gill s. it's advised 17 fortune 500 companies last year to increase men's involvement in advancing women. i want to ask you in absence or in federal or state action on gender issues what sort of progress are we seeing in the private sector? >> we are seeing some progress. we are seeing an increase in women on corporate boards and a small increase in women in top leadership. so there is -- i do think the involvement of men -- one of the things about reports like this is that you can see in real terms -- anybody wants to see the report you can get it through the clinton foundation. they also have an interactive database that you can access country by country. but you can see how the society as a whole is improved when conditions for women improve. and i think that everybody's winners. and one of the things that if

when data like this exists it convinces more people that they should, in fact increase standards. and more men get involved the better. so we're all for that. and i do think that we are areas because we have m plil controversy or made partisan really things that are no brainers that -- such as health care or trying to reduce maternal mortality. there are so many things we can agree on, ending violence against women. you have to have more involvement in men. you should not politicize these things. it took us too long to reauthorize the violence against women act here in this country. we know that to have legislation like this helps fight violence

against women. and everybody wins. so i'm hoping that we can through hard core data and knowing more about these issues there will be less partisanship and more gains for everyone. >> more calls. this is milo in iowa. thanks for joining us. >> caller: thank you. yes, ma'am, i just have a question about are you for rights for all women? you just made a statement about not to politicize things. i'm just wondering i am totally independent and i am watching things on both sides of the political issue. and i am just wondering if you are for all women are you for those that disagree with you say on abortion and if you are where is your foundation at when some of the ladies that are conservative get hammered like a

sarah palin? and do they have to agree with you and your political views? >> let's put it this way. when we talk about political leadership and increasing the numbers in women in political leadership we are not talking about one party. we are talking about overall increase in leadership. but basically when you said the issue like abortion and family planning we are not saying everybody should practice one thing or another we are saying it should be available legally and safely so that we know that if you want access you can have the access to modern contraceptive care for example. so we're for more choices for women. and basically think that when you have for example, a peace

negotiation women should be at the table. when you have policy discussions women should be at the table. right now we have about 19 to 20% of the senate 19% of the house, that's not enough representation. we are half the population. and we want to look more like america. we know when there are more women at the table there is more concern about child care education, health care issues. and that's to everybody's benefit. >> what keeps that number at the 20% which is higher than it may have been before but certainly lower than some of the countries we pointed out earlier? why is that number not higher? >> in the united states right now it costs so much to run for political office. it's a very big barrier. you are talking for the united states senate millions of dollars that you needed.

it depends on the state and even smaller states is 20 million. and the house of representatives you have such gerrymandering. it's just an outrage so it contributes to a lot of people votes don't count evenly. if you are in california, for example, which has such a huge population, you still get two senators where a very small state gets two senators. that is gerrymandering right there. think about the house of representatives where you will have such under representation because we all know that gerrymandering is contributing to situations where there is under representation of the more progressive view point in reality, under representation of cities and certainly

underrepresentation of people of color. now we have a whole movement to suppress the vote. it's not just anybody's vote that is being suppressed. it is people of color. i don't think people are understanding it is also suppression of the women's vote because there is a gender gap in voting and right wing opponents have decided they don't have the demographics so they are out to suppress the vote of certain people among them women, students, people of color. so we are lagging because of this but i think that there will be constant increase and i think the country as the whole has got to worry about a democracy where we now are spending money has too much of an influence on political decision making in voting. >> back to calls. frank on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking

my call. you had a call moments back where a gentleman asked you among other things about your thoughts on the 50 million babies that had been aborted. part of your response was talking about employment for women. i just wanted to mention that in the nazi germany employment increased across the board but hitler made the choice to exterminate large swaths of humanity. >> i obviously was opposed to hitler but i was also too young for that. what i'm trying to say is that when you say 50 million babies or whatever come on. those are not accurate statistics. throughout life, the human race women have had a need to and have limited births.

and basically limiting births also improves the quality of life for many people. some people they can have large families others cannot for a variety of reasons not just economic reasons but their health reasons. and so it isn't a fair analogy at all what hitler did to the jews was an atrocity that we all are appalled by and don't want to ever see again. but basically when you're giving women a chance to determine the size of their own family -- and women do this usually with the loved ones in their own family and their partners -- come on. you're giving them a chance to live a life that has a higher

quality. and that they can be healthier. high maternal mortality rates don't help anybody either. we know that lowering the fertility rate improves the longevity of the woman's life and her family. one of the things the report shows not only did we half the maternal mortality rates we also reduced the rate of death for children under the age of 5. both girls and boys. we are for really improving the health of human beings. and i think these other comparisons are simply absolutely not fair. >> a little over five minutes left with our guest. joining us from new york, the site of this week's conference for women at the united nations and talking about the full

participation report no ceilings report looking back 20 years to 1995 and one of the present former secretary of states who discussed the progress in a conversation with usa today. >> there has been progress and there are more women in high level positions and there are more women kind of scattered through both the governments and as well as the private sector. i think there is a long way to go whether in pay as we talked about or the number of positions that are really open to women. and so i do think that this continues to be a work in progress. there has been progress but not enough i guess is the way i put it. >> let's move on to a couple of problems. columbia, maryland is next. >> caller: good morning.

i don't know if you're aware of this. i'm glad women in this country have the law to cover these women in the u.s. and obviously you're helping a lot of people outside this country. but i hope that you will note that the native americans are not protected on their own land if a perpetrator does wrong against the native people because congress has said that if the perpetrators were prosecuted on the reservation by the native courts the native people, the native courts would not be fair.

and john mccain was the leader for this. now, how can the first nations of this country the great usa not give any protection to their people. >> we will get a response. >> i think that maybe the caller isn't aware of the fact that i think you are talking about violence against women. the 2013 reauthorization of violence against women act -- we had amendments that we fought very hard for to cover native american women. it is true at one time if her intimate partner was a white person or an american citizen and not a native american, they

could not be prosecuted if they perpetrated it on a reservation. that has changed. the native american women are now covered under the violence against women act as our students at college campuses gay and lesbian and so it has been broadened. it is very hard for us to get that through but we did get it through because it was terrible that for years their coverage was -- this was not only a loop hole but it contributed to violence against women, as you say in the first nation. we hope that this change in the violence against women act will improve the situation. >> another legislative issue. your organization is focused on that you penned a couple of weeks ago trade must not trump

womens human rights. you write that any deal that forces women to take a back seat to profit and trade should be a nonstarter but the united states is negotiating the trans pacific partnership with a number of nations. what's your organization doing to make its voice heard? >> that is what we are trying to do. that is why i wrote the editorial and for the huffington post. we are working hard with the gay and lesbian movement and with labor organizations that this -- it's really an outrage that they introduce a penal code very restrictive to women. and they're getting away with it. if they -- the way the trade agreement goes is that anybody in it, their products will be

considered as american products even if they have horrendous violations on human rights. and does have tremendous violations. we pulled our event, for example, from the beverly hills hotel which is owned by the -- and we have led throughout the nation we are trying to wake up people that these trade agreements sometimes are with countries that are just violating human rights and we should have higher standards. as i say trade cannot trump basic human rights and the rights of women or the rights of gay and lesbian people or whoever. you know they will flog women in public. it's just an outrage. i hope more people understand that and that we can demand more from our trading partners.

they want to trade with the united states they have to have more better record on human rights. >> let's get one more call here from staten island, new york. >> good morning. i wondered why you are saying the woman is not equal. how more equal you want to be? with who? >> you want to have boys and girls, men and women equal. there shouldn't be a wage gap. there should be equal educational opportunities, health care. there shouldn't be areas of health care in which women are not -- i'll give you an example. before the affordable care act in the united states it was okay to charge more for women's health insurance and i'm talking about like 150% more and give

less benefits. that's not fair. and now under the affordable care act you cannot have gender pricing. and you cannot have benefits that are less for women. and it's things like that. it's not little things. it effects women's pocket books and the entire family. and then world wide, come on. we have stunting girls' growth because they are last to be fed or they don't have adequate nutrition. we are two-thirds of the illiterates of the world because we lag in educational opportunities. what we are showing is when girls and boys, when men and women are more equal the entire society benefits. the gross national product goes up economics goes up, more peace and more well being and more security. so the united states has adopted

a position of foreign policy position that is encouraging women's rights not only because it's the right thing to do but it also benefits the society as a whole benefits the united states, benefits stability and the security of the world. >> president of the feminist majority. there is more at feminist.org and on twitter. thanks for visiting with us this morning. >> thank you so much. on the next washington journal cedric leighton on the fight against isis. also david madlanon on wisconsin's new law prohibiting employers from requiring that workers belong to a labor union. and we will talk with kevin

o'neil of the fraternity and sorrority committee. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 eastern. on news makers this week maryland senator ben cardin discusses foreign policy issues facing congress including negotiations concerning iran's nuclear program and the use of military force against isis. he talks about maryland politics. news makers airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. taking a look at the u.s. senate floor debate expected next week on loretta lynch's nomination to replace eric holder. if confirmed she would become the first female

african-american attorney general. her nomination was approved by the senate judiciary committee with three republicans joining nine democrats in voting to confirm. a start day and time for the senate to begin debate has not been set. we will update you when that information becomes available. this sunday on q&a dr. adrian berman, director of the georgetown university medical center watch dog project farmed out. >> the promotion of a drug actually starts seven to ten years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it is approved by the fda it is not illegal to market a disease. sometimes drug companies have invented diseases or exaggerated

importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug, for example. and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. in february the fcc voted three to two to approve open internet rules designed to limit access to content and establishing fast lane services cht shortly after the vote fcc chairman wheeler spoke with reporters. this runs about 25 minutes.

thanks, everybody, for coming. because as you know, today the fcc took important steps to assure that the u.s. has a world leading broadband network that are fast, fair and open. the landmark open internet protections that we adopted today should reassure consumers, innovators and financial markets about the broadband future of our nation. and the action we took to get rid of state level red tape that served as nothing more than a barrier to broadband competition will allow communities to determine their own broadband future. let me first say a brief word about the community broadband item. we do not take preemption lightly and we respect the

important role that states play in our federal system. but when state laws directly conflict with federal laws and policy, we have an obligation to act. here we are acting to ensure that communities in tennessee and north carolina can take steps to ensure their citizens don't get left behind in the 21st century. we saw some graphic illustrations of those citizens today talking about the challenges that we are trying to address. the open internet order puts in place bright line rules that ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid prioritization fast lanes. for the first time open internet rules will be fully applicable to mobile. consumers now know that content

online will not, cannot be blocked or their service throttled. today's action ensures the rights of internet users to say what they want, and go where they want, when they want. no matter how or where they access the internet, whether it is on their desktop computer, or their smartphone. innovators now know that they will have open access to consumers without worrying about pay for preference fast lanes or gatekeepers. today's actions ensure the rights of entrepreneurs to introduce new products and services without getting anyone's permission.

financial markets now know that there will be common sense open internet protections in place that rely on modernized -- a modernized regulatory approach that has already been demonstrated to work, not old style utility regulation. the rules underwhich the wireless voice industry has invested $300 billion to build a vibrant and growing business are the model for the rules that we adopted today. that means no rate regulation, no tariffing, and no forced unbundling. today's action ensures isps continue to have the economic incentive to build fast and competitive broadband networks.

it is in the interest of consumers, innovators, and investors that nothing in today's order alters the economic model of that has continued expansion thus far. that's why hundreds of smaller phone company isps have said they're comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach. and a word about process. last year most fcc rules to protect consumers and innovators online were struck down. we acted immediately to begin a process to restore open internet protections. over the past year we received

input from nearly 4 million americans in one of the most transparent proceedings that this commission has ever run. there was 130 day or so public comment period. we held six round table discussions with experts on legal, technical and market issues. we heard from and responded to over 140 members of congress. our team had dozens of meetings with congressional staff. i spoke with and listened to hundreds of consumers, innovators, entrepreneurs, in meetings across the country. so today, after a decade of debate, and an open and robust year long process, we finally have legally sustainable rules

to ensure that the internet stays fast, fair and open. i'll be happy to take any of your questions. >> -- what we see the order and why do you think that it has a better shot in holding up court review? >> two questions, huh? >> first one is easy. >> well, then why did you ask it? >> it is also important. >> we'll see the order and we will publish the order on the website as soon as we have the next two steps that happen. one, we need to get the dissents in from the commissioners that dissented. second, we have to look at those dissents, there is a court opinion that requires the majority to be responsive to the dissents. but that will happen quickly as soon as we get the dissents in. then we will put it on the web.

and at that point in time, we will also file it with the federal registrar and they will publish it in the federal registrar in their own, but it will be on the web as soon as we have gone through our hoops. >> why do you think this will stand judicial review when the other didn't? >> so, you know, so the d.c. circuit sent the previous order back to us and basically said, hey, you're trying to impose common courier-like regulation without saying -- stepping up and saying that these are common couriers. we have addressed that issue. that is the underlying issue. that's all the debates that have happened thus far. so that gives me great confidence going forward. >> brendan. >> hi, chairman.

do you think that the fcc has become more partisan and if so whose fault is that? >> you know, as i tried to express today, strongly held beliefs, articulated by articulate and thoughtful people, and eventually you come down it a vote. 90% of our votes are unanimous here. you just get to see the ones that get staged here that -- where there is more dissent. but, you know, i think that it is a -- continues to be a collegial process. >> lynn? >> lynn? >> thank you -- [ inaudible ] broadband subscriber access service but now apparently you don't think it is. >> so, i mean, this is one of the issues, you know, about -- there has been a lot of talk about why don't you release the rough draft of things? this is one of the reasons, because it is a rough draft. because it is a work in

progress. and there was give and take as to the best way to structure a common result. there was no difference in the result. it was just the way in which to go about it. and we wanted to make sure that in the process we were saying, hey, there are services that are provided to consumers, like you and me, and there are services that are provided to edge providers. and called both of those up, but they both exist under the same kind of rules which there has to be open access and transparency. >> the u.s. has a global position that governments should not regulate the internet. former commissioner robert mcdonald carried that message to the telecommunications union but raised concerns about net neutrality. do you think net neutrality weakens the u.s. global position that government should not

regulate the internet? >> absolutely not. it strengthens the position by making clear as i said in my statement that no one, whether it is government, or corporate interests, should be standing astride the internet to thwart the ability of consumers to have free and open access. and that's what we're talking about. we're making sure that there is open access. >> yesterday ranking member poulenc brought up an issue about the white house's consumer privacy bill of rights where he complained the fcc's authority on section 222 would be -- would not -- the fcc would not be allowed to use that authority to enforce privacy rules on data breach and social security issues. can you sort of respond to that concern? is that something that you heard has the white house reached out

to you about that issue at all? >> i think mr. poulenc raises a very good point. i've had no conversations with the white house about it. we take our responsibilities with privacy quite seriously here. >> last year you collected troves of information about interconnection deals that are happening in the industry. can you talk about what you learned from those documents and how they factored into the way interconnection is tackled? >> our decision is made on the record in terms of information about interconnection that was put into the record. obviously we didn't waste people's time by asking those questions. but our decision is based onned record, not that inquiry. >> not that inquiry. >> right. >> hi, chairman. can you tell us a little bit more about the internet conduct standard, what sorts of activities could it regulate and

what are some examples of how the fcc might use it? >> the internet that -- the general conduct standard says that there should not be unreasonable interference, and there should not be -- that should not unreasonably disadvantage those who want to use the internet. i notice the concept of unreasonable. and, again, that's why title two became so important to us over the summer because it brings the just and reasonable test to the fore. but as i said in my statement, you know, we don't really know. no blocking, no throttling, no fast lanes, those can be bright line rules because we know about those issues. but we don't know where things go next.

and so using this kind of a construct of what is reasonable, then we have created a playing field, where there are known rules, and the fcc will sit there as a referee able to throw the flag. >> thanks, commissioner. barring any unknown unknowns this is probably most high profile issue and vote at the open meeting you'll have as a chairman. as a student of history yourself, who do you think we'll look back on this in five, ten, 15 years? >> i have spent a lot of time in public policy. today is the proudest day of my public policy life. >> mr. chairman, about the standard for future conduct, what are the factors that the fcc will use to determine whether a future practice like zero rating, for instance, or sponsored data plan from a wireless carrier is, in fact,

unreasonable? >> so unreasonable and just and reasonable is something that has developed over time. and it is something that you build a record on, and then you look at that record and you say, okay, is this a just and reasonable activity? is this an activity that unreasonably interferes? is this an activity that unreasonably disadvantages or my favorite, is this an activity that hurts consumers, hurts competition, or hurts innovation? and you make a decision based on the record. >> tom with the wall street journal. >> hi, tom. >> when it comes to municipal broadband, why do you think the preemption of state laws by an agency is going to survive a court challenge and were there other routes you considered?

>> were there other what? >> other routes to reaching the goal? >> routes. so as we laid out in the discussion, what we're dealing with is a situation where the states said to the localities, you have the authority to do this. and then put in place barriers to keep them from exercising that. section 706 explicitly says to us, take away barriers to broadband deployment. and so we did take away those barriers, but did not go to the overall state authority that in fact said to those folks, you have the ability to do this. >> jim with the l.a. times. there have been a number of allegations both on capitol hill and by commissioner pai that president obama influenced improperly influenced this

proposal. did the president or anyone at the white house either dictate to or influence your proposal? >> thanks for asking that question, jim. the president has been well known, on record, for a long time, in favor of net neutrality. so have i. presidents always communicate their opinions to the fcc. that's nothing new. we are the expert agency. we are the agency that has to take the concept that says i'm for an open internet, and say what is the best way to implement that based on the record. and that's what we did. and we produced a set of rules that are stronger and more

expansive than the president even envisioned. we produced a set of rules based on our independent assessment of what the record told us. >> but he was very specific. you said you take a general statement, he came out with a number of specific things and the proposal addresses all of those specific items, title two, other things. >> and the proposal addresses a lot of things he didn't is what i'm saying. and the other part of that is, you know, maybe you've noticed, and there was a question that lynn asked, but and there has been a lot of stuff in the press about interpretations of title two, going down to the 11th hour here on how you want to put it. so that's -- this has been a plus. title two is this -- it is title two. title two is 48 different sections.

you got to deal with each of those and you got to deal with the specificity of how it is done. and that's what we did to produce an outcome that is, you know, significantly different than the president was talking about. >> hi, mr. chairman. todd with bloomberg news. what do you say to critics who say this vote ushers in an era of regulatory instability since another fcc 3-2 party line vote could reverse what you've done? >> i think one of the things that is the challenges in dealing with public policy today is everything gets debated in terms of imaginary horribles. and let me tell you about my armageddon versus your armageddon kind of a situation. the fact of the matter is that for 22 years, the mobile industry has been regulated under rules that the industry sought. i know, because i did it, okay? rules that the industry sought

to become title two common carriers and to have forbearance from the inappropriate regulation. and it has been wildly successful. we end up forebearing in this item from, like, 50% more sections of title two than the mobile policy that the mobile industry championed does. so i take real heart from that. and it was a very major part of my thinking because, like i said, i lived through this. i watched the mobile industry thrive. i listened to the -- to the ceos talk about how this kind of stability was important to them. and i think, again, you see, in the statements of some of the carriers, some of the isps, that

they see the wisdom in that. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. mari with light reading. regarding the interconnection agreements, what in an agreement that was decide upon would you consider to be unjust or unreasonable and how might you impose your enforcement on that? >> so we took real pains in this item not to get to that kind of specificity, but to rather say, for the first time, we're asserting jurisdiction over interconnection. and we will look at the issues that get brought to us, build the record, and in a public way, so everybody has an opportunity to participate and nation a decision on the record based on the kind of unreasonable interference and unreasonable disadvantage we talked about. >> if the mobile providers or

others -- the internet providers go in and ask for a stay, what would you argue in terms of being against a stay? >> gee, i think it is going to be hard for them to get a stay, to put off the implementation of the rules because, i mean, let's go back, there are three actionable, specific, bright line rules in here. no blocking. no throttling. and no prioritized fast lanes. they all said, oh, we never intend to do that. so they're going to go into court now and say, no court, you need to stay this because we intend to block, we intend to throttle, we intend to have fast lanes. and so i think a stay is a high hurdle. >> jason from mashable. i have a question on forbearance. commissioner pai seemed to indicate in his reading of the rules that the forbearance is not explicit, it says this is

something we're not going to do and just trust us. is that wrong or are there, you know, things in these rules that will be explicit in saying, like, we can't do this? >> the commission made a decision today saying we will forebear from these. it is quite similar to what the commission did in the mobile rules, section 332, of the act, in which the commission went in and forbore, i never know the right word to use, forebear, did not enforce multiple provisions of title two. and that's stayed that way for 22 years, through democratic chairman, through republican chairman, through changes in the nature of the -- i mean, you know. >> hi. brandon ross bloomberg. there has been talk that other

entities will seek the fcc to -- so will you grant similar petitions to -- for the fcc did today if -- >> we'll look at similar petitions. and we'll make a judgment based on the record in those. >> are there any other questions from this row? >> yes, sir. >> -- under the new rules, can you address specifically how the commission might address the issue of zero rating, especially free music services for mobile providers? >> again, we specifically did not go into that kind of detail, but created a construct on which we could build a record, which would then allow us to make that kind of a determination. >> peter cook of bloomburg television. mr. chairman, if i could, i wanted to go back to the question of the president's role in all of this. how confident are you that you would have arrived at this final

rule had the president not done his november statement? would it really look the same today, mr. chairman? >> well this is something that, you know, i said repeatedly that i was working on how best to implement title two over the summer. he made a statement in november. i'm quite comfortable that we made this decision with independence, and wisdom and based on the record. >> hi, mr. chairman. i wondered, now that you have the rules in place, does this lessen any concerns you might have about a comcast time warner deal and now that you have these approved, are you going to turn to that deal now? >> good try, but i'm not going to talk about the mergers. points for trying. >> all right. kyle bailey. i just wondered about the

forbearance thing. you spoke a little bit forbearance, but, you know, there is this idea that the forbearance that is there could be eroded by adjudication or just sort of, you know, de facto actions over the years. what do you say to that? >> so, you can't just wake up some morning and say, hey, let's change the rules, okay? section 10 of the act says you have to make a finding as to why it is necessary. and so that establishes a whole process. but what i would go back to, to saying is, to reminding you is what i said about mobile and other examples of forbearance, for 22 years the mobile forbearance has sat there, through multiple administrations, and not been changed. >> all right, great. >> thank you, everybody.

lots of road to the white house programming coming your way. join us tomorrow for governor scott walker live at 11:45 a.m. eastern on c-span. sunday texas republican senator ted cruz will be in new hampshire. watch his remarks at 9:35 p.m. eastern also on c-span. monday night on the communicators fcc commissioner on their recent net nutrality ruling municipal broad band and subsidized phone and broad band program. >> what i am proposing that we do is overhaul the life line program make it concurrent and in sync with the information age. challenge those providers to give more to consumers. the prices and opportunities have gone down and have been more explosive for the rest of

us. it should be for life line consumers. get the providers out of the certification business. that has been the number one problem seeing with not so positive headlines. it is a vulnerability in the system that we need to plug. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators. fbi director and the heads of the dea, u.s. marshall service and atf testified on capitol hill thursday before a senate appropriations subcommittee. the hearing examined the budget request from these law enforcement agencies for 2016. topics included stopping human trafficking and the rise in the use of heroin particularly in the northeast. this is an hour and 45 minutes.

i want to welcome first our four witnesses, fbi director and u.s. marshall director and dea administrator and atf director todd jones. they will later each testify about their agencies 2016 budget request. this morning i want to begin by thanking the men and women of the fbi, the dea and the atf who work every day to protect this nation. we're indebted to them and grateful for their service and their sacrifice. in particular i want to express my condolences to the family of deputy u.s. marshall josie wells killed in the line of duty on

tuesday while participating in a fugitive task force in baton rouge, louisiana. deputy wells was attached to the southern district office in mississippi and volunteered for this recent task force. our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and the entire community for their loss here. the constantly changing landscape of criminal activity at home and abroad has challenged the justice department's ability to deal with emerging threats. we effect our law enforcement agencies to be more nimble and sophisticated than criminals and terrorists they pursue. the goal is to determine how the 2016 budget would give each law enforcement agency the tools and the capabilities needed to tackle those changing threats whether they are cyber attacks, drug trafficking, financial

fraud or terrorism. i believe our federal law enforcement agencies must work together particularly in tough budget environments to target limited resources in a manner that safe guards taxpayers dollars while preserving public safety. the fbi's mission includes protecting and defending the united states against terrorism and foreign intelligence threats, fighting cyber crime as well as tending to traditional criminal activities such as violent crime public corruption and white collar crime. in order to carry out these priorities the fbi's 2016 budget request is 8.5 billion which is increase of $47 million above 2015 enacted amount. in the past year we have seen terrorist threats and increased cyber attacks. i believe it is imperative that the fbi appropriately balances the bureau's responsibilities while targeting the highest

needs and criminal threats facing our nation. the service has been america's oldest federal law enforcement agency and provide julsh security and protect witnesses and transport prisoners. the 2016 budget request of $2.7 billion for the marshall service is $100 million less than the 2015 enacted level of $2.8 billion. the funding reductions are largely isolated to the federal prisoner detention account. i want to hear how the '15 budget request will allow the marshall service to continue its critical missions for the pursuit and arrest of fugitive tax offenders who are targeting our children. the drug enforcement administration's 2016 budget

request totals $2.5 billion. the agency serves a central role in our society working with domestic and international partners in enforcement of controlled substance laws and regulations of the united states. in addition the deas diversion control program prevents detects and investigates the diversion of controlled pharmaceuticals enlisted chemicals. this mission is critical with prescription drug abuse being the fastest growing drug problem. the bureau of alcohol, tobacco is tasked with combatting illegal use of trafficking and storage of explosives and acts of arsons and bombings among other crime fighting roles. atf's 2016 budget request is $1.3 billion which is $60

million above the '15 level. i am interested in how the agency would use this increased funding particularly in light of recent complaints from hunters and sports men who believe atf overstepped its authority by attempting to ban certain ammunition for recreation use. i look forward to hearing views and explanation of our witnesses of details of 2016 funding totals and working with our committee members to prioritize necessary funding for our federal law enforcement agencies. at this point i would like to recognize my friend and colleague. >> truly express our

appreciation. and we do appreciate every single man and woman who works for the agencies represented here today so much valued and so much appreciated. they should know that. i think we need to be able to do that in three ways. number one give them respect. make sure we respect them and respect the sacrifices they do and their families do every single day while they're often away protecting us. number two, let's have the right resources and let's make sure we don't do another sequester where fbi agents were digging into their pocket to dig for gasoline and dea agents doing their job and how we go after sexual predators while protecting the judges. and for that wonderful lab that does this incredible forensics

not only what you are enforcing but enabled us to identify that the terrible snipers situation we had here a few years ago came from a single gun through the forensics that you did. it's that. some carry a gun. some work with the microscope. all are doing their job and i wanted to say that. tomorrow i will be at a montgomery county chamber of commerce event in which they honor those who provide public safety firefighters and also police officers. the field office will be receiving an award for being the best public safety partner. so it's not only what you do it's how you do it. actually engaged in the community, leveraging the assets of the federal government and then state and local where everybody's best at what they are best at and best at what they are most needed for. so we appreciate that.

and, of course, we want to express our condolences to the death of deputy marshall josie wells killed in the line of fire. and we wish our police officers in ferguson a good recovery. so we have a big job to do. and the way we start with respect i believe with the right resources. while we are looking at the law enforcement agencies of the fbi, dea and atf make up most half of the justice department's budget, close to $15 billion, i think that's a bargain. i think that's a tremendous bargain for what we get in the way you are out there protecting america. there is only a modest increase in here of $98 million and i'm concerned whether that enables you to keep hiring the people

that you need to do the job, to be able to sustain the effort with the people that you hire and also will we be able to do the cost of living adjustments for the people who work with you whether they are agents or intelligence analysts or computer analysts? these needed increases come in the context of the president's request. yes, we do know it is above the caps and will be having a robust discussion. while many are calling and pounding the table for let's lift caps on defense, a needed debate, there is another way we need to defend america. we need to defend america in the streets and neighborhoods of our communities. we need to defend them from sexual predators. we need to defend them from murderers and killers. we need to defend them against the lone wolf who could be

roaming around one of our big cities or small towns. if you want to protect america you not only want to lift the defense caps you want to lift the domestic caps and have priority with that. i want you to know i feel very strongly about it. when i say i didn't want to run again because i didn't want to raise money but raise hell, this is one of the areas that i'm going to raise hell about. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008