels and were just looking it 2015, how do you get there? does it have to be linked to a discussion about non-defense discretionary?

>> as i say, for fiscal year 2015 the number is set. were talking about beyond that. i could probably give you a more informed election result. if they're right and there's a decent chance that the senate switch's hands that could change the dynamics. but i think, like you, i believe the first church of the federal bear bryant is to defend the country. but i do think you can make a pretty good case with the return of about medical research or over are ready if things that in the domestic discretionary area their areas affected use saugh while additional funding. bottom line is, two-thirds of our budget is entitlements.

and so that -- and that is true of -- regardless of how this a mix to the of the election comes around. we have to begin to reform entitlements. another thing i would add is we have to keep in mind what other folks are doing. i think gorgeous saw a number, maybe you all did an estimate that russian defense spending has increased roughly 80%, china's defense budget is growing. it is not just like this is all about us. we have to see what is happening in the world. out in the world of the defense budgets are growing and of the threats are growing. >> i would challenge anyone to go ask a homeless veteran in my

district using the program, a combination of vouchers to get housing along with supportive housing services to help them deal with a pro, the core reasons for the homeless bonds. so the issue of whether it's a $1 for $1 or one for two or two for one, the point is, there are important things we tried to do in the budget and have a direct impact on people we represent. before going to look good numbers of of what other countries are doing we should look at what the basic research in universities are. i think of what we have tried to do historically hand especially have to world war ii from a federal government perspective is we doug volt and poured the

foundation really well. and then the market takes it from there. so this foundational thing, basic research, medical research , we have generally done well. we have a gun away from the fresh variety of reasons. but we have gotten away from that well of the countries of not. we continue to be the foundation of things the set themselves up for better economic growth than the united states will be able have. for originally they are not doing very well. it's actually on a downward slide. five to 6 percent growth is not really all that great. so if we do coloristic to our

basics, fundamentals, i think will do all right. >> we ask you wait for a microphone and identify yourself we will take to lead a time. we will start over here. >> thank you. the implications of the advances in commercial i t. and the wonder if he could tell us a little bit more detail about plans for the acquisition, reform, thinking about acquisition and how that may play out. >> congressman, first of like to think you.

thank you for everything you have done. the total bipartisan support. one of the questions i have his priorities. it was about a year ago. he made the point, as much of the support iran, i go back to my district and constituents. what they want to hear about of problems of social security, medicare. basically what's happening to the department of defense. >> briefly on acquisition reform of of spend too much time. as i said, this is ben tried a number of times before. what makes you think this will be in a different.

a couple of answers is number one it is completely bipartisan. the pentagon and congress. we have reached a point where everybody agrees that the system not only costs more money but is too slow. we have information that china's economic ravish it every six months. that think there is an imperative given the budget issues we have been talking about and the state of play to do better. i t is a terrific example. if you think about how quickly technology changes it is inevitable that by the time the government procure something it is out of date.

so part of our challenge is listening to ideas about what we can do. maybe we need pilot programs. there are a number of ideas coming in. if we can identify up to about would be next year : 01 that says start in that a 2000 page bill when. a lot of it is not necessarily legislation. working with the pentagon him through the regulations which is going. there are a number of aspects. we don't need another oversight office or law. we have to look deeper at the incentives.

>> it is true why and our country feel relatively safe you worry more about the things that affect your life and that jobs in the economy. i do think part of our job as leaders in is to remind people about the fundamentals of what it takes to keep the greatest of last august, freest country so that we can all worry about their kids' education and the of the things to occupy our daily lives. if the fundamental aspect of that. there were talking about counterinsurgency. may be true a security is only 10 percent of the solution was, but if you don't have that the rest of what you're trying to do

is going to be worthless. and so part of our job as leaders is to help remind people whom and educate people who knew about the multitude of france that we face. it's challenging. with the median naturally does is focus on one intensively and then forget about the first one and go to a third. so some keeping with so many things that play, keeping that brought range of challenges is a big part of the challenge that we face. >> commercial like tea and acquisitions. one area that i no will be discussed as we come up to this market than his the idea of cloud and they use of cloud competing in information storage and the conflict that exists

between the department of defense controlling that when we . a much less extensively. the conflict exists because the department of defense would argue that they need to have that, the highest security possible. as a result that sets up hurdles like a record. that same principle applies in other parts of the service, services as well. we have to find a way. we have to get around it. the. >> story about a trip to china.

, the question him about where in -- he represented. what you need to understand is they go home to their districts. if we are hearing yet home or not hearing certain things, that's what gives our interest first and foremost. if we are not hearing the deal, it tends to have an impact. on the flip side of that, we have to sift through a lot of

this knowing of some of this stuff is the same because all the e-mails of the same. we have to sit through that. also as well, something is going wrong, and it is not with congress when the major security issue here at home is a concern that folks have all of the nsa as opposed to anything else which is not their fault, i would argue. debt is some of the kinds of things you hear in your home. >> okay. the third row. and then the woman in the far back, just to set that one about [inaudible question]

will there be any change at all? >> and in the back please. >> hello. thank you very much for being here. it my question has to do with department of defense auditing. how do we empower those in the department of defense responsible for this herculean task that is supposed to be on track for 2017? how do we empower and support them over these next years to ensure that they have the good will that they need to get this job done? >> let's start with -- -- in russia i don't know that i have any more to say about it. i think that nato deployments are an important signal to our nato allies and, i assume, to russia that the nato alliance is important to us and our nato

partners. and that they do need to consider that. i think that that nonlethal aid and financial support for ukraine is important and the eu needs to, if they can to move faster. i think right nobody there is only one way you claim this government is headed, and that is west. not sure russia. as well they're not asking for my advice, and it would not give it to them, with a time the poor russian separatists in ukraine can take hostages that only helps the united states in the west. it shows us how, you know, al uncoordinated, and mature, and reactionary those folks are. and i cannot imagine that russia sees that as a positive either.

we need to a listen to public opinion, frankly in my view, in order to move changed on the ground. >> on russia i think it is a big deal. at think it is a major change. most of us, and i would not accept -- accept myself had basically in our minds, the cold war is over. we don't have to worry about that anymore. the brazenness of this aggression, similar to tactics we have seen in history. i think it is somewhat startling. and so one conclusion one could draw is that it expands the range of military options for which we have to be prepared. and maybe we thought certain

kinds of conflict or in the past and we did not mean that stuff, but maybe that is not true. budgets as we prepare for everything, you know, from relatively low level ground to cyber and space and, you know, all these things in between. i think it just adds to the complexity, the number of national security challenges we face. i think it is a pretty big deal, and i don't think things will go back to a way that it was anytime soon. on long in congress for -- we are in need of action.

the stories today about ammunition being wasted because we cannot keep track of what we have or when we got it is just another example of. so it -- i don't know. i get pretty frustrated. we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago again on trying to get the department of defense medical records to talk to the department of veterans affairs medical records. the country has got to have electronic medical records that are compatible, portable, and yet billions of dollars, years and years are required to get one department of the government to talk to another. it is just unbelievable. the frustration when you talk to members about auditing and about other changes, i know they are hard, still we have got to figure out away to cut through this stuff, even if it means get outside of government to find those answers. >> effective follow-up, we

talked about some of the broader u.s. responses, sanctions issue, deployment issue. at what point is there a case for rethinking u.s. permanent force posture in europe? at what point we think about either adding a brigade or to back to germany or putting battalions in the baltic states or something else, or is that not even an option you feel we need to start thinking direct this states? >> first of all, let me clarify. i am not encouraging more to be taken into custody. it happens to play in the favor of the west. to clarify that for those taking notes, but i don't know that it is too early to talk about that. it is a good discussion to have, but it probably would not -- you know, if we use the model of the past in germany as much as they would be in the baltics and poland. they would be in this states

that are next -- as close to russia as possible. and i think that actions and decisions that the leaders in russia are making, they are only doing one thing in congress and that is creating this conversation. a conversation they know that russia does not want to have immobile we are going to have it i am ready to talk about it. i think that we have to. going back to the previous question about what are the implications of what is happening in the ukraine, part of it is, is nato worth anything or not? what is it going to amount to? so what is the purpose and value of that alliance at this point when meets this situation, which is what it was created for. and so i think a lot of

soul-searching needs to take place on the part of our european allies and others about how we stick together and meet this kind of brazen aggression. >> thank you. >> here in the front row. the gentleman in the front row. >> thank you, congressman. i thank you for your bipartisanship. it is much needed, and you have emphasized that after your recent trip to china still thinking that the u.s. is in decline and they are rising and they is rising more attention which affect our security, job market, people at home. so i am asking both of you if you would bipartisan the help from the house to give our strong message so that the u.s. can say we emphasize flow lee on

the rules of law, especially in the case of the south china sea and everything involved. you talk about our responsibility. as a global leader we also should be accountable for international law, the rule of law. that means that for countries that are not our ally, we still need to hold other powers accountable to observe international law. that is the case in russia and crimea, and i hope that would apply to china if china is causing -- using some other form , invading small countries like vietnam, laos, or cambodia. i hope that you would make it clear that any country, not just allies, by its very important,

especially looking up to u.s. leaders so that they can solidify and form a group partnership with the u.s. so would use some help from the house up to the senate from congress look get a clear statement, maybe a statement to clearly define the global leaders of the u.s. in the rule of law and respect all rising power to observe it. >> let's go here. one more, and then we will -- >> yes. [inaudible] very educated discussion for me. my question is inevitably a different but also very clear. it will have an impact on china, on the region. u.s. aid forces and nato forces are honoring the drawdown from

afghanistan. and to -- if it does not work, if it collapses because. [inaudible] very high at this time. it is the u.s. have a contingency plan on how to deal with the implications? and many countries which the u.s. is leaving behind what will you do with the administration about it? >> we cannot quite hear you, but i ask you to wrap up. >> thank you. >> i will just say, majority leader cantor and others made it very clear in all of our

meetings that we expect any territorial disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with an international rules-based system. and i don't -- it was very explicit. it was in every meeting. that message that you talked about applying to all countries was made very clear. you know, on afghanistan obviously now we are having the 1-off for the presidential election. i very much hope and trust that the united states will continue to have a presence after december of this year. i think it is important for us to be there to continue to provide support of various kinds for a -- the security situation where the afghans themselves are taking the lead, but i think it would be a terrible mistake for situation to get to the point

where we have a complete withdrawal. i think it would increase the dangers tests. it would increase the dangers to pakistan. it would increase the problems that many countries face. so i hope we're going to have a continuing presence, and i think we should. ..

easier to go back home and say, there's an agreement, it protects us, we get to do our job, but we also need to continue, as mack noted, continue the investment and that afghan national security forces taking control on behalf of their civilian government of their open -- their own security because we can't and won't be afghan's long-term surrogate army, we just won't. but i'm hopeful that both folks in the runoff maintain that commitment they made to sign it. on your point, i'll make two opinions. one, fully agree with mac. it's not just friends and allies. everywhere at region, we want things settledded diplomatically

and so on. i will make one correction. the house never sends things up to the senate. we send them over to the senate. [laughter] >> one last round of questions here as we wrap up. thank you for that. we'll go to these two gentlemen in rows four and five. one right in front of the other. and then conclude. >> good afternoon. my name is ali sharaz. i am from afghanistan and also the united states of america. i'm the president of the national coalition for dialogue with the tribes of afghanistan. i have been involved in afghanistan's affairs for over 30 years. i'm the last 11 years of my life has been spent in afghanistan working with the tribes. i was -- i'm quite happy to hear the united states is again trying to -- will take a position of strength in the world to show the world day are

the leader. i know it's a very difficult job few you and i know you do not have to share the burden of the whole responsibility. you will have friends around the world to support you, but the friends have to know you're there to stand by them. the problem in afghanistan, gentlemen, -- >> has to be a question. we have two left. >> we have established a army are inia. nato and the united states are leaving afghanistan within the year. the afghan acknowledge army has been left peppyless and armless, the only material, the arm they have, are the -- >> question. >> we would like to know, what type of equipment are you going to leave the afghan military with so thigh can defend themselves against invaders, to defend a mountainous region like afghanistan. we don't have tanks or

helicopters or the right equipment. >> pass the microphone to the gentleman behind you. >> hi. i'm peter, a student. i came over from ciss to be here. i'd like to know a long-term question about education. a lot of americans don't know a lot about history, international history, things like empires declining or isolationism or expansionism. isn't there the problem with the formation of american public american, americans don't think that what happens overseas is important, don't have the sense they're in an empire that could go either way? isn't it dangerous for americans not to know enough about history because they can't tell their congressman, their senator, not going to be able to make informed decisions about things like national security or not

going to be able to make the right sacrifices, not going to be prepared to think about foreign policy. in the right sort of way. and this is a serious problem. >> thank you. >> i talked to -- >> the question is clear. want to keep things moving. canningman larsen, over to you. >> yes and no. the 675,000 people i represent are pretty busy in their lives rooking now. getting up in the morning, making sure the kids get to school, and getting lunch made for them if they're going to school, or paying for college, going to work, and to add this to their list is their choice. not my choice to add to their list, and so i can't expect everybody that i have an honor to represent to know everything that they -- i think they ought to know. in fact that's like a recipe for

not being able to represent them anymore. i tell them their job, their job is telling me my job. my job is to impart filter that a little bit and get other context to it. most folks will respect a member of congress who fought through issues they haven't been able to think through so lock as the member gets back them and pain and why they did x, y, or z. so we have a responsibility towards our folks first, and before they have the responsibility to come up with an idea that is well thought out as you might find in an academic paper because you're not going to find that. folks are busy living their lives and we have to be responsive to that first in my view. and next we can help explain why we are doing the things we do, or might do the things we want to do, and get their feedback as well. >> the afghanistan question.

>> on afghanistan question, i agree that it is important for us to ensure that the afghan security forces have the weaponry and the equipment that is appropriate for their circumstances. and i think we're doing some of that. we're buying some russian aircraft, for example, for them. we will leave some -- and that's controversial, by the way. and we will leave them some of the equipment we have. it may not be everything that they want, but those are part of the discussions -- i think the bottom line is, we must be -- i think we are -- absolutely committed to doing whatever we took support the afghan security forces be able to take care hoff the security needs of afghanistan, and whether that's training, equipment, whatever, we need to be there to assist them. that's in our national interests. i completely agree on history,

and we have -- are not as good as we should be, and educating folks about what has happened in the past. the only thing i would add, i am continually struck by how globally interconnected this world is, and so part of this is generational. again, just coming back from china, and going through all of the economic interconnections between us and china, which we really haven't talked as much about today. we focused on security and mentioned trade. but there's a whole other dimension to that relationship that also plays in. and i think that is not exclusive to china. it is true around the world. so, while i agree with you on history, i think that the interconnectedness of our world today is truly astounding when

you start to go through step-by-step. some of that may be slightly a double-edged sword about it is reality and it's only going to grow more so. >> one final point on that. just to give you a flavor of maybe how public opinion is shaped or changes. in china, three weeks ago when i was there, we met with the number three -- chairman jong, and his staff came up to us, number one question on their mice. is "the house of cards" really reflective of congress and the american political system? so, our culture is inculcating china, so they care less about what wear really like and how we are on tv. we may be undercutting their view of history as well. >> you can see what they're

really look is pretty good and we're grateful to have had them today. so please join me in thanking the congressmen. [applause] [inaudible conversations] coming up, chris van hollen discussing campaign finance rules. then vice president joe biden speaking to students at george washington university about the budget. and an examination of internet privacy issues. our guests on the next

washington journal includes republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin to discuss his lawsuit against the obama administration challenging the legality of federal contributions to the health care plans of congress members and their staffers. we're joined by the president and ceo of the center for global policy solutions to talk about the center's meeting this week to address a racial wealth gap in the u.s. we cover technology issues on the hill. we will take your questions bat proposed fcc regular laying that would allow broadband providers to charge fees for fast are delivery of video and other data. we're live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

where at the summit, utah, and national historic site. i'm walking you over to where the transcontinental railroad was completed. this spot right here marked by this tie is within inches of where the original ceremony was held may 10, 1869. the post you see next to it, it was actually placed -- when they re-surveyed the exact location as they were establishing the site and getting ready to setting thises up and that is marking pretty much the exact location, within inches, where the original ceremony was held. the only tie, this is a replica

can, last in the san francisco earthquake in fire. items brought out to the ceremony would have been brought by central pacific out of california. included in -- on this tie is a plaque that lists many of the dignitaries from that company, the central pacific in particular, including leland stanford and the big four. when that transcontinental railroad was completed, it made a major impact in the industrial development of this nation and allowed it to grow not only in its economy, in its ability to build within the nation, but also to become more impactful throughout the world. the end of the civil war was also a huge boon in helping to build the country, and then once they were able to settle the other areas, our country was able to -- the united states was able to become a world power.

>> the american enterprise institute haven't a discussion with chris van hollen. he talks about campaign finance and the disclose, a, which is his bill that requires outside organizations disclose their funding sources. his remarks are an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm the president of the american enterprise institute and delighted to welcome you to this event entitled "should anonymous campaign expenditures be allowed? " presented by representative chris van hollen.

he was firth elected to congress in 2002, when he defeated in his primary the man who happens to by my next door neighbor and who voted for him ever since until he was redistricted away from all of news 2012. he is currently the top democrat on the budget committee. he has distinguished himself as a leader and legislator for more than a decade. served in the democratic leadership, including a stint as the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee. most importantly for us, he is smart, serious, thoughtful, and exactly the kennedy of policymaker we like to welcome to aei. the issue we're here to discuss today is the intersection of free speech and the disclosure of contributions to tax-exempt organizations. you may have heard that a year ago we heard one perspective from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and congressman van hollen is here to represent the perspective outlined in his new legislation

on the topic, which i recommend to you for your interests that you read the disclose act. so we're looking forward to his remarks. following his remarks he'll take his own questions and answers. so, please join me in welcoming congressman chris van hollen. >> thank you, arthur. i want to thank aei for the opportunity to join you today, and i want to thank arthur brooks for his strong and innovative leadership here at aei. i have been pleased to join them on several occasions, including two years ago when i joined today withcongressman paul ryan to debate various budget issues. so i want to thank aei for your commitment to the free exchange of ideas which is such a vital part of a free society and strengthens our democracy and our economy. i'm here today not to discuss the budget, but to discuss a matter that goes to the heart of

our democracy, and that is an open and transparent political process. specifically, i want to make the case for a very straightforward proposition, that the public should be informed about who is spending vast sums of money to influence their decision to vote for or against candidates for public office. i can tell you the public believes this information is important. polls consistently show that over 85% of the public agrees that all political contributions and expenditures should be publicly disclosed. and this view is held by over 80% of democrats, republicans, and independents. in addition, while the ultimate decision in supreme courts controversial 2010 citizens united case was a close 5-4 split, eight of the nine justices gave full-throated

support to disclosure, which they said, quote, brings transparency that enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give property weight to different speakers, and messages, unquote. now, that brings me to what i'm not here to talk about. i'm not here to discuss and debate the final decision in that case. i disagreed with the court's ultimate decision in citizens united, but for now it is the law of the land. nor am i here to talk about various campaign finance proposal is think would improve our system. i'm here today to talk about the principle of disclosure, which, until recently, seemed to enjoy strong bipartisan support in the congress. and i especially want to make this appeal here at aei for two reasons. one is your commitment for the free exchange of ideas. and, second, as arthur mentioned, on two occasions the

senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, has used this very podium in june 2012 and then june 2013, to attack the idea that we should fully disclose to the public the sources of campaign expenditures used to try to elect -- to defeat or elect candidates for federal office. and on both occasions in 2012 and 2013, he claimed to be opposing disclosure and transparency in order to protect free speech and the first amendment. here's what senator mcconnell said to you in june 2012, quote the attacks on speech are legion. perhaps the most prominent is the so-called disclose act. he went on to say, quote, perhaps one of the most important thing republicans did in the past few years was to block passage of the disclose

act. senator mcconnell was back at this podium last june making similar statements. he said, and i quote, the disclose act was not really about cleaning up politics. it was really about the left wing, quote, finding a blunt political weapon to use against one group and one group only, conservatives. end quote. that what senator mcconnell said here last year. now, here's why i wanted to talk to you. i am the author of the disclose act that passed the house of representatives in 2010 and the author of a revised version of the disclose act that is pending in the house today. so, i must be that scary lefty that senator mcconnell is talking about, and i'm here to tell you that his analysis, to put it diplomatically, is a bunch of nonsense. and i really hope that many of you in this room, regardless of

your political persuasion, and those who are watching, can help get us back to a time that the bipartisan consensus that exists around the country on this issue well re-emerge on capitol hill. and who better to cite for my own position today than senator mcconnell himself. not the senator mcconnell of 2012 and 2013. here at aei. but the senator mcconnell who spoke to the nation on "meet the press" in the year 2,000 and it's important to-under context of his statements at that time. the senate had just voted on june 9th, 2000, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 92-6, to require groups organized under 527 of the tax code to publicly disclose their political expend deb --

expenditures on behalf of candidates. 527s include all political action committees and currently include what are northern as superpacs. now, senator mcconnell was one of the six to vote against that 527 disclosure, but he justified his opposition on the grounds that the disclosure requirement did not extend to more groups. here's what senator mcconnell said on "meet the press" nine days after that senate vote, quote: he mentions -- he mentions the senate vote, and said that if you're going to require disclosure, quote, it needs to be meaningful disclosure. 527s are just a handful of groups. we need to have real disclosure. and so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions

and tax-exempt business associations so you include the major political players in america. why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure, he asked, on "meet the press." indeed, why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure. i agree with what senator mcconnell said, and the american people agree, and that is what the disclose act does. it calls for disclosure not just by 527s, but by the other groups senator mcconnell said should be included. now, since his statement on "meet the press." senator mcconnell has totally flip-flopped on disclosure. he has gone from saying we need more disclosure, to arguing that more disclosure is some left-wing conspiracy to end free speech. he led the filibuster that blocked the vote on the senate version of the disclose act in

2010. 59 senators voted to proceed with the vote. but it was blocked by senator mcconnell and a minority of 41 senators. since then, i have introduced revised versions of the disclose act in both the last congress and this congress, that address some of the concerns that senator mcconnell had earlier raised. but his opposition to transparency and disclosure has only hardened. let's look at the objections of senator mcconnell raised here at i over the last two years. first, he argued that the disclose act requires disclosure on a selective basis. that it requires disclosure only from conservative and republican-leaning groups and not liberal or democratic affiliated groups. that's simply untrue. i have here in my hand a copy of the disclose act i've introduced in the house of representatives,

and i challenge senator mcconnell or anybody else to show me where it selectively targets conservative groups. this bill requires disclosure by all groups spending money to elect or defeat candidates, regardless of their political leaning. and i invite senator mcconnell to suggest any changes he thinks are necessary to ensure that it applies in a uniform manner. i don't expect the phone to ring. i don't expect to get a call from the senator anytime soon. and that is because the claim of selectivity is a redding her. the real electrictivity problem is the one senator mcconnell raised in 2000 on "meet the press" when he said we shouldn't selectively limit disclosure to 527s. the disclose sure requirement should apply more broadly. remember, he said why would a little disclosure be better than

a lot of disclosure, and the disclose act says exactly what he recommended. expands difference closure beyond 527s to other groups. second, senator mcconnell says he now opposes disclosure because it will hurt our democracy and undermine free speech by exposing people who spend money in elections to -- in election campaigns to such awful harassment i effectively denies them their first amendment right to free speech. and in his speech here at aei ex-urged all of you to read justice thomas' partial defense in citizens united on this very matter in doing so, senator mcconnell failed to disclose that all of the other eight justices, in citizens united, rejected that argument. and that the supreme court has already developed mechanisms to

address cases of extreme and demonstrable oppression. the supreme court in cases ranging from buckley very chalet hoe, to citizens united to the recent mcchurch con case, have reheat -- repeatedly argued disclosure advances public interest and the court rejected the arguments put forward by senator mcconnell and justice thomas. the courts have put forward three main arguments in favor of disclosure. one, the public interest in knowing who is spending money to try to influence their votes. two, that transparency serves an important anticorruption interest, and, three, that disclosure helps to enforce other campaign finance laws like the prohibition on foreigners or

foreign owned corporations spending money in u.s. elections. here's what the sprem court said in buckley with respect to disclosure of both direct contributions to campaigns and independent expenditures. i quote: disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. a public armed with information about a candidate's most generous supporters is better able to detect any postelection special favors that may be given in return. in citizens united, eight of the nine supreme court justices, including justices roberts, kennedy, scalia, and alito, found that disclosure requirements for independent spending groups, quote, do not prevent anyone from speaking, end quote, and serve the

important public interest of, quote, providing the electorate with information about elected related spending sources, end quote. they said, this -- again i quote -- allows voters to make informed decisions in the political marketplace. as aeis norm -- it is clear from justice kennedy's opinion that disclosure was a key factor in unlocking the rest of the citizens united decision. ment...

that was eight at supreme court justices. those are the big left-wingers company in the benefits of disclosure and transparency. if you look at the recent mccutcheon case the court again ran for and accordance of disclosure citing their early precedent. now in the decision this court has addressed the specific concerns raised by justice thomas. justice thomas observed in 1958 case the court declared that alabs