congress to examine and weigh in on an agreement. there is no requirement that the president certify iran as complying. and there is really no expedited procedures for congress to rapidly reimpose sanctions should iran cheat. so in summary no bill, no review. no bill, no oversight. i think the american people want the united states senate and the house of representatives on their behalf to ensure that iran is accountable that this is a transparent process and that they comply. and with that, i can see that the presiding officer wants to move ahead. again i want to thank our ranking member for his distinguished senator and to all of my colleagues who have brought us to this moment, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close

debate on the corker amendment numbered 1140 to h.r. 1191, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the substitute amendment number 1140 offered by the senator from tennessee, mr. corker, to h.r. 1191 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

34 vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 93, the nays are 6. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having

voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. under the previous order amendment numbers 1155, 1186 as modified 1197 and 1198 fall as they are not germane. amendment number 1179 is withdrawn. amendment 1219 is agreed to. and the substitute amendment number 1140 as amended is agreed to. the cloture motion on h.r. 1191 is withdrawn and the clerk will read the title of the bill as amended for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 30, h.r. 1191, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on h.r. 1191

as amended. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 98, the nays are 1. the bill as amended is passed.

mr. corker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the title amendment which is at the desk to h.r. 1191 be considered and agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president could we have order? the presiding officer: order in the chamber. order in the chamber. please take your conversations outside. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you mr. president. mr. president, before he leaves the floor let me just offer my congratulations to the senator from tennessee and the senator from maryland who have shepherded this piece of legislation, this important piece of legislation the iran nuclear agreement review act across the senate floor. i think we're all reminded every time we take up some consensus

legislation and find all the traps and obstacles to passage that this is not an easy process, but it was not designed to be easy. it was designed to force consensus before a bill actually is passed into law and thanks to the patience and the tenacity of our colleague from tennessee and our colleague from maryland, we have done that today. that. this legislation guarantees that congress will have the opportunity and the time to scrutinize any agreement reached between the administration and the p-5 plus 1 nations with regard to iran's nuclear program. this is to my mind the single greatest threat, not only to regional peace but to world peace, and that is the prospect of an iranian nuclear program a nuclear weapon. this bill prohibits the president from lifting sanctions that congress has worked on for so long during this period of time.

that's another important feature. but the most important part, i believe, of this is the fact that congress will have the right to vote for or against any change in the status quo when it comes to iran. this bill will serve as a congressional check if there is a bad deal with iran, and it will allow the american people, through their elected representatives, to carefully consider whether this potential agreement is a good one. now, i have been amazed to read in the newspaper and see on tv that the president has negotiated a deal. well when you ask to read the deal you find out there is no deal. there is a so-called framework but if a deal is reached between our negotiating team negotiating with iran and the p-5 plus 1 countries, then congress will have an opportunity and through

us the american people will have the opportunity to read it and to understand it, and we will have the opportunity then to debate it. and as i said, we will have the opportunity then to vote up or down on this deal once a deal is struck, if a deal is struck. but i wonder sometimes about the naivete of the administration when it comes to negotiating with the world's foremost state sponsor of international terrorism. this is a country -- this is a regime i should say that has been killing americans mainly by proxy since the early 1980's, and, of course, we should not and we cannot trust iran to do the right thing. but it makes it even more necessary for congress to put all aspects of any deal under a microscope as we will. while the president has been negotiating this vague and

convoluted framework the iranian regime has done nothing to earn the trust of the american people or our allies. just the opposite is true. iran has only proven that it is untrustworthy and that it will stop at nothing to further its influence throughout the middle east at the expense of the united states and our allies. now, you don't have to look any further than "the new york times" to find a relevant example of iran's doublespeak speaking out of both sides of its mouth. just last month at a "new york times" op-ed iran's foreign minister argued that the united states and the p-5 plus 1 countries should reach a final agreement in order to promote the stability and security of the region. the foreign minister, muhammad zarif, wrote of the need for and i quote a regional dialogue to promote understanding on a broad spectrum of issues, among them ensuring the free flow of navigation and the free flow of

oil and other resources. well this article proves that to think we can negotiate with iran in good faith is pure fiction. just this last week, it was reported that the united states navy warships have had to accompany british and american commercial vessels through the straight of hormuz, an -- the strait of hormuz, an internationally recognized shipping lane that links the indian ocean and the persian gulf after the iranian navy seized a vessel last week. and reports of another shuffle between the united states and iran was reported yesterday just off the coast of yemen. so is this how iran has been working to ensure freedom of navigation in this region? well of course this is just one example of iran's most recent deceptive tactics. and this is the kind of regime that's been, as i said, on our state department's lead state or sponsor of terrorism since 1984, and now the obama administration

seeks to cut a deal with the regime. a country that publicly admits wanting to destroy israel and to build its empire and influence in places like war-torn syria and iraq. mr. president, the obama administration's framework does nothing to hold iran accountable for its proxy wars or this type of regional adventurism and even more concerning, this ambiguous understanding that the president released last month would abandon long-standing u.s. policy of preventing a nuclear armed iran and replace it with a feeble plan to contain it. i remember as the presiding officer no doubt remembers prime minister netanyahu was just here a few weeks ago and he said rather than prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, this framework would pave the path toward a nuclear iran.

well the deal also forces the american people to trust the iranian leadership with threshold nuclear capabilities without allowing for adequate inspections of all of iran's nuclear sites by international agencies both civilian and military. this is unacceptable and dangerous, and it also underscores why this legislation that we've just passed is so important. this legislation is vitally important because it is a congressional back stop against an iranian regime that is well known for its lies and international deception guaranteeing the time and the opportunity for congress to scrutinize this misguided deal is essential and providing the american people with the kind of transparency that they deserve and understanding what has been negotiated on their behalf is absolutely critical. america's elected representatives -- that would be us -- must be able to get any and every detail on this emerging deal. that's one reason why i think

this legislation is so important. and we need the time and space to review it. this bill provides for that, and it gives us an opportunity to understand its terms and debate its implications. so i encourage -- i'm encouraged by the vote that we just had a near-unanimous vote on this legislation. this is important because this president has shown a predisposition to try to go it alone, not only in foreign affairs or national security matters but on immigration health care and the like, and it's past time for congress to stand up and tell the president mr. president, you cannot act alone. our constitution contemplates three co-equal branches of government and congress on behalf of the american people cannot be frozen out of the debate and the decisionmaking when it comes to something so important as an iranian nuclear

negotiation. thank you mr. president. i don't see -- i do see another senator ready to speak and i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you mr. president. today is the national day of prayer. it's a day where we as a nation have an opportunity to simply get on our knees and ask god for divine intervention, ask the lord for help. our nation is indeed an amazing nation a great nation, a nation with a destiny. i think it's important for us to take the time to remind ourselves that a part of the foundation of this great nation is a foundation of faith. and as i think about that foundation of faith and the need for prayer, it's hard not to remember that the last year has proven to be a difficult time for low-income communities and minority communities throughout this country. it is time for us to have a national conversation about

solving some of the problems that we see arising in communities around the nation, whether those communities are in ferguson baltimore ohio, oklahoma or in my hometown of north charleston, south carolina. finding solutions is critical. i believe that a part of the puzzle includes body cameras body-worn cameras by our officers. now, body cameras are simply not a panacea but it is a part of a larger puzzle to provide solutions to communities that are distressed. i know firsthand that the solutions in my opportunity agenda they work. as a kid growing up in a single-parent household i drifted in the wrong direction. i struggled in school. i had a difficult time. i was the hopeless kid in a challenging situation. and i will tell you that as i look around the nation, many of the challenges that we see today

are kids like me growing up in places like i grew up, looking for hope, looking for leadership. i believe that embedded in my opportunity agenda, we have some of the solutions that can help heal and restore as well as direct and instruct these communities into places of hope and opportunity. i believe that so often we see impoverished communities distressed communities as high-risk communities. i prefer to see them as high- potential communities communities where greatness breeds lives. we just need to find an avenue to harness the potential and move it forward. i'm hopeful that as we focus on the issues that are embedded in the opportunity agenda, issues like education and i mean a quality education in every zip code in america that we should

have high-performing schools in those zip codes and that includes school choice, whether it's charter or virtual or home schools or public schools. we need to have a serious and robust conversation about school choice. work skills, so important. and so many -- in so many of these communities the unemployment rate is over 30%. 30% unemployment rate. we can challenge those statistics by looking at the work skills and also looking at apprenticeship programs where you can earn and learn at the exact same time. we are breathing new hope into these communities. i also think that as we think about the future, we must think about the chance to save the future of so many of these young kids who may be losing hope in our country who may be losing hope in their communities and

perhaps losing hope in themselves. we have a chance to make a difference in this next generation. i want to thank senator grassley our chairman of the judiciary committee along with senator graham, the subcommittee chair for agreeing to hold a hearing on the use of body cameras in the next few weeks. i believe that the hearing on body cameras will produce important information on how we can deal with some of the challenges and some of -- in off our distressed communities. i believe we can find ways to restore hope and create opportunities for every single child in america. thank you. mr. president, i note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

overwhelm quorum call quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period for morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that s. con. res. 16 submitted earlier today be placed on the calendar and that at 5:00 pl on mammogram p.m., monday,

may 11, the senate proceed to s. con. res. 16, there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form and the senate vote on the adoption of the resolution, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that is not withstandening the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, the cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314 occur at 2:30 p.m. tuesday may 12. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now,man i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 175 134eu9ed earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 175, recognizing the roles and contributions of the teachers of the united states and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate shall proceed with the measure.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. montana tai, may 11. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a pored of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, senators should expect a vote in relation to s. con. res. 16 at 5:30 p.m. on monday. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senators cotton and carper. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call will be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cotton: fellow members today i recognize a distinguished american hero, lieutenant colonel robert l. height of camden, arkansas, who died last month at the age of 95. just months after the attack on pearl harbor on december 7

1941, a group of courageous young pilots flew army air force bombers over the pacific ocean to carry out a dangerous low altitude bombing attack on japan's islands. the do-little raid provided an enormous morale boost for americans with a crushing blow to the imperial regime in tokyo. among these brave men was an arkansan colonel robert l. height. colonel height enlisted as an aviation cadet in 1940, later commissioned as a second lieutenant and as a pilot on may 9, 1941, almost bumped from the mission because of space limitation fs assigned to the b-25 bat out of hell. he rejected fellow airmen's attempts to buy his spot on the plane and lost his mission on april 18, 1942. colonel height's aircraft carried out a low-level bombing run on an aircraft factory on a field dep poe in japan but

weather forced the crew to bail out as their plane ran low on fuel. he landed in a japanese rice paddy where he was captured and sentenced to execution. he served 40 months in a prison, 38 in solitairey confinement. following v.j. day colonel hite was freed on august 20 1945. he returned home and married his first wife one year later. colonel hite later returned to active service training pilots overseas during the korean war from 1951-1955. after leaving active duty, he and his wife moved home to camden arkansas, where hening managed the camden hotel until 1965. colonel hite was widowed in 1999 and later married his late wife dorothy. he is survived by two children, five grandchildren seven great grandchildren and two great great grandchildren. on april 18, just two weeks

after his death and the 73rd anniversary of the doolittle raid, colonel hite and his fellow soldiers were posthumously awarded the gold medal of honor. arkansans young and old and all americans can appreciate colonel hite's service to his family, his community and his nation, a fine example for us all to emulate. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. sessions: mr. president i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection so ordered. mr. sessions: i would consent i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president we'll be dealing soon, i guess next week, with the trade promotion authority and the

trans-pacific partnership trade agreement, the t.p.p. and conventional wisdom is trade agreements are good, we should just move them forward let's have an expedited fast track process that's a fast track agreement, t.p.a., and get this thing done and it's going to work out good for the american people. but in truth i have to say since i voted for every since i've been here, except one that data doesn't give us as much confidence that a loosely drawn or improperly drawn agreement is going to help us. in fact, evidence can indicate that it's not helping us. and it's not helping the economy in the united states, it's not helping growth and some of these agreements have clearly

exacerbateed our trade deficit. so it's a remarkable thing and we want to believe in trade and i do, but the united states has interests. our trading partners have interests. and our trading partners are far more mercantilist far more focused on increasing exports to foreign countries -- to the biggest market in the world the united states -- and far more focused on blocking imports that would compete against locally manufactured products than the united states has been. and some say well, this is not a problem, the united states is smarter in the long run. but i just got to say i'm looking at this more carefully now. i voted for the korean agreement. our korean allies are good people it's a great country

it's achieved so much after the korean war and we're proud of them and we have many positive relationships and a fabbous hundai automobile plant in our state. hires thousands and they have suppliers that add thousands of jobs also. so what about that agreement? i supported it. i thought it was a good agreement. it passed here i think with a substantial vote. but when you look at it, it didn't work out as well as people said. the u.s. federal trade commission our own trade commission said it would -- they estimated that the reduction of korean tariffs against our exports to korea and tariff rate quotas on goods alone will have add $10 billion to $12 billion to annual gross domestic product and around $10 billion to annual merchandise exports to korea.

we'd add $10 billion. well last year we didn't export $10 billion. we exported less than 1 to korea, $.8 billion. so that's a very huge difference. while at the same time korea's imports to the united states surged and the trade deficit the united states had with korea which was large is -- it's almost doubled in that time. so mr. president i appreciate the complexity of the issue and want to talk about -- i see my colleague the senator from delaware and i know he had asked for time and i got in ahead of him here and i didn't have time set aside for myself,

so maybe i would at this point note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? i request the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i appreciate senator carper. i know he had asked for time now so i'll yield for his remarks. mr. carper: --. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i want to thank my colleague for his graciousness. i told him i was going to only speak about ten minutes. it's really 10 hours -- no, it's ten minutes. i appreciate his kindness. mr. president, i rise today on the senate floor to recognize

the efforts of many of our nation's public servants. since i believe 1985 the very first week of may has been dedicated to highlighting the millions of hardworking americans who serve our nation as federal employees state employees, county, local government employees and members of the union formed services which i was privileged to be one u.s. navy, for some 23 years. this week marks the 30th annual public service recognition week. number 30. and serves as an important opportunity for those of us here in the senate to show our appreciation for their dedication and service to our communities and to our nation. throughout my time in public office mr. president including during my time on the homeland and government affairs committee which i've been a member of now about 14 years and chaired it for the last two, but i've had the great pleasure of meeting with any number of dead kited and accomplished public servants. in talking with them, i've been

able to learn more about their work their families, learn more about their commitment to public service that they share with all of us. today i'd like to take a couple of minutes to highlight the outstanding service of some of our public service across our federal government. and these cases are extraordinary service has directly impacted the lives of americans that they serve. in fact, the two individuals i plan to highlight today are finalists for something called the samuel j. heyman medals that are awarded each year. as you know, on october 29, 2012 you may know, at least we know in delaware and new jersey and new york, on october 29 2012, superstorm sandy made landfall in the united states. its impact up and down the east coast was in a word devastating. in another word, it was

heartbreaking. new york, new jersey were hit hard. my home state of delaware was hit hard, too. widespread flooding caused damage to homes and businesses. our transportation infrastructure suffered, too. roads and bridges were washed out, cutting off access to hospitals, access to schools access to work. what we learned through the difficult recovery that followed is that sound and effective mitigation policies should be thoroughly incorporated into any recovery effort. through mitigation we can get better results save money and save lives. following superstorm sandy congress passed almost an $11 billion special transportation appropriations bill a large portion of that funding, roughly a third of it, $3.6 billion was to be used for something called resilience grants dedicated to protecting the infrastructure repaired after sandy.

a fellow named adam shilz federal seniorage sift was a key player in developing and implementing and managing a competitive grant program to distribute those $3.6 billion resilience -- in resilience funds. those grants supported construction projects. they will also real estate duce the numbers of lives and properties lost from powerful natural disasters. as you can imagine the task assigned to -- thrtion a damn right here, adam shilz. the task assigned to dam assign adam was not an easy one. his mission was to identify projects that if funded would get better results save money and save lives. in order to determine what projects should receive funding

adam meticulously combed through grant application after grant application to assess the resile yens of planned infrastructure projects. when i think of resill yearnings i think about how do we save money in the future. and in any event we have a storm of that nature again -- and believe me we will. because of adam's attention to detail eye for innovation and dedication to lives at stake during future storms, adam was able to grant funding to transportation projects that will serve all americans for generations to come and to endure the force of extreme weather. according to a adam, he took a position in public service because it was -- this is his words -- "the greatest opportunity to impact communities." he said, "i've always known i wanted to work for the public good and i found a good way now to give back to communities across the country."

those are his words. our nation's public servants are making a difference across the globe, too and as you may remember less than a year ago deadly epidemic of the ebola virus gripped sierra leone, new guinea and malley. the severity and scale of the outbreak was an unprecedented challenge to the worldwide health community. the rapid spread of the out break remind the us that deadly and infectious diseases know no borders. it also sent us an important re-miewrnd to remember the parable of the good samaritan that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. jeff -- my friend, senator sessions over there knows the bible pretty wsm he recalls in the new testament where some of the -- i think it was the pharisees was trying to trick up jesus. they asked him a question. he they said, what is the greatest commandment of all.

and jesus responded there's not just one there's twovment the first is to love god with all my heart, soul. the other is to love my neighbor as myself. the pharisee says, who is my neighbor? he told them the parable of the good samaritan. this story goes back a couple thousands years. thousands of public servants were dispatched to battle ebola on the ground in africa. a woman named miabears was one of those courageous public servants. as a division director for the global engagement division, mia led the u.s. ebola disaster assistance response team into the epicenter of the especially dimmic in monrovia liberia. on the ground mia synchronized the efforts of thousands of public health and emergency real estate sponse workers across five different federal agencies.

under her leadership, the response team offered training support and contact tracing to better protect health workers in close contact with this deadly disease. she also worked closely with the state department to strategize response efforts in realtime including ways to inform vulnerable populations about diseases quickly and as efficiently as possible. according to mia's colleagues, her robust leadership and coordination helped to steer the worldwide response out of a crisis mode and to stem the tide of the deadly global outbreak. according to mia it was all because of "the dedication and passion and knowledge of the people" that she worked with. not long ago i was with the department of homeland security deputy secretary allay hasn't droa mayorkas meeting with some department of homeland security employees at a round table. the round table was focused on employing and improving employee

morale. he reiterated the profound impact that each employee has on his or her agency and mission. all told, he told an story of an employee at nasa headquarters who was working late one night into the morning hours. the employee finally gathered himself to leave when he came across a custodian mopping the floors and he asked the employee what do you do here? and the custodian, who was mopping the floors, replied i'm putting a man on the moon. think about that. i am putting a man on the moon. every day that custodian went to work he knew he was part of an important mission. same is true for employees across the federal government in its various agencies. these dedicated and hardworking public servants are just two among the hundreds of thousands making a difference in the lives of their fellow americans every day. i want to encourage us all to

visit the -- there is a web site called the partnershipforfor public service web site. today and every day i want to thank these employees. we ought to thank these employees for their selfless service to our nation. and i hope that you all know how important your work is, those who are doing this work, across our country and around the world. and i know what brings joy to you. met me close with this, if i could: you i say this through the presiding officer to my friend senator sessions. i was reading earlier this weekend the news clips that come to me from my staff. i was reading the results of an interview i think -- i think interswriews maybe 1,500 very senior level federal employees. they were being asked how do you like your job? and a lot of them frankly

reported they didn't have the sense of satisfaction that they really had hoped for and expected they would have. and they were asked if something could change that would make you feel better about the work that you do, and people's appreciation of the work you do, what would help the most? and the first question they asked them was how about more pay? how about more of this or more of that? and, believe it or not what most of them said they would like to have more of was just to be thanked or somebody say the work that you do is important; we are grateful as a nation that do you this. that's something all of us can do. that's something all of us can do. i had a conversation here on the floor, senator sessions, with jim inhofe, our colleague from oklahoma and he talked about the t.s.a. employees. when he flies back to oklahoma, he flies out of here either through reagan -- probably reagan on to dallas and through tulsa. he's gotten to know the t.s.a.

employees there. i think he makes a habit of thankingthanking them for the work they do for all of us. i try to do the same thing. i bump into coast guard folks or especially those associated with the department of homeland security. it is such an easy thing to do, to say thank you for the work he do on behalf of all of us. and especially if we tell them who we are. they'll appreciate it and make a difference in their lives and maybe even a difference in their performance going forward. session mr. presidentforward. mr. sessions: mr. president before the senator yields, skilled, based on the u.c. that we have, that the senator ask that i be allowed to have remarks after he concludes since i think the original u.c. was that the senate recess after your remarks. mr. carper: mr. president, i am happy to do whatever the senator from alabama just asked me to do, so he can go right ahead and everything 0 shows up in the right place in the record. thank you so much. god bless.

the presiding officer: the senator -- is there objection? without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president we have a lot of good people in the senate and senator carper is one of the very best. and he does indeed live by the golden liewl rule and it is an inspiration to us, as i've told him more than once when we've had hot debate around here. he always keeps his good nature and his loving spirit and sets a good example. thank you senator carper. and it is appropriate to thank federal employees for their work having not -- not counting the army reserve time, i have quite a few years myself in federal service and i love the people i have had honor to work with. mr. president, i would ask consent that my remarks be shown as continuing from my previous remarks a few minutes ago. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so, as we wrestle with how to handle this

situation with the t.p.p., trade promotion authority, i would ask our colleagues to think about some of the key questions that we ought to consider. i know there is a goal notify this thing forward fast rather than slow, the faster we get it done the less questions that get asked and we have less problems. but that is not our duty. i wrote president obama yesterday a letter, made some comments and asked some questions that i believe are reasonable and fair questions to ask before we vote on this treaty which he has been negotiating but of course hasn't completed the negotiations on, and it's to the extent which it has been reduced to writing which is only partial. that's locked up in secret and we're able to view it only privately and not quote it or copy it to let the public know

what's in it. so i asked him this. you've asked congress to approve fast-track legislation that would allow international trade and regulatory agreements to be expedited through congress for the next six years without amendment, fast-tracks which proponents hope to adopt within days would also ensure that these agreements, none of which have cet been made public -- yet been made public, could pass were a simple majority vote rather than the 67 votes that would be applied to treaties or the 60 votes that would be applied to normal serious legislative matters. this is one of the largest international compacts in the history of the united states and amounts to about -- countries involving 40% of global g.d.p. yet this agreement will be kept a closely guarded secret until after congress agrees to yield

its institutional powers and provide the administration with a guaranteed fast-track option. in other words, we are going to agree in advance before we see the completed treaty, before it's made public, to allow this agreement to pass into effect without the ability to have any amendment to it or to fully understand it. i think that is a big ask of congress. it's always been problematic to use this fast-track procedure. i have voted for it, i acknowledge, in the past, and it -- maybe it's helped us some. but i do believe it's time for us to be a lot more careful today with the trade agreements that we sign, ask a lot more rigorously what impact it will have on working americans not just some capital group on the canyons of wall street. so i went on to write that the

-- the united states ran a record $51.4 billion trade deficit in the march. that's a record, the first quarter i believe was a record this year of trade deficit. that means the amount we export is vastly exceeded by the amount we import, $51 billion. and economists tell us -- and i don't think there's any dispute -- that when you are evaluating trade growth, you have to subtract trade deficits as a negative to growth. so it's pulling down growth in america. it's pulling down job creation. it's pulling down wage growth. it's pulling down our economy. so this -- these facts i goes -- i

go on to cite, are "especially concerning since assurances were made from the administration that the recent south korea free trade deal would -- quote -- "increase export of american goods by $10 billion to $11 billion." close quote. but in fact american domestic exports to korea increased by only $.8 billion. an increase of 1.8% while imports from korea increased $12.6 billion an increase of 22.5%. so, in other words exports from korea to the united states increased $12.6 billion. our exports to them increased less than $1 billion. so i went on to write "our trade deficit with korea increased $11.8 billion between 20011 and 2014 an increase of 80

.4%. that's nearly double in three years since the deal was signed. and we were promised the other. we were promised it would enhance dramatically exports. overall, i write, we have already lost more than 2.1 million manufacturing jobs to the asian pacific region alone since 2001. 2.1 million. so look, we know there are wage advantages in asia, but wages are going up in a lot of asian countries too. it's getting cloture. and we have -- it is getting closer. we have advantages on better management, better infrastructure better energy prices. so this is a huge loss to us, and at some point we've got to defend our american working people's' interests.

i go on to say this -- quote -- "former new course deal chairman daniel damico argues that we have been engaged in free trade but in a -- quote -- "unilateral trade disarmament and enablement of farm mercantilism. unilateral trade disarmament and enablement of farm mercantile mercantileism. in other words our agreement with trades cannot overcome our trading competitors our trading partners' desire to maximize their exports and minimize their imports from us. we've got to be honest about that. it's not theory. simply eliminating tariffs does not solve the problem. history tells us that. so i continued to president obama, due to the enormity of what is at stake, i believe it is essential for congress to

have answers to the following questions before any vote is scheduled on fast-track authority. one, regarding the living agreement, there is a living agreement provision in t.p.p. that allows the agreement to be changed after adoption, in effect vesting t.p.p. countries with global authority. t.p.p. calls this new authority the trans-pacific partnership commission. these measures are unprecedent unprecedented. we do not have anything like a living agreement in a treaty before. while i and other lawmakers have been able to view this living agreement provision in the secret chamber downstairs, i believe it must be made public before any vote is scheduled on t.p.a. due to its extraordinary

implications. i think it ought to be reviewed by independent scholars, lawyers, trade experts to help us decide just what we're doing when we allow apparently the members who signed this treaty to meet at any point in time and to adjust the meaning of the treaty and the provisions of the treaty in order to, just to change in circumstances. kind of like the supreme court has been doing our constitution. number two regarding trade deficits i asked this question, colleagues. isn't it a fair question to ask when we're asked to vote for this fast track -- quote -- "will t.p.p. increase or reduce our cumulative trade deficit with t.p.p. countries overall and with japan and vietnam specifically?" close quote. i want to know that. don't you want to know whether or not we're going to increase our deficit in trade with these

member countries in particular japan and vietnam? where we can expect real problems in the future it seems to me. by the way by far the biggest trade partner our economy is the japanese economy in this agreement. vietnam with 100 million people has the potential to become a small china as one expert said, and really be a, very much a competitor to the textile industry. hurting most of all one expert has said, central american countries. honduras el salvador and those countries that are developing a textile industry may find themselves undercut by vietnam under this agreement.

number three regarding jobs and wages, will t.p.p. increase or reduce the total number of manufacturing jobs in the united states generally and the american automobile manufacturing jobs specifically, accounting for jobs lost for lost to increased imports? will average hourly wages for u.s. workers including those in the automobile industry, go up or down? and how much? let's have a report on that? shouldn't we know that? four regarding china can t.p.p. members add new countries including china to the agreement without future congressional approval? some say it can't be done. let's have a clear answer to that. at first glance it would be appear that's possible. regarding foreign workers t.p.a. is a six-year authority to the president of the united states to negotiate treaties,

and he can submit them to the united states. and these agreements can be passed without amendment and a simple majority vote in the senate. so, this is a six-year authority which would conclude into the future. we have president clinton president bush, or president whoever. rubio, cruz or whatever could be our president. it would have that authority would extend. finally, i ask whether or not the administration can state unconditionally that no agreement or executive action throughout the lifetime of t.p.a. will alter the number, duration availability, c expiration enforcement rules or processing times of guest workers, visitors or nonimmigrant visas to the united states. i think those are fair

questions. i think we need to have answers to those before we vote on the treaty. but i can tell you what the american people think. there have been some studies that say large numbers of people tend to be right when they express an opinion on things. this is mr. frank luntz. i believe his poll asked this question on international trade. do free trade agreements the united states has signed with other countries over the past two decades benefit other countries or the united states? that's a civilized question to ask the american people. what do you think? these agreements we passed over the last 20 years -- and i voted for a lot of them in the last 18 years i've been here. are they benefiting other countries or the united states? this is what the american people

say. 70% say it benefits other countries. only 30% say it benefits the united states. i think people are deeply skeptical what we've been doing in trade and it's easy to dismiss their concern and their skepticism to say they're just not knowledgeable and we know more and that this movement of capital from new york to beijing to seoul to japan to chili -- chile, all of this is just fine and wonderful and is going to make your life better, but they're not seeing that. another poll asked this question: what about the effect of the free trade agreements on wages the american people make? free trade -- this is the question: free trade agreements are treaties between countries reducing trade barriers such as reducing tariffs for imported

goods, agreeing to common standards and allowing market access to foreign companies. do you think the united states making free trade agreements with other countries increases or decreases the level of wages paid in the united states? or makes no difference? ask the american people. this is ugaff poll: answer, increases the level of wages paid in the united states 11%. we're told repeatedly we need to sign these trade agreements. it's going to make your wages go up. it's going to be good for everybody. don't we hear that. i hope that to be true, but only 11% of the american people think the trade agreements have moved their wages up. what about the next question: decreases the wages paid in the united states.

34%. so by more than a three-to-one majority the american people believe the trade agreements of the last 20 years have decreased the level of wages in the united states rather than increasing them. 19% said makes no difference and a third say they don't know. we have to consider that, colleagues. what is it that's happening? how is it that this might be happening? because in theory ex comparative advantage doctrine means that multiple companies countries can benefit from trade agreements. and i acknowledge that theory and believe it's fundamentally valid. but let's take a tremendous trading partner like japan. we have a tremendous trading relationship with billions of dollars exchanging hands between

our countries every year, and that will be covered by this trade agreement japan. and what do we find? we find that we have a 2.5% increase tariff on imported japanese automobiles to the united states and a 25% tariff on the import of light trucks into the united states from japan. i didn't know that numbers were that high, but it's the result of various events that occurred over a time where retaliation took place. well, what about japanese tariffs on automobiles going to japan? none. japan does not have tariffs on automobiles going into japan. yeah, we have a huge trade deficit with japan.

okay why is this happening? it's because of nontariff trade barriers. institutional matters and the like. one of the biggest is that it's very difficult to, in japan to get an automobile dealership up and operating effectively. hundred day has tried to -- hyundai has tried to do it and failed and you can't get a distribution network for vehicles. maybe there is a cultural loyalty in japan that makes people far more likely to buy a japanese automobile than a foreign automobile. there are other factors. so this agreement as written will do nothing that advances the export of the united states automobiles to japan because those exports into japan have been reduced substantially through nontariff barriers.

got it? those nontariff barriers are not fixed in this agreement. but we're going to be reducing ours. and so one expert who negotiated with japan for president ronald reagan who opposes this treaty, collide prestowitz who has written a book on trade he says there is no doubt that we're going to have an increase in trade deficit with japan. now look, i don't have a hard feeling about japan. in fact, they're fabulous allies. they're putting up money to help in mutual defense. we have honda and toyota automobile companies in my state of alabama and i'm proud of what ne do. but we're not going to see an increase in exports to japan unless some things have changed other than the tariff. in fact, we're not changing the

tariff because it's already at zero. well maybe that's why the theories don't always work as well as they're projected to work. mr. dan damico who i mentioned earlier, the c.e.o. of new core steel for many years an outspoken commentator on issues relating to trade lived with it and is the chairman emeritus of new core steel today he wrote a very valuable piece in forbes magazine back in december in which he discussed the trade deals and problems that occur. he just goes through virtually every issue that's raised in

these discussions and prevents a contrary view to some of the conventional wisdom. and i really think we have to listen to some of this. we can't just blithely go by and pretend to the american people by a more than two-to-one margin are all wrong about salaries and wages when in fact i think the record will show that wages have dropped as these trading agreements have increased. in 2009 until today we've had a net decline of family income of $3,000 in the united states. wages are down since 1970's. the percentage of americans actually with a job who are in the working years are the lowest we've had since the 1970's. wages have declined basically since the year 2000. we've had no increase in wages since that time.

so what is it that's happening that's allowing the stock market to go up, business profits to go up but wages are not? and we've had a decline in manufacturing. the numbers are unmistakable. and a large part of this is foreign competition. colleagues the time has come when we should enter into no trade agreement not one in which we lose a single job in this country as a result of unfair competition. so mr. domingo goes on at length and i will offer that article he gave for the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: he says it's time to focus upon true free trade with rules reciprocity and

results while fighting the increasing scourge of global mercantilism. we must seek balanced trade flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the global importer of last resort. he also says it's also time to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to global institutions that displace our legislative and judicial branches. i think that's good advice, too. so he -- again what mr. domingo says is while we remove trade barriers and open up our markets to importing competition our allies even when they reduce their tariff barriers, don't reduce other institutional barriers and they don't -- and

they also utilize currency manipulation and this currency manipulation can provide a far more substantial advantage in trade than even a tariff does. mr. volcker who is a former federal reserve chairman under president reagan and widely regarded as having done a magnificent job mr. volcker said terrorists can be overcome in a manner of weeks by currency manipulation. europe has shown its currency to drop over 20%. korea has moved theirs down. japan has moved theirs down. china has had a situation of pegging their dollar well below where it should be to the -- they pegged their wan to the u.s. dollar, and they have done it at a level below where it should be on economic terms and as a result they have gained a trade advantage and as a result

they have decimated american industries closed factories all over this country when they wouldn't have closed if they had a fair dollar to wan currency relationship. they have been found to be manipulating their currency year after year after year. the treasury admits it but the treasury's taken no action to do anything about it. as a result, good american people have lost jobs, had their factories closed, their towns and communities damaged economically for unfair trade. we've got enough trouble competing in the world market. so mr. president i thank the chair for allowing me to share these remarks. i don't portend to know all the answers. i know i've tried to be supportive of trade i remain supportive of trade but i think we need to listen to the american people a little bit.

i don't think their concerns are unfounded by more than a 2-1 margin they say these trade agreements have advantaged our competitors rather than us. it's time for us to make sure that we do a trade agreement or trade promotion authority the product that's going to be passed into law and become a worldwide trade agreement that it serves the american people's interests. somebody's interests other than some theorcontingencies in a university somebody's interest in a foreign exactly somebody's interests in the canyons of new york where capital is moved all over the world. somebody looking out for the interests of the american people. we need to ask that question first. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. monday may

>> one hundred years ago on may 7 1915 the artemis lusitania was torpedoed by a german u-boat off the coast of ireland. nearly 1200 out of 1960

passengers and crew on board were killed including 128 americans. today live coverage of a panel of scholars examining the event and the role that sinking played in changing american public opinion about world war i. the u.s. world war i centennial commission host the discussion. it starts live at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> here's a look at some of our featured programs for this weekend on c-span networks.

>> earlier today the second court of appeals found at the national security agencies bulk

collection of americans phone records goes beyond what is authorized under the patriot act. out of that really several came to the floor to discuss the decision as though certain patriot act provisions that are set to expire at the end of may. we begin with remarks on majority leader mitch mcconnell. >> madam president since the unlawful leaks of nsa programs, opponents of our counterterrorism program have painted a distorted picture of how these programs are conducted and overseen by exploiting the fact that our intelligence community cannot discuss classified activities. what you have here is an effort to characterize our nsa programs and the officials who conducted them cannot discuss the

classified activities so they are clearly at a disadvantage. since a temporary laugh 2001, fisa has been critically important in keeping us safe here in america -- september 11. according to the cia had a visa for been place more than a decade ago they would likely likely would have prevented 9/11. not only have these tools kept us safe there has not been a single incident, not one of intentional abuse of them. the nsa is overseen by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government. they are not running broke out there. the nsa is overseen by the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government. the employees of nsa are highly

trained supervised, and tested. the expiring provisions of fisa are ideally suited for the terrorist threat we face in 2015. these terrorists work together -- they work together to protect us from foreign terrorists abroad so you social and other media to inspire and potentially plan attacks inside the united states. isil uses facebook uses twitter its online magazine and other social media platforms to contact and eventually radicalized recruits online. if our intelligence community cannot connect the dots of information, we cannot stop is determined enemy from launching

attacks. under section 215 authority, the nsa can find connections, find connections from now the terrorist overseas and connected that to potential terrorists here in the united states. at the nsa cannot query the database which consists of calls, data records like the number calling the number called, and the duration without a court order. let me say that again. nsa cannot query the database which consists of call data records like number calling, the number called and the direction without a court order. and under section 215 the nsa cannot listen to phone calls of americans at all. under section 215 the nsa cannot listen to the phone calls of americans at all.

despite the value of the section 215 program and the rigorous safeguards that govern it, critics of the program either want to do away with it or make it much more difficult to use. many are proposing a bill compusa freedom act which they still keep us safe while protecting our privacy. it will do neither. neither keep us safe nor protect our privacy. it will make us more vulnerable and risk compromising our privacy. u.s.a. freedom act would replace section 215 with an untested, and tried, and more cumbersome system. it would not end bulk collection of call data. instead it would have untrained, untrained, corporate

employees with uncertain supervision and protocols do the collecting. soviets which is this responsibility from the nsa with total oversight to corporate employees -- so it switches -- with uncertain supervision and protocols. they get to do the collecting. it would establish the wall between the nsa analysts and the data they are trying to analyze. at best the new system envisioned by the u.s.a. freedom act would be more cumbersome and time-consuming to use when speed and agility are absolutely crucial. at worst it will not work at all. because there is no requirement in the legislation that the

telecoms hold the data for any length of time. put differently, section 215 helps us find the needle in the haystack. but under the u.s.a. freedom act there may not be a haystack to look through at all. in short the opponents of america's counterterror programs would rather trust telecommunications companies to hold this data and search it on half of our government. these companies have no programs no training or tools to search the databases they would need to create. and if that wasn't bad enough we would have to pay them to do it. that taxpayers would have to pay them to do it. in addition of making us less

safe the u.s.a. freedom act would make our privacy less secure. the section 215 program is subject to rigorous controls and strict oversight. only a limited number of intelligence professionals have access to the data. there are stricter limits on when and for what purpose they can access the data. their access to the data is closely supervised with numerous numerous levels of review. visa safeguards will not apply to the untried and novel system under the u.s.a. freedom act. and rather than storing the information securely at nsa, the information will be held by

private companies instead. so, madam president, there was an excellent editorial today in "the wall street journal" pointing out the challenges that we face here. it was entitled the snowden blindfold act. the snowden blindfold act the headline on "the wall street journal" today. i asked them to be included in the record. >> without objection. >> finally i'd like to ask the senior senator from north carolina who was the chairman of the intelligence committee the following question. why was it necessary to enact a provision of the patriot act after the attacks of 9/11 2001 and what are the relevant today given the threat we face from isil and al-qaeda? >> madam president speak with the senator from north carolina. >> i appreciate the question the leader is asking and i would also ask unanimous consent to

enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues. >> without objection. >> the leader raises a great question and actually the purpose that section 215 was created. it's a reason the nsa looked at ways to effectively get in front of threats and take us back to 9/11 and the attacks. and as we reacted to our law enforcement tools within the united states, we used an instrument called a national security letter. they produced a national security letter. they went to a judge. the judge verified that there was legitimacy to the concerns that they had. and then had to go to each of the telecoms and ask that they search their systems for this information. the leader of alluded to the fact that many looking back on pre-9/11 said had we had the tools we have today we might

have stopped this attack. but over a series of years congress the executive branch the justice department, and our intelligence community worked to refine the tools that we thought could effectively be used to get in front of a terrorist attack. that brings us to where we are today. over those years we created section 215. the ability to use bulk data -- now what is bulk data? bulk data is stored telephone numbers and ip addresses. we have no idea who they belong to, that our domestic. and the whole basis behind this program is not come is a cell phone is picked up in syria and you look at the phone numbers that phone talk to.

it is something the united states we would like to know that, at least law enforcement would like to know what so that we can understand if there's a threat against us here in the homeland, or somewhere else in the world. so section 215 allows the nsa to collect in bulk telephone collection numbers and ip addresses with no identifier on to do. we couldn't tell you is that american might be. and if for a reason they believed that they need to look at that number because of an executive order from the president, they go to a judge and the judge is the one that gives them permission to search or to query that data. if, in fact they find a number that connects with that one at a known terrorist they've got to go back to the court and prove that there's reason for them to know whose number is that, and duration of time of the conversation.

further information requires further judicial action. and now why are we here today? because this expires on may 31. and some would suggest that it's time to do away with it. over the same period of time we added something the american people have been very close to. it's called tsa. every time you go to an airport, we go through a security mechanism. the americans had never complained about it. why? because we know when we get on that airplane tears behind degree of likelihood that is not a terrorist and a bomb some type of weapon is going to be used against us. well, the leaders said there's not been a single instance of a breach of privacy, yet those that suggest we need to change this do it 100% on the fact that the privacy has been

invaded. let me just say to all my colleagues, to the public both sides of the hill every american today now has a discount grocery card on their teaching. they go and buy groceries and they proudly in the car because it gives them a discount, it gets them coupons, gets them a gas reduction. here are the facts. your grocery store collects 10 times the amount of data that the nsa ever thought about collecting on you. there's a big difference between the nsa and a grocery store. the nsa doesn't sell data. your grocery store does. from the data they collect on you computer your psychological profile on an individual piccadilly how old they are, what their health is, where they live, how often they shop and therefore, when they work. we are not in the business of doing that. they are but i don't hear anybody complaining about the grocery store discount card because you get a discount so

you're willing to do that. but we haven't shared with the american people is what do you get through this program? you get the safety and security of knowing that we're doing everything we possibly can to identify a terrorist and the act, and to stop it before it happens. so, madam president, we are here today with a choice. the choice is whether we're going to reauthorize this program that's been very very effective with the same conditions that the president has in place, got to go to a judge and with important controls on privacy why professionals with rules. or whether we're going to roll it back to the telecoms. make no mistake about it. the compromise legislation roles us back to the same thing we were doing pre-9/119/11. so whether you let it expire or

whether you reauthorize it those are the two choices because this compromise bill actually forces it back to telecoms. a very cumbersome time-consuming and i would say fraught with privacy issues as the leader pointed out. it's my choice to continue the program because the program has worked. nsa has a total of 16 people who have the authority to look at this. i bet they would be more than 16 people in every telecom company that are authorized to search a data. but let me just suggest my colleagues this. if their argument is valid then they should be on the floor with a similar bill eliminating the tsa. i'm not sure that anybody invades my privacy any more than the tsa process when i go through.

they actually me. they've got my luggage. in some cases they stop me and warned me come and in some cases and check me. i'm not sure there is any more blatant privacy concerns than that. but, you know they are not here suggesting we do away with the tsa because they know that the public understands the safety that tsa provides the aviation. our big mistake is we haven't been out here sharing with the american people why it's been so long since there's been an attack. we were lucky this week in garland texas, lucky, because for some texas law enforcement officers happened to be at a museum, and everybody there was carrying. we are not going to be lucky every time, and i remind my colleagues and the public in the same week that isolate on the social media networks since

america don't think that you have got this in your rearview mirror, there are over 70 terrorists we've got in america in 15 states come and it's a matter of time before it happens. why in the world would we think about rolling back the tools that are the only tools that put a post 9/11 versus pre-9/11? the threat is greater today domestic and around the world than it's ever been. and the argument that we will be consumed with is whether we do away with tools that have been effective for law enforcement to protect america. madam president, i would suggest that we reauthorize this bill for five and a half years as is. and that we make the same commitment to the american people we do when we reauthorize and find the tsa no matter where you do and where we've got

some control. we are going to keep america safe. we are not going to let it revert back to where we are susceptible to another 9/11. with that madam president i'd like to turn to senator cotton, my distinguished colleague from arkansas and ask him what he agrees that the collection of telephone and called out a was not raise any reasonable expectations of privacy under the fourth amendment. >> i thank the senator from north carolina come and i appreciate his words and the majority leaders work on this critical issue. i've been working hand in glove with him all alone. i would say the anti-to the question is no. this doesn't raise any reasonable concerned about privacy. in fact, the program does not collect any come it is not surveilled any phone call. it doesn't even include any personally identifiable -- it doesn't even include any personally identifiable information. i have spent hours with the intelligence officers and the

fbi agents who are responsible for administering these programs, not merely the general counsels or the directors of these agencies but the men and women who administer them themselves. and i've asked of them what do they think poses a greater risk to their privacy? a discount grocery card that the senator from north carolina mentioned, or the fact that e-commerce websites have the name and address, credit card number personal history put into a person everyone every one of them said a greater threat to the privacy are those commercial marketing practices, not this program. the program has been approved 40 times by 15 different independent federal judges based on 36 years of supreme court precedent as it has been approved by two presidents of both parties. if president obama wandered into program tomorrow he could but he hasn't. that's because this program is lawful faithful to the constitution, smothered with safeguards against abuse and it

is needed to fight the rising terrorist threat that we face today. in fact, those threats are greater than they were 9/11 and that's not my opinion. that is the testimony of this administration senior intelligence officials. the rise of al-qaeda affiliates in africa and the arabian peninsula and the broader middle east illustrate the metastasis of al-qaeda following its retreat from afghanistan. the arm larger and more spread out. them or technological and operational savvy developing new nonmetallic bombs recruiting westerners and using the internet to spread their hatred. they public how to manuals for becoming a successful terrorist capital. there is the islamic state. .. religious minorities and sadistically burned people alive. some have returned to their home countries, including the united states and some remained in their home countries becoming radicalized and ready to inflict

harm against americans. we don't have to look further than this week when would jihadists decided to open fire in texas. press reports indicate one of the attackers was in contact with an islamic state supporter currently in somalia. this conduct illustrates why this program is so important. it helps close the gap that existed between foreign intelligence intelligence gathering and stopping attacks at home before 9/11. this is the gap that contributed in part to our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks. there are also open source reports of islamic state sales in virginia, california, illinois and michigan. as a member of the ielnce illinois, california michigan. i receive regular briefings. i invite all my colleagues to receive these briefings if they doubt the walls at the door. this highlights one challenge of our debate most of the information is classified.

the intelligence committee has been forthcoming. the issue is getting members to attend. that is why i believe the senate may have to enter a closed session so that members are not woefully ignorant. now, under consideration the house is the so-called usa freedom act which we will eliminate the intelligence this program collects. proponents claim it provides alternative ways for the intelligence community to obtain critical information and that it does not compromise counterterrorism efforts, this is wrong. the alternatives the alternatives were not come close to offering the capabilities that now enable us to protect americans. one alternative is to have phone companies retain control of all call data.

this is not technologically feasible. to request we examine and conclude that the technology does not currently exist to enable assistant spread among different carriers to replace the capabilities of the current nsa program. any such any such system would create gaping holes in our ability to identify terrorists. photocopies don't store data for longer than 180 days. nothing in nothing in the usa freedom act requires and distort any longer. the current program stores data for five years. a system that a system that keeps data with multiple carriers who store their data is close to useless for discovering terrorist networks and sleeper cells many of which lie in wait for years.

second, the system that tries to search multiple carriers and collect and unify responses is cumbersome and time-consuming. in many investigations the loss of minutes, hours, days may mean the difference between stopping attack or seeing a succeed. the data stored is more vulnerable to hackers who would think to abuse the data. the costs are known in the american people will bear them had as taxpayers or as consumers as they pass along the cost on your phone bill perhaps as an nsa collection fee. to those who say this is technologically feasible we can easily executed. this is the federal government that brought you healthcare .gov. a 2nd alternative is to pay a third-party contractor

i would argue this is untested and unworkable. the proposal the proposal would also require in indefinite stream of taxpayer dollars to fund it. the private entity may be subject to civil litigation discovery orders which would expose america's data to judicial proceedings with no connection to national security. heavy security, top-secret clearances and strong congressional oversight greater threats to privacy. i can tell you all they are fine americans the highest character's. there were actually allowed to search.

how many have actually done this? an independent federal court really approves the nsa authority to collect and store the data in the 1st place. it must go through a multi step process, approval by four different entities, numerous attorneys of the department of justice and is very same judges who sit on that court. even if a search request is granted not just anyone can access the data. access is limited to the small group of men and women all of whom undergo regular background checks, drug tests, and are subject to regular polygraphs, many of whom are military veterans themselves. in retrospect searches of

the data are automatically recorded and regularly audited by the inspector general and the department of justice with strict penalties for anyone found. the senator from north carolina and other members participate. this is a robust protection for americans, their privacy under the proposed usa freedom act. >> almost definitely. they were only suggest might contain an exclusive control of the state of. these multiple stakeholders have a sterling record with no verified instances. in the wake of the traitorous stone disclosures senators chambliss and feinstein showed great leadership and they came together to defend these programs. senator feinstein the

program will substantially increase the risk of another catastrophic attack. a proposition with which i wholeheartedly agree. my colleague from the judiciary committee on the floor. i wonder if you agree this program is unconstitutional and does not differ and substantial away from the traditional tools that prosecutors use against criminals for providing adequate safeguards to american privacy. >> thank you. that is an important question. i would like to thank you for volunteering to protect the security of our country and the middle east and dangerous areas. we need to protect the national security.

we lost almost 3000 people on september 11. the nation came together. we evaluated what to do about it and we worked together in a bipartisan way and in a virtual unanimous agreement passed the patriot act to try to help us be more effective in dealing with international terrorism. what terrorism. what i have to tell you colleagues is we were facing and many people were shocked to see the improper obstacles that were placed in the way of our fbi and other agents as they fought to try to figure out how to identify and capture people who wanted to do harm to america. it was stunning. a lot of in a cia they could not say to the fbi we have intelligence that this person might be a terrorist. the fbi has jurisdiction within the united states.

that law was eliminated on a totally unanimous vote. we did other things on overwhelming bipartisan way as a person who spent 15 years the prosecutor i would say that there is nothing in this act powers investigators have to investigate crime in america the county attorney can issue a subpoena for many county in america and does every day by the hundreds of thousands for telephone toll records. the names and address and the phone numbers called. what is maintained in the system basically is just numbers. all right. not only can a county

attorney who is a lawyer but a drug enforcement agent of an irs agent can issue an administrative subpoena on the basis that the information and telephone toll records regarding john doe that are relevant to the investigation of conducting and can get this information it is done by law and there is a written document. every day in america. does not have to have a court order to get those records. we are talking about hundreds of thousands of subpoenas for telephone toll records. every murder case, virtually every robbery case every break -- big drug case. it is extremely valuable for a jury. it is a part of daily law practice in america. deciding that the fbi agents have to have a court order

before they can obtain a telephone toll record is contrary to everything that happens every day in america i am absolutely amazed that the president has gone further than the law requires. apparently this bill would go even further. it is not necessary. you do not get the communications. the person may be a terrorist in yemen making phone calls to the united states and you checked to see who, what those numbers are. who they may have called. you might identify the cell inside the united states that is on the verge of having another september 11, hijack another airplane. this is real life. a couple hundred queries.

i think that is awfully low. i'm sure that we have such a burden. let's don't overreact. please let's don't overreact former attorney general casey, a former federal judge himself had just really pushed back on this and believes that it is the wrong kind of thing for us to be doing. to impose such a burden on the nsa at the prices simply running a number through a database that includes neither the content of calls nor even the identity of the callers the pres. said this stuff may be dispensed with only in a true emergency is of the events unfold to a musical score with a a crescendo to tell us when a true emergency is at hand

additional requirements this is the way the system works. a crime occurs prosecutor or dea agents investigate. they issue a subpoena. the telephone toll records. they maintain these records numbers tens of millions, almost billions of calls. and so they are reducing a member of there maintaining in the computer command the subpoenas, 18 months they

may wipe out all these records. they may want to go back five years. the government the download the records, they maintain and secure system and are accessible just like they have been before but with less information than a local police. i think the chair. i believe this would be a big mistake. i am pleased with my colleagues. >> i think my colleague. i would ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes on the majority side and five additional minutes to the minority side. >> is there objection? without objection. >> you with my colleague senator rubio has to say. in agreement with what we have set up to this. >> my colleagues have made an excellent.today and outlining the details.

let me just let me just back up and.out why we are even having this debate. the the perception has been created including the political figures the server in this chamber for the united states government is listening to your phone calls are going to your bills as a matter of course. that is categorically false. the next time any politician stands up and says that the us government is listening to your phone calls or going through your records they are lying. it just is not true except for some very isolated instances in the hundreds of individuals for whom there is reasonable suspicion that they could have links to terrorism. those those of us in this culture and our society are often accused of having a short attention span. we forget that less than one year ago russian separatists shut down commercial airliner aren't by the

russians, maybe even the russians themselves did it. forget it was not long ago that aside was using chemical weapons to slaughter people in syria. but we should never forget is what happened here on the 11th of september. a number of seminal moments in american history that people remember when pres. kennedy was assassinated and everyone in this room are remembers where they were and what they were doing on that morning of the 11th of september of the year 2001 when the world trade center was attacked. here is the truth. if this program had existed before september 11 it is quite possible that we would have known that the september 11 hijacker was living in san diego and making phone calls to a safe house in human. there is no guarantee no way we can go back in time and proven but there is a

probability that a probability that we could have and therefore a probability that american lives could have been saved. this program works as follows them if we believe in individual who is involved in terrorist activities, activities reasonable belief and that individual might be communicating with people as part of a plot they have to get in order that allows them access to the phone bill and the phone bill basically tells you when they called for what number they called, and how long the call to. why does why does that matter? if i no subject x is an individual involved in terrorism of course you want to know who there calling. it will be a interest if they call pizza hut with the local pharmacy but you will be interested in calls overseas or cause to other

people because they could be part of the plot. that is why this is such a valuable tool. my colleagues have already pointed out if the irs wants your phone bill of a have to do is issue a subpoena. a few local police department. if you are involved in a proceeding in civil litigation and they wanted access to your phone bill they could just get a subpoena. as part of the record. the intelligence agencies have to go through a number of hoops and hurdles. that is appropriate. these are powerful agencies. i would further add that the people raising hysteria, what is the problem we are solving? there is not one single documented case, not one single documented case, not one single case that has been brought to us as an example of how this program is being abused. show me the story give me the name who is this individual going out there and seizing phone records of americans improperly. there there is not one example. and if there is that individual should be prosecuted and put in jail. the solution is not to get

rid of a program at a time when we know that the risk of homegrown violent extremism is the highest it has ever been. we used to we used to be worried about a foreigner coming to the united states in carrying out an attack. and we were worried about an american traveling abroad and coming back in carrying out an attack. now. now we're worried about people that may never leave your that are radicalized online and carry out an attack. this is not a theoretical threat. just last weekend to individuals inspired by isis tried to carry out an attack in the state of texas. one day -- i hope that i am wrong, but one day there will be a successful attack to be the 1st question is going to be why did we know about it? the answer better not be because this congress failed to authorize a program that might help us know about it. these people are not playing games. they don't go on these websites and say the things they say for purposes of aggrandize met. this is a serious threat.

>> i thank my colleagues for their participation. i participation. i think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their accommodation, and i will conclude by saying this in the very near future this congress will be presented to choices, to reauthorize a program that works or to rollback our tools. i don't believe i don't believe that is what the american people want. i don't believe it's were members of congress want. become educated on what it is, what it does and how effective it has been implemented. i yield the floor. >> the senate is out for the week that earlier today members past and iranian nuclear agreement 98 to one. that measure heads to the house for consideration. the only senator to vote against the bill.

the chamber now moves on to trade policy would work before the memorial day recess expected on a measure to extend expiring provisions of the highway trust fund. >> a a partner with the law firm dorsey and whitney based in minneapolis a veteran about the justice department and service special counsel to the navy secretary joining us in los angeles on this thursday. thank you for being with us. >> a pleasure to be here. >> let's talk about this ruling. the court left little doubt of its distaste for the practice. in the ruling today i did not issue an injunction to stop the program. >> i think because it is going to go its own path

right now. is going to expire in less than a month. and likely at the congressional action will come in and reconstituted or the votes won't be there and it will die is preordained natural death. obviously different factions in different houses as to what a different bill would look like. but i do not think there is a strong likelihood that this exact bill would be reenacted. >> let's go back to the aftermath of september 11 11th when the government began to collect its made of data from telephone calls. in your mind in your mind, was it understandable for the white house and congress to go along with this? >> you know, i think it is a tough balancing. i confess, i don't think i would personally have made a different call. think this: at that moment

we were looking for a needle in a haystack. i don't know that we even knew that we had the tools to find it. one could argue that the program as it now exists provides that tool. others is to have other issues associated with the use of that tool for but is there a way to find a needle in a haystack because of this? probably. >> how significant was today's ruling? >> if i think the court is issuing a caution to the congress which is an interesting advisory role. i believe they are clearly offering some perspective to congress. it is it is this. if you are going to design a program that collects information, taylor it narrowly so that the average american who has nothing to

hide is not concerned that their data is now being in some troll that someday someone will go back and look through. >> in essence what did the court ruled today and essentially what happens next? >> the court said that as it now stands this legislation cannot justify acts as they are now being engaged. what happens next is an interesting issue. legally it to go back to district court for make for the findings, give further analysis. the united states could appeal it. but none of those things will happen before the actual expire. so in all likelihood what happens next is congress will decide either to

reconstitute the program in a way that meets judicial muster or perhaps they will take their chances and keep it as it is and see what the supreme court has to say. >> let me get your thoughts on technology in general. they began by looking at phone data records. there is so much more out there with twitter and facebook. the government and essentially anyone can begin to sift through and find it. this today's ruling in any way send a message on other forms of communication social media and the rest? >> i think that it does. i think it would apply with equal force the same kinds of metadata in essence that accompany many of the other electronic forms. not necessarily saying who you are where you live but your unique identifier we will accompany those

conversations. that could be stored probably is being stored and sunday could be retrieved. >> how do you think lawmakers on capitol hill will respond to this with pending legislation and future debates? >> that is an excellent question. on the continuum of the political scale our primary components of national security will view this as a bad decision. the civil libertarians will view it as a good decision. i think the bell curve middle will be trouble. i believe personally we need to have the ability to provide some insight into communications but they have not figured out a way to balance it them at least according to this court in a

way that gives people sufficient comfort that the rights are not being infringed. >> which is that a question. >> yeah. i think one of the other problems is that the court that reviews these kinds of questions is not a public court. so it is not even though you have reported decisions. the normal process for political balancing his courts make decisions lawmakers make decisions lawmakers make laws, the public reacts, there is dialogue, commentary. the structure we have now does not offer the opportunity for that. i don't say this pejoratively. it is in secret because it is got to be. it will almost be a hit or miss thing that congress will have to give it another go somehow or other it will get challenged, have an incomplete record. but it is somewhat blindly if that makes sense.

>> an expert on cyber security, partner at the law firm dorsey and whitney based in minneapolis veteran of the justice department and served as special counsel to the navy secretary. joining us from los angeles. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps and a look at congressional committees, the pres.'s committees, the presence next, federal agencies command state governors. order your copy today area 1395 for shipping and handling through the c-span online store. tonight testimony from attorney general loretta lynch on proposed 2016 spending for the justice

department. ..

he was such a skinny little guy that kept giving him ice cream to eat. it's incredible that he remembers what eisenhower swear like. the person that they remembered and that is why wanted to pay tribute to these people. >> good evening and welcome to the national press club. >> we are live at the national press club for discussion now on the sinking of the lusitania. a nearly 1200 or the passengers and crew on board worst killed 100 years ago. this is a panel of scholars examining that abandon the role the sinking played in changing american public opinion about world war i. live coverage. >> and its effect on american news media and on the propaganda campaign to get the united states to enter the war on

allied side. the heritage committee is honored to be working with united states world war i centennial commission who put together this program. their mission is so important to knowledge about world war i in this country is limited. when i asked college-educated people what they knew about the lusitania i got a blank stare but it is one of the great offensive led to u.s. mutual war that changed the world in so many ways. in a sense we are still fighting world war i and the middle east. representing the u.s. world war i centennial commission tonight is at one fountain. mr. thompson would you please come up here and say a few words words. >> thank you gil. the mission of the world war i centennial commission is to first educate the american

people about this forgotten war in our history and commemorate the service and sacrifice of american servicemen and women in the war. we are pleased to partner with organizations around the country such as the national press club that happened national role to play in remembrance of the work. had the privilege this morning of attending a commemoration service at ateret park in new york just a little bit down from pier 54 from which flew lusitania set sail. there was a surprisingly poignant moment at the conclusion of the service went to the accompaniment of a bagpiper playing amazing grace diplomatic representatives of ireland france germany as well as descendents of victims of the lusitania sinking through reeves into new york harbor in remembrance of those lost. the sinking of the lusitania is a fascinating event. i would say it is one of the few things that most people in this

country have come to mind when they think of world war i and if you ask most people why to be given the war given the word allah would say because of the sinking of the lusitania would have course we didn't have the war for another two years. what intrigues me about the lusitania is that it encapsulates a number of the major themes of world war i first the evolution of new technologies of warfare in this case submarine warfare. second the visitation of warfare upon civilian populations to a scale never seen before typified by the sinking of the lusitania. third of all the issues surrounding u.s. neutrality and how we were drawn into the war effort trying to stay out of it and forth the moral ambiguity that surrounds the war at every level for why it was thought to how it was spot and i look forward to hearing our panelists address those themes. with that i will shut up and go back to you.

>> thank you very much edwin. i appreciate that. now before we get to our excellent panel i want to talk a little bit about the role of the national press club in the first world war. the great thing about studying club history as you can dip down almost anywhere in the last 107 years and you will wind something amazing startling or amusing and sometimes intriguing. the air around world war i is certainly no exception. let me take you back to washington from 1914 to 1917. it's amazing how different it was then today's washington. the city and the government were so small, so sleepy that the national press club was one of the top sites for journalists and politicians. in march 1914 the club had grown so quickly that it moved into its third clubhouse. this time on the top of what was then known as the albert building at 15th and g street

just a block from here. this is now the location of the metropolitan square building. as you can see from this picture of the main room it was a very homey place. just imagine woodrow wilson mainly with reporters here. and in the building was a rooftop restaurant allowing members to enjoy a great view of the white house and the washington monument. woodrow wilson likes the club. as a scholarly writer congress qualified as an associate member while still a professor at princeton university. as governor of new jersey he showed up for a hoppy night where politicians and journalists talk about what they like to do in their spare time. wilson recited a limerick. shortly after he was elected

president he showed up for press club spelling bee that pitted journalists against politicians. the secretary of state william jennings bryan recited ode to the printing press before it began. sorry to say a politician one. and by the way we restage the spelling bee for the centennial in 2013 and i'm sad to say once again a politician senator tim kaine of virginia one. mr. wilson is most remembered for his appearance on march 231914 at the housewarming in building quarters right here in this room. the president said people thought of him as cold preaching machine but that was only because he was trying to restrain his emotions. in his own mind he was a --

he described what he would do if he would master the art of disguise to have a jolly good time. wilson had been speaking off the record but the journalists talk him into going on the record and these remarks on the front page. the famed political cartoonist clifford berryman drew this cartoon for the washington star. the president said he would like to go fishing chase fire engines go to detective stories, go to the fair watch a dog fight play little baseball. that's the woodrow wilson you don't hear much about. wilson returned to the club

may 15, 1916 a year after the sinking of the lusitania to give a more somber speech about the worldwide -- and his burden in deciding what to do. his fortunes are subject to being calculable wins of passion flowing from other parts of the world. the strain he said this not to know what turn at the wheel of fortune will take control of things out of your hands but he said the united states is now a rogue power and cannot sit back and let the world fight. and he said these amazing lines. if i cannot maintain my moral influence over man except my occasionally -- if that's the only way he will respect me then from his soul i have to knock them down. the burden is to choose when

that time comes. as the war progressed the club changed. it became more international as journalists and military officials from around the world showed up. german diplomats and one founding member of the club a d. jacobson was sent to internment camps. members volunteered -- military uniform and a future and a volunteer calvary at fort myers and straggled back to the club. perhaps more controversial than the role he played in setting the boundaries of press membership wants the united states entered the war. wilson formed the committee on public information the essential source of news in april 1917 and club member george creel who worked on wilson's re-election campaign directed the committee. the admirals and generals wanted 100 different things to be kept secret. he whittled those down to 18 and

then he went to the club. he later wrote the gathering hostile to first grew more friendly as understandings are reached and at the end there was an agreement that the plan merited a fair trial. club members who flocked in that the war returned to founder on american legion post on november 19, 1919 known as the persian coast of the blackjack and andr -- the leader of the expeditionary force general pershing who is listed in 1920 and 1924. he remains active to this day. now let's get to the main event. our panel will be talking about three topics. first the sinking of the lusitania tell them how they came to happen. second the propaganda campaign

spurred by the sinking of the lusitania that helped convince americans to go to war and third president wilson's leadership leading up to his declaration of war on april 6, 1917. we have a distinguished panel of experts. first are admiral samuel cox retired director of navy history in curator for the navy. he is responsible for navy's museums art and artifacts collections the research library 150 million pages of archives and for collecting and interpreting u.s. naval history throughout the world. a graduate of the u.s. naval command -- academy has 37 year career a boost on intelligence and he served as director of

intelligence for the u.s. cybercommand. professor richard strain comes to us from washington college where he is a professor of history and co-author of 10 books and numerous articles. in this event we should note his book woodrow wilson and world war i a burden too great to bear. his new book how america can spend its way back to greatness comes out at the end of the month. john maxwell hamilton comes to us from louisiana state university and is also a senior scholar at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. his career has taken him from journalism to public service on capitol hill and in the carter administration. the book is working on now focuses on propaganda during world war i. to set the stage are admiral we will start with you. 100 years ago today a german u-boat -- sunk the lusitania

killing all 1200 -- killing nearly 1200 passengers and crew. submarines and torpedoes were an untried technology at the start of world war i three can you give us a quick synopsis of a warfare particularly the imperial german navy and tell us why the german navy move so quickly through unrestricted warfare when all the rules of engagement -- >> thank you gil. in the interest of brevity i will skip several centuries of failed attempts at submarines and i will start with an incident in 1899 where the american inventor of the modern day submarine john holland was testing testing his sixth attempt to build a submarine that either the u.s. navy or the royal navy would buy. he was in sag harbor new york. turned out that claire bartend

than 77 years old and head of the american red cross came down to the dock to look at the submarine and he talked her into taking a five-mile underwater joyride on the submarine sandwich she lambasted him because she could not believe that america would develop and create such a terrible weapon of war. holland replied the president was so terrible the submarine would prevent future war. today you could argue strategic missile submarines fulfilled that deterrence of nuclear war but in 1914 the offensive that were proved clara barton was right and john holland was wrong because the technology so rapidly that the thought processes of the political leadership and the military leadership did not have a good sense of how the weapon worked and what the implications were. the germans got a later start than the u.s. and the british but by the time and they learn from our mistakes so by the time

world war i started german submarines were technically advanced as anybody. they lack numbers are they started the war with 18 submarines compared to 75 in the royal navy. the youth 20 which is the boat that sank the lusitania about 200 feet long a crew of 40 men it operated on the surface where mob opera and mozilla time on diesel engines with the speed up 15 knots or 80 miles an hour. the diesels power to generate charge the battery so when a submarine when on the watered operated on batteries and an electric motor and when it was under water could only go 80 miles at 5 knots and you could crank it up to maximum speed up 90 would run out of batteries in about an hour. submarines spent most of their time on the surface and only when the other -- underwater to attack risqué. the submarine carried you 20

carried seven torpedoes which didn't work very well. it was hard enough to hit the ship with a torpedo when the ship was moving and 50% of them that were fired didn't work. so was a major challenge germans. at the start of the war both the s viewed submarines as a close defense weapon. neither have this vision of using them at long range over ocean attacks of merchant ships. the first attack us first successful summer and attack during world war i was spectacular in a bad way. the german u. nine attacked three british armored cruisers who weren't expecting to be attacked by a submarine. they were cruising in a patrol in a british blockade of germany. the submarine torpedoed one second crew stopped to pick up survivors and the third one stopped to pick up survivors and

the submarine torpedoed the third raid 1400 some sailors lost their lives during that assault three ships went down. the first attack against a merchant ship was a month later in september actually october 1914 and that was one where the german submarines were trying to fall below the accepted types of warfare that they'd existed for well over 100 years in the sense that the first attack submarines are asked the merchant ships down told it to stop with the crew in the life lifeboats, put their own men ashore, went down over the vowels of the ship and sank up its own accord. the skipper of that vote was not sure whether he was going to be court-martialed or a hero when he got back because there was no rules of engagement for what the u-boat captains were supposed to do. these captains were young, 30 years old and is the were

quickly direct -- developed if you are going to get your blue max which is the highest german award for airplanes, the aces you would shoot down however many airplanes. ships come in all sizes so it dependent on tonnage versus how many ships. so when a u-boat campton -- captain was a big target plus torpedoes being unreliable and extremely expensive you wanted to use those carefully. at the start of the war the british started a blockade of germany. they didn't call it a blockade for legal reasons but that is effectively what it was. the german propaganda looked at this as okay you british you are starving our women and children as a means of defeating us and so we are justified in getting back at you and they are trying to find a way to do it. the submarine offered a means to do it. the other thing was that the war

didn't go the way anyone expected. no one in europe had seen bloodletting and carnage on the scale and did not understand the impact of the machine gun on the battlefield so it didn't take long before the political leaders were desperate to find a way out. they wouldn't admit that the whole thing had been a mistake that they were looking for some wonder whether to get themselves out of this jam. the british are doing a blockade and the germans navy which initially wasn't keen on submarine warfare they engaged in this massive expensive battleship building with the british before the war and had lost. they knew they went on a battleship the battleship conflict they were going to lose. all of a sudden this expensive navy is useless to the kaiser and the german navy is looking for something to get back in its good graces. so the german submarine they latched onto this capability and

the zealots say if we send the submarines into ireland on the west coast and sink british merchant ships that will bring a quick end to the war because the british won't be able to sustain that. the problem initially was that the germans didn't have enough submarines. you can only keep about two on station at any time so as a result it didn't go quite as well as the germans expected but that is basically how they got into using the submarines that quickly in a war. >> how did do you 20 as a target and was she a legitimate target? >> it was sheer coincidence basically that the two ships were in the same part of the water at the same time. british intelligence and german codes tracks do you 20 out of

the port to the northern part of the c. over scotland and off the west coast of ireland. it was too dangerous to go through the english channel. a british new where was going to operate and intended to operate in the irish sea. it took the youth 20 longer than expected due to the fog, whether harassment what not to to the operating area but two days before the lusitania was coming across into that area she started sinking ships. the first one was assailing fishing boats at do you 20 sank with guns which is the preferred method for sinking a ship like that and then she torpedoed two other ships right along the track of where the lusitania was supposed to go. the british admiralty recognize this and the lusitania sent -- was sent multiple warnings that they were conflicted. the first warning said stay away from the coastline of ireland. the second warning said their german submarines operating in a particular area right in the

middle of where you would go if you were trying to stay way from the coastline. so the skipper captain turner of the lusitania split the difference. but the lusitania came out of the fog. you 20 and decided they were going to go to their normal area because it was too foggy. they were going home early and as they were going west and south of ireland the lusitania was coming east. the lusitania came out of the fog. you 20 the last course change the lusitania made several course changes. so they could actually calculate when they would arrive at high tide in liverpool because they didn't want to get trapped circling around outside the fort which was a sure fire way to get sunk by a submarine. but for do you 20 the lusitania's last course change basically doomed that ship

because if the ship is coming directly at the submarine it did six the submarine has a perfect shot and it is exit still has a perfect shop and become straight the submarines is to decide which is what happened and had a perfect shot. it wouldn't have mattered how fast the lusitania was going for the first torpedo. for the second perdido the first one had missed chasing something as fast as lusitania would have been an issue. schweiker who was the captain of the boat fired one torpedo. it worked and hit in and exactly probably most vulnerable spot on the ship resulted in a secondary explosion a few seconds later there was most likely caused by a mainstay might rupture. the way the lusitania had been designed outfitted originally as a potential auxiliary cruiser but she was never pitted out that way. she had no guns on board but characteristics resulted in her

floating in her cold unchristian because a lot of leg portholes were still open of water people said how could a torpedo sink a ship that it? well i can especially when it hits where it hit and the second explosion basically she lost her power so she could stop or go ahead. couldn't launch a lifeboat safely and basically the ship went down in 18 minutes. >> for c-span we can do questions until later. >> the question whether the suffering was underwater. the submarine was underneath the water. there were reports after the war that it circled but none of those were true. schweiker took one shot watched quickly and determined he only needed one torpedo to sink a ship because she was going down so fast. as schweiger left hesed tumbled

across another merchant ship shot another torpedo and then perceived on back to germany. >> let's go to jack hamilton there. 1200 people killed 200 some odd americans. what was the initial impacts of this news among the american public? >> of course the news was incomplete and remained incomplete for some time. but the initial stories were much like you see with "the new york times" that splashed with big broad headlines and stories that suggested a brutality that the germans had inflicted on the ships. even newspapers like william randolph hearst's newspaper which had been more balanced or at least open to the german

invasion frame the stories and pretty negative terms. but that was fairly short. the press coverage was fairly short-lived. we will get into how president president -- calculated this and decides not to go to work. by june 15 at stop being a news item. as the "chicago tribune" said americans would sooner have the bubonic plague imposed on them than war. so the result was that this was not going to be an event that would strike us immediately into war. it was however an event which is where i think you want to go with this conversation, it was an event that clearly opened up the floodgates for people who were warm i did like teddy roosevelt who began to argue strenuously we should prepare. and the part of the story that interests me is the part that involves the propaganda side of this.

the germans and a sense in the sinking of the lusitania was a kind of metaphor for what had been wrong with the way germans did propaganda. it was a stupid idea to sink the lusitania. the actual value that got out of it from a war point of view was nonexistent but it framed for most people overseas in the united states bring this idea. there is actually a case to be made and the wilson administration admitted it that it wasn't illegal for them to do what they did. they did have a case to make that infect away the blockade was being used was by the way the british blockade was unprecedented. it was the conference. there have been conferences in the london declaration which basically said you can't have blockades of the scale.

and there's a great debate about hominid people ended up dying as a result of food shortages. it wasn't usually starvation but it was malnutrition. low-end of the scale is we had 12 other people so it's not as though the germans didn't have a complaint. and a lot of the rules of sea warfare were in britain. for example the treaty of london didn't even talk about submarine so the rules are what you should do and so forth were up for grabs. but nonetheless it was a stupid move on the part of the germans and it was then compounded by using various propaganda techniques. they could have for example tried to make a better case for why they had to do this although they were somewhat limited because they didn't want to admit that the food shortage had an impact on them from a national security point of view and small propaganda was run by the military. the military views were always

overlaid on the propaganda machinery. but they loaded over what they did. the newspapers quoted over at read there was a man in the united states bernhard nuremberg who settled to run the propaganda operation and he ended up in cleveland. he was so over-the-top in his defense of what the germans had done that he effectively had to leave the country. he was going to be sent out in a matter of time so he left. in fact burn stored the german ambassador said after the lusitania our ability to prop -- do propaganda and united states states was severely limited. there is more to that story. >> let's give more more to do propaganda but let's let rick talk about how woodrow wilson reacted to this news.

>> woodrow wilson reacted to world war i right away in august of 1914. he took a number of very important decisions and decided some very important things. ..

so he made that effort and decided that in order to end the war the united states must absolutely avoid being dragged into the war. to that end he existed calls for military preparedness that were already being advanced by people like theodore roosevelt. the british imposed their blockade in the autumn of 1914 early 1915 the germans proclaimed the counter blockade the british isles. and in that span of months a number of other important developments had accelerated the scope of the war. the carnage was indeed unbelievable. by december 1914 hundreds of thousands were dead. the economies of the nations

were being stressed to the maximum and already orders were being placed in the united states for weapons and munitions and agricultural commodities. there were calls in congress to for bed that. wilson decided to permit it. the reasons i can't comment on the reasons, but several more items for do that. the allies, the western powers were the side that was positioned to take advantage of buying munitions and weapons of war from the united states the imperial german navy was not able to fight its way out of the north sea the royal navy could convoy transports to pick up the weapons and bring them back. on the on the spring of 1915 after the germans proclaimed their submarine blockade the germans began shifting

weapons and ammunition's and the cargo holds a passenger liners like the lusitania. the british no it. the american public knew it. there was newspaper coverage of it. and the germans took out ads in american newspapers warning americans don't travel and bishops. you do so at your own risk. and the and the spring of 1915 secretary of state william jennings bryan was advising wilson to dissuade americans from traveling aboard the ships. wilson refused to do that. so so you have this set of preconditions leading up to the lusitania sinking. now, there was a wide range of opinion on the different sides of these different disputes whether the united states should or should not for bed the exportation and sale of weapons of war whether the federal government should or should not warned americans against traveling on the ships. if they did so they did at

their own risk. wilson took this series of positions that left him in a very unstable position in terms of policy after the lusitania went down because the or roosevelt called for immediately. and wilson certainly did not want that. in the summer of 1915 because of the lusitania sinking he decided that his earlier opposition to preparedness legislation had been a mistake. and he authorized the war and navy departments in the summer of 1915 to begin drafting preparedness measures. and these were put into shape in the autumn of 1915 and that in january of 1916 wilson made a whirlwind speaking tour of the midwest the heartland of isolation sentiment and advocated the preparedness legislation. the lusitania sinking played a crucial role in the sequence of events.

the legislation was opposed and congress substantially in wilson's own party. it took all the skill his skill to get these positions through. finally in the autumn of 19 16 he signed the accident along. wilson's early opposition but the united states far behind the curve in terms of being able to put troops in the battle in 1917. it took a long time the united states was far behind the curve. this really cut back on his leverage with the british and french. but the lusitania sinking though it certainly did demonstrate the issue that would finally force wilson to go to congress for a declaration of war did not in some ways represent a process that was in any way inevitable because the fortunes of war shifted back and forth.

that was one of the things that made it so hard for wilson to be a piece broker. the losing side at any given time was usually more than ready to cut its losses and sit down and talk peace. the winning side the winning side, in light of the sacrifices was inclined to play its advantage when. and wilson went through almost endless generations, you know chasing the phantom of piece conference. he never did. during 1916 has he fought the preparedness fight and sought reelection the germans, for reasons of their own decided to behave themselves. they eased up on submarine warfare whereas in 1916 for reasons of their own the british engaged in maritime tactics related to the blockade that struck wilson and other americans is so high-handed, so outrageous.

and i daresay many americans no little or anything about this. by the all of 1916 wilson had begun to two were the germans. they were behaving themselves. the british were being outrageous. there is a remarkable session that colonel house record in his diary late in 1916 where he warned wilson that people are pushing the britts. britts. we may have always been. wilson said, fine i'm ready for it. and that is the way it was playing out by the end of 1916. then everything changed again. the british decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare. one of the stupidest decisions in history because there were no restrictions. if the germans had targeted military vessels, if the germans a place any restrictions, but it seemed absolutely wanton, savage

and forces hand. but after the germans made that decision wilson was almost in a daze. he had persuaded himself that he absolutely could and would end the war through peace conference. he said that one time it is as if the world shifted in his rotation and was going the other way. i don't know which end is up. i don't know what we should do. very strange sequence of events in terms of wilson's policymaking. he was in many ways making it up as he went along except for the fact that from the beginning he had had this idea that he could end it and to ended the united states had to stay out of the war. the united states had to be absolutely neutral impeccably neutral. in the letter to america's ambassador wilson explained

why he decided not to oppose the sale and shipment of american weapons to why he decided not to warn americans against schilling and british ships. he said, to broker piece we have to be absolutely and perfectly neutral. therefore, it is our right as a neutral nation to do x y, nz. we should do it to demonstrate vigorous use of neutral rights. if it is the right of american citizens to travel on ships and not be savagely murdered. should surface and give warning. they absolutely should. very far-fetched line of reasoning. but that was a wilson said.

>> we have talked a little bit about the german high command after the lusitania missed anything about the action in germany itself the initial attack pretty popular within germany itself. it was seen as striking back against the british who were stifling our women and children. and it becomes a case believe in your own propaganda. the germans very quickly realized that they have a disaster on their hands in terms of relationship with the neutral countries around the world, particularly the united states and they have there have been plenty of senior people within the german government before the war zone was declared that

argue that the summary force is not strong enough to do what they claim they will. and now all your really going to do is antagonized the united states. everyone recognizes the bad thing for germany. like we have explained. after the lusitania was sunk the kaiser i would have never sunk aligner like that with all those innocent people on it. some rains were on order. gave warning that they could not be sure that they would not sink neutrals. the british were busy flying neutral flags on the ships painting out the names on the ships. they began arming the merchant ships a u-boat on the surface against another ship extremely vulnerable. the germans had less and less incentive. they tried to do it the old

way they would be added disadvantage in the summer and would be lost. they went to surprise attack but they did go through the hiatus. they recessed that is the became more and more desperate as the one on. the argument shifted back. and now we have enough. the savagery that was talked about before was quite deliberate in the sense that they are trying to make sure that the neutrals like the united states stay away. they are doing things to terrorize neutral merchant shipping. it did not work really. it certainly did not work against the british a getting on the ships.

in 1917 when the unrestricted warfare was resumed it was extremely effective at 1st. so effective so effective that the british immediately had to adjust there tactics. this photon going paul destroyers off of duty and other places. they better use of intelligence british intelligence had a good understanding in 1915 of how many german summaries were out and where they were operating. with the did not have was a good mechanism for taking the intelligence and using it while at the same time protecting the source. the the things i talked about, intelligence knowing about the you 20 there were like seven people in the british admiralty who were aware of that. they were in a minute. so that was a significant event.

a couple mindset issues. the lusitania was extremely fast. there was his belief that speed was enough to protect the ship against the summary. and in most of the cases us true. world war ii the queen mary, queen elisabeth made many transits carrying thousands of troops safely because the high-speed to protect them and we had intelligence to send them are we knew the german summaries were. but -- a lost my train of thought. but in the case of the lusitania the speed doesn't work if you drive over where the summary is waiting. and that is what happened in that case. the other was kind of like a pre- 911 mindset this disbelief that the germans

would really just people could not grasp. hundreds of years of how you wage warfare at sea inhumane ways, don't sink passengers don't kill innocent people. and it just had not sunk in yet that the germans meant what they said and did what they said they were going to do. >> talked about woodrow wilson i made it seem like he really liked reporters. did you think that was true? how did he deal with reporters after? >> am glad to answer that but i think i no why we had to go and talk about wilson. me to finish the picture. >> let's do that. >> it is kind of a microcosm we got what we got what was wrong with the german side and never found out what was wrong with the british side which is exactly the problem for the american public. the germans were clumsy and

made bad decisions. the british took advantage of those columns in this to its great advantage tremendous advantage. part of this was because they were so clever. they had something called wellington house. so secret so secret members of parliament did not know about it and it worked -- the united states was one of the primary is to work. very crafty about the way they worked with opinion molders. interesting that one of the big news events was that they found a guy named secret service agent managing. became new come all over the new york world. the secretary of treasury to although they never admitted the story was there.

agents were tracking germans. wonderful documents and british archives. they talk about how they worked in the united states the work was not known. they managed to play stories and newspapers. a wonderful story where they take these documents and ran them for days and days. in the bottom of the story a lot of concern that treasury officials may be leaking information to the germans even though they are running all these stories leaked by the british treasury official they were supporting the british. it was very lopsided.

that was that was exacerbated by yet another problem. august 4 the day the war began one of the 1st acts of the british was to go and sever the transplanting cables. as a result it was difficult for news to be sent by cable by the germans. the german cables that were cut. they had they had wireless. the united states took over the wireless station. so in the new york times and chicago newspapers command the 1st year 70 percent of all the news was news from the allies. only 30 percent was news that came from the central power. and even and even the news that came from the central power came by cable but by

and large wilson were not be a person who enjoyed meeting with the press. like press. like everything else it was complicated. he employed a large number an astonishing number went to work for them. own the newspaper. the secretary of navy was a prominent newspaperman. page of whitlock, they had all been journalists. journalists want to work the interesting examples extra ordinary journalists. went abroad pretending to be a journalists.

later went to italy and france. he did not enjoy. after the lusitania is not hold one other press conference. denver 20th, 18, december 18 of 1916 timoney actually held a press conference and told the journalists that is a matter of fact were not going to try and do anything. don't report about that. off the record. don't even talk

about. in two days later he sent that said that afternoon is peace proposal suggesting that he would mediate. the journalists were furious and that he had a couple other press conferences. then war came. he created the community on public information and is propaganda arm. after that you never had to meet again. yeah what he wanted. he did not deal with them. i'll let other people talk. a wonderful line races there are only two times. you're talking about a woman's honor. >> please. jump in here. >> certainly did an interesting relations. and a number of others, top journalists. former student washington correspondent for the new york evening post and

wilson would often use lawrence to try to leak tips to the press tips of the sort that he wanted. but at other times his relations with lawrence turned quite cold and even better. wilson, i'm side to have to say, can sometimes be something of a hypocrite. the 1st of 14 points drafted in secret within a few hours was open covenants of piece openly arrived at. no more secret treaties. a little bit of a problem. but wilson and house violated the provision time and time again. the house great negotiations from autumn 1915 automating 15 into spring of 1915 tried to work out an agreement. it was all done in total secrecy. secretary of the state

department largely in the dark. and wilson would continue to use have's and various confidential capacities, personal envoys during the war working with the allies on issues of war. in the autumn of 1917 david lawrence govind that went. went. wilson flew off the handle and are rated lawrence. another man was frank cobb the editor of the new york world. just before wilson saw that he had to go to congress for a declaration of war he supposedly called frank, to the white house and just engaged in this spontaneous outpouring of despair with

regard to what the world would do to american democracy liberties will go. scholars for some time debated whether cobb's account published in the book that he wrote was really accurate. but the consensus of opinion led by arthur link of the dana wilson scholars was that cobb's account was probably authentic. most extraordinary outburst by wilson. you wilson. you talk about self-fulfilling prophecy all the obsessions, free speech, the espionage act, the sedition act of 1918 wilson predicts that all this will happen and said it will be absolutely catastrophic and then adopt this defeatist position that is inevitable and goes ahead and makes it happen. very, very strange.

>> just a little bit on the german propaganda. the germans had a case the lusitania when she was sunk was carrying several million rounds of cartridges and several thousand cases of artillery shells not in a condition that would have caused the famous 2nd explosion, but there was more material that would be used to kill germans later on what to got to the front. and on a previous voyage lusitania had actually carried. other british miners were being converted and used to support troops which is what the german summaries were looking for. so the germans had a case to make but the unprecedented you know the loss of sending women and children and some 30 or so and fence to the death was something that just overpowered in a

story that the germans could muster in conjunction with the british did a good job of suppressing for many years any knowledge that the lusitania was in fact carrying munitions. >> went down and photographed. >> your. >> go ahead. >> that's right. and the right. and the germans complained about that. much harder to describe what starvation was like. it was something else that happened in the middle of all that we should forget to mention. the british is started an investigation into what had happened when the germans went in. and in the lusitania went down a stepped-up production wellington house as i mentioned five days after the lusitania went down issued a report called the bressant. and is a complicated

document. some of it is true but a lot of it was unsubstantiated information. historians today realized much of what was said was over the top. the result the result of that was in addition to the lusitania you now have other items out there. the flipside of that part of the story some people may know. artisan in germany created a private person created a metal that commemorated the lusitania sinking. and from our.of view would be considered sinking. you did it. the british found out. they took it and made it into a huge extravaganza. wellington has produced 60,000. in a distributed all over the united states to show

this is what the germans do. do. the department store picked up on it and with our selling them. they give the proceeds onto the red cross. he was an example of the way it was portrayed, every german had one of these metals. they managed to make it into a huge, huge media event that suit their purposes. the german metal maker put an incorrect date on metal the pursuit of the attack made the metal before the attack was it. british made huge, huge propaganda gains by german border. >> let's talk about press censorship.

>> well, i think here is one of them working on the factors that the press was willing to censor itself to an extraordinary degree. all kinds of evidence for that. there was concern about the german-american press. and actually that gets to the story. two things happened simultaneously. your committee member came up with some guidelines and simultaneously wilson in the espionage act sought to actually have have promoted a had promoted a clause kemal we will call it a censorship clause which read almost exactly the way the british i dread. the government can pretty much decided anything. and it's quite a complicated and complex story. we know that wilson saw voluntary guidelines nonstatutory guidelines

because he actually made admonition. at the same time he is also been promoting this very open-ended and broad censorship clause. it ultimately did not pass because people were so outraged and even people were democrats a lot of them did not like it. i believe actually wilson could have gone, which is scary, but in the times he could have even gotten a somewhat rewritten clause. they they could've gotten the past. i'll tell you the whole story. found a letter from the new york times with the clause the new york evening post new york americans said they would buy the statutory censorship. >> is that right?

>> i was done when i realized world to see. went to daniels. pretty far along the debates. the times debates. the time so we would rather not do this. it was still pretty broad. we are fortunate very fortunate did not pass from the.of view of civil liberties, especially when we consider that initially the supreme court deported stuff that was in the espionage act, still could be used in a heavy-handed way. that's the one piece of what happened in the war that did not live on. the supreme court began to roll back and change. a wonderful twist of history is the most important the way for what i would consider a liberal

interpretation the opponent of the war. the presidential election. funny. if he had been president we would available to our way of handling. never transgressions here and there. the press going to go on. whatever rights that will be a rule. >> the suppression of civil liberties that he lamented.

the espionage act was used to deny mailing privileges to a number of social opinion journals. the act gave the postmaster general the right to deny social publications access to mass mailing rates. but the espionage act, which is still was worsened very significantly in 1918 by the act became known as the sedition act which permitted prosecution. it was the sedition act of it to the prosecution of eugene victor death list since to ten years in the federal pen for simply opposing the war. he is pardoned by warren harding but the supreme

court in the case of shank versus the united states early 191nstitutionality. in the majority opinion was written by oliver $1. and homes was so vilified by libertarians that he began to drastically change his position and became a champion in many ways in the deck is the follow. but homes right this really draconian decision in the shank case. >> we should probably start questions from the audience if there are any. if anyone has a question. yes. zero, good. >> where would you put the telegram?

i mean,, we are looking at one cause. i no that is where the party is right now. in terms of how you would way it. >> well, the telegram was very important. but by the time the british revealed its existence to the united states government and the way it revealed to the press had already made the wretched decision because of the german decision. it certainly made a more convincing case for the war declaration no doubt about that. and it certainly increased the focal support for the war declaration by people

like theodore roosevelt were already advocating but it is really interesting that even after the telegram was released there were huge antiwar rallies. the american people were very, very conflicted. exactly why in 1917, 1918 the issue of sedition, disloyalty, treason, it was not just a handful of radical large numbers and in many ways that is exactly why there was such a difficult time of it in 1919

getting the verse i tree ratified. the so-called irreconcilable opponents of the league of nations particularly in the republican party but not just in the republican party by any means. convincing noninterventionist and in ideological terms there was a case to be made for non- interventionism among liberals or progressives and among conservatives in 1919 the american people. >> a.about zimmerman if i could. as a woman telegram more well known historically. what is interesting about is that it was not the only

crazy thing that the germans were sending. people who worked over here, almost look like keystone cop ideas. this just happened to be one they found out about. they did what the united states to know how they know it. he went to the united states and went from the united states to mexico city because the british didn't want them for the united states to know what all they_all they new line all that they were listening to. they had to have someone go to mexico city to go to the post office there and get a copy. a copy they would give to the ambassador and burden was on the came from mexico.

its role in shaping public opinion about entry into the war. >> out of how do they see their role? >> right. >> so that's an interesting question. the press for the most part was not high radio war. some members of the press really fighting the idea. ultimately we get so far along that it's hard to roll it back, but it's great to have quite sure when important to remember that a lot of people in the country were not enthusiastic. another side to it that is part of your question is worth getting into. one of the thing about

progressives, even the most aggressive progressives was that they use the word publicity in a way that would be foreign to us today they would say i'm going to raise. do you out there and do publicity. what they meant by publicity was bring something that would enlighten the public. they also knew they also knew that the railroads were doing publicity that was that publicity. many journalists thought in these terms. it has more of the edmund burke in kind except it wasn't just tell us what's going on in government. and i believe that that contributed to a large number of journalists who went into government but when and the community on public relations who came of age as journalists with that mindset that they were going -- that they had been -- it is worth saying that they

had been raised in the idea of busting trusts and using publicity to do it. in the end of the ended up doing is great. it was in the hands of the government. it is really a story good people trying to do good things and ending up in some respects doing about think. has a very best features to it. >> the british shipping munitions on their own flagship store they using neutrals? >> they were doing a bit of everything. anyway they could get the material through.

so, yes. from the german perspective the british were deathly not playing fair and they were. >> anybody else? >> thank you. the sinking of the lusitania occurred less than one year after the outbreak of world war i. can you or can you or any other panels describe the change in us public opinion and how soon that occur? >> i haven't done a lot of research on changes in public opinion that took place -- took place within the time spent of that short

duration. the since i have from the research i have done is that the sinking certainly did energize people like theodore roosevelt. it certainly did increase the anger and outrage among those who had already and had essentially taken sides as to which side the united states should be on but among people who are oppose the united states getting in law among those the militarism out of control of people like when jennings bryan secretary of state to it told wilson we should be telling americans to stay off the ship. finding ways to prevent and

mediate these incidents so that they don't lead us. finally -- well, not finally, right away within a month after brian had tried again and again to give wilson to seize upon the incident in a way that would create an opportunity banquet. he resigned. next line 1916 wilson was running for reelection get back on the democratic party he wanted to preserve his own future. but until then it was a huge falling out many left of

center. activists that come to believe that war was one of the worst features of profiteering, imperialism brian believe that very strongly. many of the party remember the 1890s the remembered out was in the worst economic depression in american history. by his own 1836 campaign on behalf of, suffering people the ill-fated -- operating

on behalf of the common man can it really seemed like grasp -- grassroots activism is about to transform american politics direction. then came the spanish-american war. the populist party began to put away actually seem to be on an amazing luck is everything he did the spanish-american war went to easy victories. the united states began to take the place of spain as imperial overlord list of people in the philippines. and there's a debate and anti- imperialist league in 189889. industrialists like andrew carnegie and those of the people who disagreed.

it's absolutely at it's absolutely at odds with american traditions. we must not become an imperial power. the killing to get the nomination and campaign and is and time. platform. they had been national independent. the leaders of the united states would be the guarantor of there independence within the united states to the place of spain. the guerrilla war continued. there were atrocities committed in the campaign that true censorship. people like brian found out later. this is wilson secretary of state. and the association of war

with selfish imperial aggressive, the aggressive, the association of war with the political process that kind of short-circuits the political chances for economic democracy at home all of it powerfully active. the republican party and among conservatives the reasons why they were averse some of the many would international commitments, but wilson's own party, and after the united states got in these feelings remained active. you know many many people in wilson's party bitterly resented what had happened thought he had been duped. >> if i could add on that, the news -- it's hard to add on that but the news of the lusitania came barrage of other incredibly bad news.

against cities, bomb civilians from the year. force use of poison gas the month before the lusitania. the bloodbath. and everything else going on in that will. as visceral reaction as americans had to lusitania sinking, it was accompanied by why on earth would we want to get in the middle of that mess? that is their problem and we should stay out. i don't out. i don't think the lusitania by itself would have gotten us into the war. absent the germans absent the germans being stupid doing again what they did in 1915. we may never have gotten the war. >> the question here. do we have a microphone? there we go. >> people continue to take blinders across the atlantic after lusitania?

if so do we make any attempt to see the british did not love them up munitions? >> the transatlantic passenger train was already way down by the time that happened. most of the british steamship companies have laid up for major liners. lusitania was kind of the last one. and traffic dropped off even further after that. i think a number of people were going joy riding across the atlantic. now, the stuff that was on the munitions were on the lusitania legal by us law the time. i can't answer that will. there were plenty of the

british were using to wage war across the atlantic british and neutral in us ships. >> question in the back. >> there was some discussion about who knew how much before the sinking occurred. i have read some speculation that perhaps churchill was more aware of the possibility of the bombing, the sinking of about than the americans were allowed to understand. i know after world war ii it was speculation that roosevelt knew in advance. similar speculation in the press. >> well, yeah. the conspiracy theories revolving around the lusitania are immense. at the time wasting churchill was the 1st lord of the admiralty command he was one of the seven people who read into the intelligence that was coming across. at one time he was quoted as saying we need the neutral nations. we need this stuff. many of them to come to the united kingdom in order to

sustain our war effort. a war effort. out of some of them get in trouble so much the better because that would work to england's advantage and against the germans. now, it's a far cry from that didn't say he was complicit in any way with what happened to lusitania. he actually left for paris two days before the attack. so he actually wasn't in any kind of position to be controlling what was going on. and when you look at the track of the lusitania and you look at the track of the suffering and the countless individual decisions and actions that resulted in them being in the same place at the same time the idea that that could have been manipulated by anybody to have that effect is really really far-fetched. but,. but, you know the fact that

their -- one torpedo into explosions the fact that the british went to great lengths to cover up the fact that there were munitions on the ship went to great lengths to hide any of their knowledge that they gain by intelligence the links that they went to scapegoat the captain of the ship in order to divert attention from basically there own incompetence and how they provided warnings to lusitania plus the actions of the germans. there were german agent spreading rumors in the united states before the ship even left. you take all that together and it has resulted in a hundred years of conspiracy theories about what really happened. my assessment my assessment would be command conspiracies sell books. they are entertaining. but what fundamentally competently operated submarine with a weapon that that works the way it was

designed to work skippered by a captain who a captain who was doing what the naval high command told him to do. and that and that is not all that glamorous, but it is actually the real story. and all the speculation about whether there was other ammunition were not that caused the explosion, lots of studies of gone into that and none of those pair for. in fact the to lusitania turner, his position on the 2nd explosion was that it was a main theme line explosion he would be the one most likely to know. after all the hundred years of all these theories the thing that best fits what happened was that mainstream line rupture and not some kind of nefarious plot by the british to set this thing up to be sunk or some predetermined sabotaged by the germans. all of a sudden layout is

theories, and none of them really fit the facts. >> now, we are coming to the end, but i do want one more question since we are trying to establish what world war i did in american history we will world history. the war to end all wars. but it was the weather started all wars. can we go around and talk just a a little bit if each of us could write a book on this what was the impact of the war back? what is going on in the middle east now. >> i think the war it was a cataclysmic event with the skill of losses that dwarfed anything that had preceded. you back to ancient times have. that lasted that long.

that were change the world and has affected everything that has occurred since. we were talking about the middle east. wilson pushed for open trees and what not. the sex picot agreement between britain and france secret agreement that arbitrarily set the boundaries of nations in the middle east that didn't match with the tribal or ethnic boundaries were left left the courage of the cold created a rack in syria as we know it and basically you can trace the mess we have in the middle east back to sex picot and those agreements that were made as a result of world war i. it will be for the benefit of all mankind.

it was a global trust of the catastrophe. that century was really quite peaceful. he had a crimean war franco-prussian war and it was our civil war were to end war i have to talk a long time to discuss wilson's hopes for a non-vindictive piece to talk about the chances that he might have had had he played his cards better and had strategic leverage to commit the british, to pre- commit them to a non- convicted piece. he blew it in my opinion many, many times over. but the war in the view of some left of center people

these autocratic regimes brought down these oppressive dynasties and now the people having fun of people's people's war were ushered in democracy. well, no. i'm afraid not. it didn't lead directly to nazi germany no. but the vindictive piece 1919 created a weimar republic. so week. suffering so many economic troubles. things especially after the onset of the great depression with the germans needing us bank loans to fund the reparations payments and after the chain reaction from wall street spread to our banking sector and a lot of loans got yanked skyrocketing unemployment in germany in 1930 in 1933 the rise of

hitler was relentless. it led to modern totalitarianism and this hideous 2nd world war monstrous is the 1st one was from a dwarfed by the monstrous the so the 2nd one. the 1st one faded in american memory for good reason. it was a horrendous catastrophe. >> rather take them because that this world war i, the beginning of information warfare certainly the beginning of government manipulation the systematic government manipulation of journalists in the country and even trying to think of something ..

and professor maxwell hamilton. this has been great. thank you all for coming. and we stand adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of this evening's events you can see it again this weekend as part of c-span three american history tv programs or on the website at c-span.org. the attorney general told senators today that she will decide in the coming days whether to launch a several investigation into the possible war use by baltimore police

officers in the death of freddie gray. although baltimore made strides in the reform efforts, she hasn't ruled out the possibility that more may need to be done. we will have her testimony coming up next. it was the first hearing before congress since been confirmed as attorney general. she was there to present the justice department 2016 budget and also addressed issues she will encounter early in her tenure including today's phone records program ruling. we'll have more on that later with reaction from the senate floor and last year's oral arguments from the second court of appeals. before the senate appropriations attorney this runs one hour and 40 minutes.

the committee will come to order. welcome, today's commerce, justice and science the science subcommittee hearing examining the department of justice fiscal year 2016 budget request. first let me welcome the attorney general loretta lynch to the first hearing before the subcommittee as she assumes the important responsibility of serving as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer. welcome. as you begin your two-year term as attorney general i believe it is critical for you to return the office of attorney general to its constitutional purpose which is to enforce the law of the land.

the president is arguing for the points of view on immigration, privacy, environmental regulations and more. the attorney general i believe is the servant of the law and the citizens of the united states. i want to encourage you to consider this carefully as you begin your service in the job that is critical to our democracy and to the rule of law. i am deeply troubled by your support of the president's unilateral executive actions, which provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. fortunately, this week the policy change undertaken without input from congress has been stayed by the court while the detailed review is conducted through the lens of the wall and the constitution. i hope that while this litigation is pending progress

will be made on key responsibilities that are within the department statistics and such as the executive office for immigration review. the 2016 budget c. is a funding level of $482 million, which is $135 million above the current 2015 funding level. that is a big increase. significant improvements and reforms i believe are needed in the immigration court system in order to address the approximately 440,000 pending cases some of which involve unaccompanied children. the sequence to a waiting here for several years before the case is heard and i believe and hope you would agree that this is unacceptable. the needs are great for the immigration courts i have serious reservations about such a large funding increase when

inefficiencies and management concerns are yet to be addressed within your office. in the new role as the attorney attorney general of the united states, i'm interested in hearing your suggestions and recommendations for prayer at -- spending and the departments most important and pressing for missions involving national missions involving national security, law enforcement and criminal justice. the president's 2016 budget request for the department of justice totals $29 billion which is $2 billion above the 2015 and active level. while funding for the department of justice is one of the federal government highest theories we simply cannot afford such an increase in spending while operating under our current budget constraints. i am concerned that even in the midst of the current fiscal

climate, the president's proposed grant programs and initiatives that would further stretch the department spending with constant constant law-enforcement or a rifle at the department and the critical time is needed leadership is welcome. since the hearing early this spring with the departments law-enforcement chiefs, we have seen the departures of the director and the dea administration. i hope that you will pay particular attention to these law-enforcement agencies and to ensure that they execute their duties during this time of change. as an example, the bureau of alcohol firearms and explosives has a rule pending that would impose burdensome and most people believe unnecessary regulations regarding firearms that are lost or stolen in

transit. however the statistics indicate that this number is insignificant and shouldn't be a cause for concern. oversight remains a top mission for the -- priority. i express regarding the resistance to cooperate with the department of justice inspector general. i continue to hear from the inspector general that this office. i would urge you to work with the inspector general to make sure that the reviews and the audits in the department of justice. i've outlined the department that the department faces many challenges that would require

fiscal support. the path for making meaningful progress runs through the subcommittee and i and innovate. as you begin your tenure commitment of attorney general i want to express the hope that we would have a productive and constructive working relationship. >> thank you. senator mikulski. >> thank. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i want to welcome from the attorney. we are so glad that you are finally confirmed and we can get beyond the politics. before i go into my statement i want to remind the committee that yesterday was the senator's birthday. can we join in a round of applause and wish him good health? like nobody since the high point

of the hearing. madam attorney general, you've had an eventful first few weeks in office. i know that this is your first congressional hearing since you've been confirmed. you were looking forward to the testimony in terms of the justice department's need for the 2016 budget. we are eager to hear from you about the many ongoing efforts of the justice department agencies. we want to first of all thank you, madam attorney general for your work in coming to baltimore and your team for coming to baltimore. it was tremendously helpful to the mayor and the police department and most of all to the citizens to have the presence of the just department. i personally to thank you on behalf of the entire maryland delegation for the professionalism of your team and of course your self and i want to acknowledge the right of the

attorney general, mr. ron davis director of the program come your outstanding community relations that came in and provided a very crucial technical assistance during very troubling times. we were in baltimore on tuesday together as he listened to faith-based community officials and faith-based community leaders. u.s. with local officials and even reached out to the friday -- freddie gray investigation. you've gotten a request from the major about asking the department of justice to open a pattern and practice investigation to the police department. later on this afternoon you will be getting he will be getting a letter from the maryland delegation supporting that request. that will go forward but i want

to say in many of the cities throughout the country and including my own town in baltimore and the community is primarily that have significant populations of color, there has been a broken trust between the community and the police department. we have to restore that trust. we needed the police department and we want to express our condolences to the people in the police department about the death of the officer who was gunned down so brutally. but we also do need criminal justice reform and we need it with the emergency of now. i want to ask questions in the resources to do the job that needs to be done and also what reforms are needed that are specific and targeted also joined today by the outstanding appropriator but also the

ranking member on the judiciary committee. we are here to show that the american people have a government on their side and have a constitutional focus to what we do. we have put money in the federal checkbook, $2.3 million for the grant programs purgative with resources for the police and local governments and communities. the range for more cops on the beach to dealing with the rate kickback to child abuse. they've told us we need more cops on the beat and we have $180 million in doing that. we also wanted to help them be able to have the equipment that we they needed and the $376 million in grant programs. now what does that mean? is this one more gimmick or is that a crucial poll. they want to help our young

people and that's why we will work with your thoughts either today or three of the community leaders have pointed out for the criminal justice reform. the judiciary committee will also be doing if i want to ask questions related to money and also training but in other words if you get the money should you get training to get the cops money and others should be required training on how to deal with the racial and ethnic bias. should there be national standards every department needs and what about the body cameras.

this privacy concerns, storage concerns. and last but not least i do hope again for both this conversation and ongoing. i supported the policy and somebody that started her career as a social worker that if you fit the broken window that you intervene with the youth when they were doing minor offenses could we intervene in the way growing up doing major offenses. we were going to fix the broken windows. we were going to do this but now what seems to happen is the

policy has deteriorated where we stopped fixing the broken window and escalated. 120,000 police stops occurred in baltimore. we are a population of 610,000. that is a lot. i don't know the appropriateness of that, but i think that we need to look at it. so i sit here as the ranking member of the committee in the department and i assume that national responsibility. and i'm also here for the 85,000 kids, all of whom went home peacefully what can we do to help them? those that helped to do that we look forward to working with you and what are the tools to restore confidence between the police and community and also

put our arms around him are young people in to what we can do to help them and maybe when we fix a broken window we have to fix the broken political process that we have to get the job done. >> welcome to the committee. your written testimony will be made a part of the record in its entirety. please proceed as you wish. >> thank you sir. >> remind me to come around another time. quite a celebration. well, good morning chairman and the vice chairman and the other distinguished members of the subcommittee. it is an honor to appear in front of you for the first time as the attorney general. i look forward to working with all of you in the days ahead as we seek to protect and to serve the american people. i want to give a special thank

you for your leadership in the united states senate over the next three decades for your support of the department of justice and its employees and for the extraordinary example of public service that you have provided to all americans and especially to women. and i'm honored to have the opportunity to work with you during your final two years in office. >> [inaudible] >> thank you sir idiot actually it seems to be fixed. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> , national police week will begin next week and at this particular time in history, it is important that we take a moment to consider the contributions and the needs of

our law-enforcement officers across the country. law enforcement is a difficult profession. over the course of my career as a federal prosecutor and u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york i've been privileged to work closely with outstanding public safety officials and i have seen up close the dangers that they face every day. as mentioned earlier this week a 25-year-old new york city police officer died after being shot while trying to question a man in queens and just two days ago, the sergeant was tragically gunned down also while interacting with a suspicious individual. the tragic loss of these brave individuals serves as a devastating reminder that our nation's public safety officials put their lives on the line every day to protect people that they've often have never met.

their work is the foundation of the trust that must exist between law enforcement officers and the communities that we all serve and that's why when there are allegations of wrongdoing made against individual officers and police departments the department of justice has a response ability to examine the evidence and if necessary to help them implement change. while i was in baltimore tuesday i met with the mayor, law-enforcement agents and youth leaders. i spoke with an officer who'd been injured and i heard a number of ideas regarding the ways in which the justice department can continue assisting baltimore as they work to recover from the recent unrest. i have not ruled out the possibility that more may need to be done.

and i would assure you that we are listening to your voices and we are in the process of requesting city officials and community and police leaders from an investigation into whether the baltimore city police department engaged in a pattern or practice of civil rights violation. and i intend to have a decision in the coming days. the situation in baltimore involves a core responsibility and the department in the department of justice. not only to combat illegal conduct but to help prevent the circumstances that gave rise in the first place. going forward your support of the department and of our funding and the president's fiscal year budget request will enable us to build on our successes and make further progress in the mission with which we are interested and i am pleased to say that this is in-line with my highest priorities as attorney general. safeguarding our national

security. defending the most vulnerable among us and strengthening relationships of trust and collaboration between law enforcement officers and the communities that we serve. of course the most important objective must continue to be protecting the american people from terrorism and other threats to the national security. as you note under my predecessor eric holder, the department of justice engaged in the efforts to counter violent extremism and domestic radicalization, to strengthen counterterrorism measures. to provide training and technical assistance to our foreign partners we must advance this on all fronts. we must prepare to meet new and emerging threats in the

counterterrorism and national security programs, this total includes 775 million an increase of 27 million for addressing cyber crimes and enhancing the security of information networks. in the age that criminals have the ability to threaten the national security and our economic well-being from far beyond our borders it is critical that we expand our focus. it must be on the top priorities of the department of justice. this will allow us to build on the outstanding work of the department and identify new threats porting intrusions into bringing the perpetrators of wrongdoing whatever they may hide to justice. as the department works to

safeguard in their security, we are equally committed to upholding american values including the protection of the most vulnerable populations. on the civil rights investments to address hate crimes and sexual violence and human trafficking. it would allocate to allocates to improve the efficiencies of the immigration court system and the board of immigration attorneys like spending the successful legal orientation program and by allowing for additional legal representation for the unaccompanied children. and it would deliver 247 million program increases for the smart on crime initiatives. while reducing recidivism and

deploying law-enforcement resources more effectively. as well as an area of the bipartisan cooperation and agreement. the funds in this year's budget will allow us to extend this critical work for the efficient and effective criminal justice system. the innovative approach doesn't lessen the result to combat violent crime, drug trafficking and other violations of federal law. we remain determined to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. the president's budget supports the goal in that regard by appropriating additional 43 million to investigate those that break federal laws and harm innocent citizens from the legal firearm and drug traffickers to the perpetrators of healthcare

scams and financial fraud. in all other efforts we intend to work closely not only with this distinguished body but also the law enforcement partners on the front lines across the country. an additional 450 million to support the state, local and tribal partners in their own efforts to counter violent extremism to maintain officers to serve the victims of crime, to research and best practices can improve indigent defense and expanded reentry programs. this appropriation includes nearly 95.5 million for the community oriented policing services hiring program. 35 million for tribal and 20 million for the collaborative reform initiative. he recently developed a program that facilitates collaboration between the office and law enforcement agencies seeking

assistance on a wide variety of criminal justice issues from the use of force practice and the deployment of crisis intervention teams to building trust with members of the communities. as we have seen in recent days they've established trust and improved collaboration are essential to carry out the law-enforcement duties effectively and to the overall safety of the american people. in the days ahead i hope and intended to bolster our efforts in that area. i'm eager to work with the committee and congress to build on the achievements of the department of justice and to secure the timely passage of the budget request which provides a total of 28.7 billion discretionary resources including 26.3 billion for vital federal programs and 2.4 billion for state local and tribal assistance programs. as a former united states attorney that saw firsthand and lived through the

unsustainability of the sequester i can tell you this little of support is necessary to continue to protect the american people and effectively serve the priorities of the united states of america. mr. chairman, subcommittee, thank you once again for the subcommittee to work with you today and discuss discussed the work of the department. i'm happy to answer questions you may have. thank you for your time. >> in november of 2014, the president expanded immigration amnesty through the objective order and in furtherance of the the executive order to people over the age of 30 and new arrivals are also allows about 4 million additional illegal immigrants than in the in the country for five years and who are parents of u.s. citizens and legal residents to apply every three years for the deportation d. for roles.

in january you testified during the confirmation hearing that you believe the president executive actions are legal and constitutional even though the president stated many times he did didn't believe he had the power to grant amnesty without authority from the congress. why do you believe the president's executive actions and amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants are legal and constitutional? ..

>> as you assume to the position of attorney general, how will you, madam attorney general, enforce current immigration laws begin your belief that the recent executive actions trump existing laws? understood do all executive actions the presumption that they trump the laws of congress? >> i believe our existing laws are a vital resource in dealing with the problem of both illegal immigration as well as criminal activity that results from illegal immigration.

and in particular, the department's own executive office of immigration reform, as you have noted is charged with adjudicating various types of immigration violations. that department, as you have noted, has suffered from a backlog of cases and inefficiency that have delayed actions, separate and i part from the president's new policies that has delayed actions for far too long. within the new budget request the department would seek to hire additional immigration judges 55 in total to reduce the backlog. but also, senator recognizing that we simply cannot wait for additional money. we are taking steps already to try and make the executive office of immigration reform mow efficient. previous to my testimony the judges have already worked to triage so to spoke the types of cases that need to be adjudicated quickly. jumps have been dere-employed to handle the backlogs of cases

because we recognize that is unsustainable. separate and aproperty tom immigration reform, as i'm sure the committee is aware, i believe almost approximately 30% of federal criminal cases that are brought by a u.s. attorney across the country relate to immigration. so senator separate and apart from the court result of the november policies, the department of justice is moving forward, both to prosecute criminal activity resulting from illegal exception to support the work of the executive office of immigration reform, which we believe is vital. >> i want to shift to another area of financial fraud. oneoff your previous jobs you were directly involved with several high profill financial fraud settlements as the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york. however, it's my understanding that not one of those settlements also involved a

criminal prosecution. why did you in and the department -- i know you weren't the attorney general then, you were the u.s. attorney -- not pursue criminal charges and how could you enter into a billion dollar settlement referring guilty of fraud and never see fit to prosecute not one person for mortgage or financial fraud. and will that change as the -- now since you're the attorney general? in other words are buying justice by settlement? >> senator, with respect to the work which i was proud to conduct as u.s. attorney, in regard to the residential mortgage backed securities initiative my office was involve in two of the major settle. s of that as well as other outstanding u.s. attorneys offices across the country. and throughout this investigations the message at the time, both from the leadership at the time, from all

the u.s. attorneys working on that and from myself to my team the direction was that no entity is above the law no individual is above in the law no one is too big or too powerful to jail or to fail. but what the department of justice does in every case, senator, is we follow the evidence. >> okay. >> we ascertain the best way of achieving legal compliance with there have been violations and providing redress to victims. we look carefully in every okay, not just rnbs cases but every case involving a institution where american citizens have lost hard-earned money to determine the best way to bring those wrong-doers to justice and where the evidence leads us to find evidence that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's been a criminal violation, we go in that direction, and i point you to the number of criminal fraud prosecutions brought by my office on behalf of the victims

of a ponzi scheme, mortgage fraud scheme and real estate schemes, over the years involving hard-working americans who were defraud of their life savingsy. we find evidence that points toward civil liability we pursue that. but i can assure you senator both in my prior position and going forward i take very seriously the obligation to protect the american citizens from fraud of all types and it is one of my heist priorities as attorney general. >> standard thresh old for a civil case is not the same as criminal. >> there's a different burden of proof on the government, and have evidence we proceed and several people in prison contemplating the results off their actions who can provide proof of that.

>> mr. chairman, madam attorney general, the many programs you have functioning at the local level, certainly in baltimore top notch u.s. attorney's office and an outstanding baltimore fbi field office, joint task forces working with local government, dealing with everything from human trafficking such a violent, despicable thing to medicare fraud which we know, for example in florida is already the $3 billion defrauding our government of money that should be in the trust fund helping sick people. so we thank you for what you're doing. the issue is also focusing on criminal justice reform. because of our grant program particularly in cops, others, that go directly to local law enforcement, do you think that there should be mandatory

training in the areas of ethnic and racial bias as well as also on the use of force and that there should be a national standard? in other words in order to get the money you have to take the training that behavioral will not pat at the or wear out or even -- will not tatter or wear out or break the trust the commune must feel. >> senator, as we administer our grant programs to our local law enforcement partners, all of those issues are on the table and are under consideration. currently i will say that our view is that we feel that the grant program is a very important tool in bringing offices into compliance with not only federal standards but community standards that they are aware of also. so we would not use that as a barrier to the grant program but, rather, as an incentive to work with us and gain training on u.s. of force policies.

we have grants specifically targeted towards that. through the cops office, whether there's a collaborative reform effort or not suspect through the cops office we provide specific training on best practices involving use of force, not only do we provide the training. we also attempt to link local law enforcement with other local law enforcement offices that themselves have either received train -- >> but madam attorney general we'll get lost in collaborative reform and -- i don't mean lost. we do know that baltimore city, through its both mayor and police commissioner and the concurrence of other elected officials, initiated a collaborative reform effort in baltimore. that's voluntary effort where police departments reach out to you, meaning the attorney general, and his or her offices to evaluate the department on

how to better improve police community relations. that's underway. but that voluntary. that voluntary. >> yes. >> then there's the pattern and practice investigation. we know we have asked for that. you'll make your determination whether this -- later on whether you'll initiate it. what about where they haven't asked for collaborative reform but they have asked for money? there's a lot of, let get the money, and we supported more cops on the beat. we supported the burn grants so that our law enforcement would have the tools they needed, whether it's other technology or whatever. then -- but again they took the money but we see that there are other issues that community-based leadersing are faith and grassroots and others, are saying the relationship is worn. and my question is, if you get the money, should there be

training, whether it's deliberate bias and also the use of force. >> yes senator i -- >> apart from whether they have a collaborative reform effort underway or not. >> yes senator. separate and apart from whether there's a co lab bra riff to form northwester a grant situation, we seek to provide training. my only point, and i actually don't want to disagree with you on that because it's such important point. my only points we do use it as a barrier but instead to use it to obtain training. some training will come as a result of grants, some training comes as result of us connecting police departments -- >> i understand that. the community feels they get a lot of money from the feds, and we don't have the necessary centers. i'd like to have an ongoing conversation with you about it. >> this issues are under consideration, because as you

indicate they're very, very important and essential. >> what other tools do you feel you have on criminal justice reform to help restore this trust that we need to restore in our communities? >> well, senator we have touched a little bit on the collaborative reform process. again, as we had seen, without community trust in that, it may not be as effective as we would wish. certainly we then have other tools to consider. wasn't our programs we provide training on use of force. we do provide training on building community trust. we also, as you mentioner earlier, how to our community relations service worked directly with the community to attempt to empower them to engage with their local leaders with the police department, and to hold them accountable as well. we do think that community accountability is an important part of that relationship. >> well, we have more to ask if there's a second round i want to focus on juvenile justice. thank you very much.

>> senator perk. >> -- prosecutions. i understand that countrywide we have 1500 under the rico statutes. assuming that illinois is about five percent of the united states that would mean we would have had over 60 rico prosecutions in our area. right enough it's about zero. i want to encourage you very frankly to work with our u.s. attorney there and make sure that the rico prosecutions that we have underway -- that we can prosecute gangs gangs of national significance that then chairman senator mccosky on the issue of gangs. rico is the particular statute we should go with. >> senator, i could not agree with you know or the case of the

rico -- the efficacy of the rico start -- >> let me follow up. this subcommittee add 1.5 million dozen to the u.s. marshals to combat bangs. my understanding -- combat gangs mitchell understanding the new task force in chicago arrested 344 people in relation to this effort. is that your understanding? >> i don't have that exact number. but i know it is very active in the chicago area. >> thank you. >> senator just to follow up on your previous point i could not agree with you more on the efficacy of the rico statute as a tool to target violent crime particularly gang violence. the important of taking out the leadership of a gang, both from a law enforcement perspective and from a community perspective, cannot be overstated. i thank you for the discussions you and i had during my courtesy visits with you and in fact i have had discussions with the u.s. attorney in chicago as well as with the head our criminal division here in washington

about finding ways to bolster those efforts and both have assured me they're also committed to using this important tool. >> want to make sure we get the word down to leslie caldwell and doug krohn make sure they follow up. >> yes sir. i have spoken with them and they're commit as well. >> thank you. >> center leahy. >> thank you mr. chairman, and madam attorney general nice to see you again. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. i agree with what senator mccosky said about your presence in baltimore. it's not only important for the community, which you understand probably far better than i but it's important to the country and i understand that as you did in your hearing before the judiciary committee you were asked a number of questions on immigration, executive action, something that, since i've been

here every president has done executive actions on immigration. i think probably the most extensive were by president reagan. but i also point out if an executive action is usually done when congress doesn't act. now, we spent hundreds of hours putting together an immigration bill in the u.s. senate, passed a couple years ago. two-thirds of the senates voted for it, republicans and democrats, huge bipartisan effort. the republican leadership in the house, even though it by all analyses would have passed the house representatives, refused to take it up. so i have a little trouble hearing criticisms of the president finally acting when the congress would not. the congress doesn't like what

the president has done on immigration, pass an immigration bill. we did it in the senate. again, republicans and democrats came together. they refuse -- the republican leadership refused to bring it up in the house. had they, we wouldn't even be having this question. so i just say that, if we don't like it in the congress, then let's pass a bill. i also think we ought to reform our federal sentencing laws. the bureau of prisons is consuming nearly a third of the department's budget. we talked about what we should be doing on law enforcement and other things. a third of your budget to the bureau of prisons. excessive mandatory minimum sentences are wasted. money could be spent. i one of the proposals under consideration by the senate jew tissue -- jew judiciary.

your long career as a federal prosecutor you prosecuted many drug cases. i've prosecuted many drug cases. you think we can reduce those mandatory minimums and still keep our communities safe? >> senator i think we absolutely can have sentencing reform that enables to us reduce the mandatory minimums and keeps our communities safe. it's important to note that the recent efforts at sentencing reform that seek to reduce mandatory minimums do not eliminate them. they still recognize the need to provide serious punishment for the most serious offenders. in fact what we have seen with the smart on crime initiative is that while overall drug cases may have don down, the good-have gone down the longer sentences have actually gone up. so we are in fact trying now to focus on those larger offenders the large scale traffickers who are flooding our communities

with poison as opposed to the lower level offenders who need to be punished but at a different scale. i think sentencing reform is an excellent way to make sure these efforts continue. >> i think also we sometimes think we can do a one size fits all. california did that it withthree strikes are out and darn near bankrupted the state. i worry about what is happening when we take money from law enforcement, lock up people. some people should be in prison. others we're wasting time. and money. and that money could be glued other areas of criminal justice system. i'm worried about the increase in heroine and overdoses becoming a health crisis. anyone my state of vermont we have not been spared. between 2000 and 2012. treatment for opiode addiction in vermont rose by more than 770%.

last week the vermont state police issued a warning about the dangers of heroin laced with a drug. it was going a number of multiple deaths in our state. interdiction won't salve the issues but -- won't solve the issues but the law enforcement agencies canner particularly in the smaller rural states or small are rural areas which every state has needs some help. i pushed last year to create a new grant program to support antiheroin task force. i understand the grant programs are getting underway. the yates of department was instructed to create a multidepartment task force to address the rising up in of heroin use. can you tell me how that is going and what you might be available to do to help in the public health crisis?

>> yes senator. it certainly is the intersection of law enforcement and public health issue. certainly with respect -- our budget does request additional founds to deal with this uptick in heroin abuse and other emerging drug areas. there is a senate mandated heroin task force. they held their first meeting just last week. the deputy attorney general is actively involved in that. it deals not only with law enforcement but the public health issues of that. it's also led and supplemented by self of our u.s. attorneys who over the past material several years have themselves worked with public health officials and local communities to deal with this as a public health crisis. so we are bringing all voices to the table in an attempt to get the policies effective at a local level promulgated nationwide and make them available to other communes as well. the budget does call for increases that would support our law enforcement efforts in

heroin as welling a open putts bass the prescription drug crisis is tied to this as well. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator collins. >> thank you mr. chairman. attorney general lynch just this morning the second circuit court of appeals held that section 215 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act does not authorize government to engage in the bulk collection of phone numbers under the metadata program. one of the president's independent review groups, which looked at this law mike moreal the former deputy trespassing 'er of the crowe and the former director of thefy,-muller said had this program been in place prior to the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11/01 it

likely would have prevented those attacks. so we have a very serious question here of balancing security with privacy rights, and the clarity of the law which is set to expire, that provision, expires june 1st. since january of last year, this section of fisa has been conducted pursuant to new procedures that were instituted by the president. now the ag provides a semi annual report on privacy violations associated with the law. the new procedure provides that except in emergencies the fisa court is now required to approve ahead of time any queries of

phone records the database, because of the changes made by the president. two questions. one, are you aware of any significant privacy violations that have occurred since the president instituted these reforms? and second, has the justice department made a decision yet on appealing this doing by the second circuit? i realize it just came down. >> thank you senator. obviously section 215 has been a vital tool in our national security arsenal but the department has been operating under the new directive by the president with the view towards modifying the program to keep itself efficacy but preserve privacy interests. i am not aware at this time of any violations that have come to light. i will certainly seek a briefing on that, and should i learn of any i will advise the committee

of that. if my knowledge changes on that. but as of now i have not been informed of any violation is under the new policy. with respect to the second circuit, we're rereviewing that decision but given the time issues involving the expiration of it we also have been work with the body ands to look for ways to reauthorize section 215 in a way that does preserve its if cassy and preserve privacy. >> thank you itch want to turn to an issue you and i discussed when we met in my office, and that is the tremendous increase in the number of scams that are targeting our nation's seniors ranging from the jamaican lottery scam the grandparent scam and most recently, the irs and podster scam. what we have learned is that

these scammers typically operate offshore and they rely upon advanced communication and payment technologies, and the losses suffered by individual victims are devastating and they aggregate in the billions, yet the federal government has been extraordinarily lax in its approach to actually going after these criminals and only the federal government can realistically tackle the international crime networks behind many of these scams. i also want to bring to your attention that under your predecessor -- i want to make it very clear it was before your time -- that the department refused to send to the committee a witness to testify on the department's efforts. that was appalling to both in the ranking member, and to me.

what can the department do to be more agrees sniff -- aggressive in prosecuting these scams and will you pledge from now on the department will cooperate with our investigations? >> well, senator with respect to the very, very important role that this subcommittee plays in gathering inflammation about the depth's priorities i will always strive to cooperate and provide either a witness or information whatever is best for the committee to receive so that we can help you learn not only about our priorities and issues, but also to do the important work of this subcommittee. so i'm not aware of the circumstances that were around the previous request but certainly i will always commit to providing providing this committee with the assistant it needs either before the committee or at the staff level.

with respect to the very important matter you raise about the -- many of them are overseas based fraud schemes. the other troubling factor to mees that many of them target our elderly population and that is a particularly vulnerable population to telemarketing schemes, be they based locally or be they based overseas. so it's very troubling to me and the protection of our vulnerable population as one of our priorities. i'm not aware right now of the case wes may have in our pipeline. i'll ask for review of this important issue. our bug does ask for funding to continue the fight against fraud, and certainly i know all of the agencies involved in this you-mention, for example, the irs scam calls -- that agency is also very, very concerned about that. and as someone who actually received one of those calls myself i can tell you that if one is not aware of the

fraudulent nature of them they consider vehicle disturbing and it's easy to see our hour seniors and other people can get pulled into that. >> thank you. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you mr. chairman. and vicewoman -- welcome now madam attorney general in your official capacity of leading the department of justice itch was please to hear your giving voice the toe the seriousness with which you take issues of overprescription addiction and abuse, and diversion of opiode drugs, and and i want to call your attention a situation in my state of wisconsin at the va medical facility where there are

number of investigations ongoing all rerating to these very pressing issues. i called upon attorney general holder to conduct an intrigues the facility. my request was based on multiple sources, including published investigative and journalism reports numerous whistleblowers and citizens who have contacted my office conveying information that in my mind raise serious questions about potential criminal activity. currently the va is conducting an investigation as is the virginia inspector general and the dea is engaged in an