>> his main objective was not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage. he was determined to die. brown >> in a few moments, vice- president joe biden speak to the annual convention of the naacp after a brief message from president obama. house leaders preview next week's agenda. after that, a hearing on the priorities of the department of homeland security. from the naacp annual convention in houston, texas, president obama and vice president biden. this is a half hour. >> good morning, naacp. i am sorry i cannot be with you

in person but i want to take a moment to thank your board chairman and president benjamin jealous for their leadership and strong partnership formed with my administration. i want to thank everyone at the convention for coming together, not just today but every day. to bend the art of the moral universe toward justice. i stand on your shoulders and the naacp has always believed in the american progress -- promise. no matter who you are, what you look like or where you come from, america is the place for you can make it if you try. that is why he fought so hard for good jobs and quality education and the justice system that treats everybody fairly. that is why you helped make health care reform and reality. that is why you are still fighting today because you know that our mission right now is not just to recover from the recession, it is to reclaim the security that some americans have lost.

our goal cannot just be to put people back to work. although that is priority number one. we have to build an economy where everyone can have the confidence that a hard work -- their hard work also pay off. that is what i believe. that is why as long as i have the honor of serving as your president, i will get up every day and fight as hard as i can for that diverse, hopeful, optimistic, hardworking america that we love. an america where we are looking out for the middle class and an america of where we are creating the ladders for people willing to work hard to get into the middle class. that is my promise to you. if you keep standing with me, if you keep persevering like the naacp always has, then i know we can arrive there together. thank you some months. i am proud of all that you do. michelle, malia, sasha and i

send our deepest regards. ♪ [applause] ♪ >> naacp delegates.

it is my great honor to introduce to you a friend of the naacp. [applause] at the age of 29, he became one of the youngest people ever collected to the united states senate. our speaker meted from washington to bombing him, delaware, by train -- to w ilmington, delware, by train every day and was reelected to the senate six times. as a senator from delaware for 36 years, he has established himself as a leader of some of our nation's most important domestic and international challenges. now serving as the 47 vice-

president of the united states, joe biden continues to provide leadership on important issues facing our nation. [applause] of relevant interest to this audience, joe biden was a standout high school i that -- an athlete who participated in an anti segregation sit in at a wilmington theater. he is married to dr. jill biden and they have three children and five grandchildren. naacp delegates, again, and join me in providing a warm naacp family welcome to the vice president of the united states america. joseph r. biden. [applause]

>> hello. thank you very much. you know what they say, flattery is ok as long as you do not inhale. you keep this up i will start inhaling. [applause] it is good to be home, it is good to be back. ladies and gentlemen, madam chair, as we used to say that in the senate, to excuse a point of personal privilege, where is delaware? hey, delaware! i'm a lifetime member of the naacp. [applause] there is that old expression. you go home with those that

brang you to the dance. they brung me to the dance. i was educated, and i went to the battle with mouse. hey, mouse, how are you doing, man? mouse and i go back a long way. to the days when i waw a public offender. mouse got my back a bunch of times. it is so good to be with you all. i want to thank you all for your leadership and for your friendship, and, again, personally, for your loyalty. it is not an exaggeration.

were it not for the leadership of the naacp, the men and women who educated me when we would sit over in reverend wright's churches -- remember, mouse, those days? i learned so much and i owe so much. ladies and gentlemen, this is not about me. this is about another office. this is about the presidency. this is about -- [applause] more than any other office in the land, the presidency is about character, the character of your convictions, whether you put country above politics.

from the very moment that barack obama took his hand off that bible on that cold january day on the mall, he has done just that. he has put country first. [applause] when the economy was about to go over the cliff, i watched him make some of the toughest decisions any president has had to make since franklin delano roosevelt. he saved the financial system of the nation and prevented a worldwide depression. it was not a popular decision, but it was essential, and he was right to allow credit to flow again. he stepped up to rescue the automobile industry. it was not popular, but it was critical, saving jobs and creating 200,000 new jobs.

this is the man who made the call to go after osama bin laden. it was a bold decision, a bold decision, with profound risks for our warriors as well as his presidency. but he made it and he made that decision on his own. bin laden is dead and america is more secure because of this man's decision. he passed affordable care act, a goal striven for by presidents starting with teddy roosevelt. it required him to use up almost all of his political capital. he prevailed where no president had done before. he was right.

he was right. he cut $100 billion from the federal debt over the next 10 years. he provided access to affordable health care to 30 million americans, 8 million black americans who would never have had insurance. [applause] this is a man, this is a president who has the character of his convictions. almost never since he has taken office, during this entire time, has the republican congress reached across the aisle to help. on the recovery act, which kept us from sliding further into depression, only three republican senators and not one house member voted for it.

on the affordable care act, no republican in the senate and none in the house on the final vote. but it was not just on the big- signature issues, it was on the easy, obvious things where we got no cooperation. extending the payroll tax, only seven republicans initially voted for it. lilly ledbetter equal pay, three republicans voted for it in the house. when we attempted to raise the debt limit to maintain the full faith and credit of the united states, not a single republican met the responsibility of meeting that requirement, resulting in a negotiation that brought us to the brink of disaster, ultimately causing america's credit rating to be lowered for the first time. it was not until later that we learned this was a plan, obstructionism was the plan from the outset.

according to a recent book by robert draper, the author stated in a meeting the night of inauguration, according to draper, republican leaders from paul ryan to eric cantor to kevin mccarthy, mccarthy is reported to have said if you act like you are a minority, you are going to be in the minority. "we have to challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign." newt gingrich, who was also there, said, and he was prophetic, "you will remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sewn."

they were seeds of obstruction. mitch mcconnell said, "the single most important we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president" -- not to get us out of this recession, not to promote jobs, not to do the things that needed to be done, but make barack obama a one-term president. and, folks, their discipline is amazing. they have never let up. but neither has my guy, neither has president barack obama. he has not given up. he continues to be driven by the character of his convictions, and, folks, in the end, that is what the presidency is all about, your character, your convictions, and one more important thing -- it is about your vision for the future of

america. and here, the candidates for president have fundamentally different visions for the future of this country. by the way, i think mitt romney is a fine family man. at least he is driven by what he believes. but the differences are so basic about how we view that america. let me give you a few examples. on education, we see education as central to the vision of how do we assure america's ascendancy throughout the 21st century.

we see it as the most important criteria for minority children. we see education, a future where once again america has the highest percentage of college graduates in the world, a future where high school graduation rates are not a matter of what neighborhood you come from, what your economic circumstances are, but a future where everyone has access to education beyond high school because six out of 10 jobs the coming decade are going to require more than a high- school diploma. a future where everyone can find a decent job, where quality, early education is available to our children, increasing exponentially the chances to succeed in school, where class sizes are small so kids can get personalized attention they need, where we demand more of our teachers and we treat them like they are professionals -- high standards, and pay equal to other professions.

look, education does not play a central role in the romney republican vision of the future of america. it is on the back burner. it is not a priority. you doubt me? just look at the budget for the future. massive cuts in early education, the one thing all educators agree on is the important initiative to deal right upfront with the achievement gap. elimination of the tuition tax credit for families, cuts in pell grant scholarships for children of low-income families, cuts in title one funding for lowest-performing schools, cuts of $2.7 billion, cuts in special

education funding. in my view, backing away from the proposition we have held for years and years, that children should be educated to the degree to which they are educable. cuts by $2.2 billion, cuts in job training. listen to what they say, when he says. he says the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps. tell that all those private schools. tell that all those parents. energy -- we envision a future where clean, energy represents an increasingly large share of energy consumed in america. we see a nation that breathes clear air, where cities are not

polluted, where asthma does not claim the lives of african- american children four times greater than it does of other children because of the environment in which they live. romney sees a different energy future, where renewable energy is not a priority, where romney's allies in the congress oppose any incentives to invest in clean energy, but insist on retaining a $4 billion tax cut for the oil industry, a tax cut even they acknowledge they do not need. women's rights -- we see an america where no woman pays more for health care than any man in america, where women have access to quality childcare, where women receive equal pay for equal work. we see a future where the barriers are removed for women and girls who want to participate in science, technology, engineering, and the math fields, where the violence against women act is not just a law, but a part of

american culture, where the government does not make choices for women, where every woman has unfettered access to contraception and family planning if she desires it. in short, we see an america where our daughters have every opportunity our sons have. governor romney and his allies in the congress envision a different future for women in america. the governor is not sure what his position is on the violence against women act.

he is not sure whether or not lilly ledbetter law that we passed is good. planned parenthood -- get rid of it. innovation and medical research, we see an america where hiv is a thing of the past, where infant mortality is drastically reduced. that is why we continue to invest in basic research, the national science foundation, the research universities. romney sees a very different future, where he cuts funding for nih and the national science foundation.

health care, we see a future where everyone has access to affordable health care, where seniors have access to prescription drugs at a lower cost, they have access to preventive care, making their lives more livable and reducing costs, where insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition, where there are no limits on insurance policies, where children can stay with their parents on their policy until they are 26, where medicare is guaranteed and medicaid is expanded, were no americans face the possibility of bankruptcy because they get sick. [applause] romney's allies see health care a different way --

controlled by the insurance companies, where pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, where coverage can be taken away if you sick or hit your limit, where medicare is voucherized, 19 million people are cut off from medicaid, where millions of people will have to wait another generation before they can get a decent chance at health care. on the tax system, we see a system where everybody pays their fair share, where the middle class tax cut is maintained and where no one making a million dollars a year or more pays a lower percentage than middle-class or lower-lass families, where the college tuition tax credit is made permanent, where the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit are preserved, where everybody, and i mean everyone, has skin in the game and no one gets played for a sucker.

[applause] the tax code that governor romney and his allies envision continue to be skewed to help the very wealthy -- $530 billion of that tax cut over the next 10 years going to just 120,000 households in america, while we cut and put into disarray all these other programs, while the debt continues to climb. he proposes a $1.6 trillion tax cut and the people who can qualify are the people who make only $1 million or more. he eliminates college tuition tax credits, the lower income tax credit, and the child tax credit are cut.

the result? 2.2 million african-american working families will see a tax increase if he succeeds. that is a fact. on foreign policy, we see a future where we, the president and i and the democratic party, see a future where american leads by the power of example as well as the example of its power, where the democracies of the world join to share the burden of maintaining world peace, where we continue to reduce nuclear arms around the world, where responsibility is turned over to the afghans and american troops can start to come home. [applause]

governor romney and his allies see a different future for america's involvement in the world, one that still has combat troops in iraq. remember, he criticized us for bringing them home? where we set no date for leaving afghanistan, we stay, and he does not say how long, where the new start treaty with russia, endorsed by every former secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security advisers, where he said he would have voted against it, and i suspect means where he would abandon it, where russia is viewed in his mind as the greatest geopolitical threat america faces.

we are in the future, where we once decided to go it alone. this guy's vision of american foreign policy is mired in the cold war, and the cold war is over. [applause] on civil rights, your r'aison d'etre, your reason for existence, remember what this organization is all about. it was about the franchise, the right to vote, because when you have the right to vote, you have the right to change things. [cheers]

and we, the president and i, and all of us, we see a future where those rights are expanded, not diminished, where racial profiling is a thing of the past, where access to the ballot is expanded and unencumbered, where there are no distinctions made on the basis of race or gender in access to housing and lending. did you think we would be fighting these battles again? i was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years. we went through these battles. i did not think we would be back.

i remember working with republicans, republicans, and by the way, this ain't your father's republican party. remember? remember working with republicans on motor voter, on expanding the franchise on early voting, on voting by mail? some of these were republican ideas. but this is not the republican party view today, nor romney's. they see a different future, where voting is not easier, where the justice department is prohibited from challenging those efforts to suppress the vote. but i know you know, but i am not sure -- the house of representatives voted affirmatively to prevent the justice department from even investigating whether or not

there was voter suppression? folks, there is a lot more to say. this is preaching to the choir. let me close my friends by saying -- i mean this sincerely -- close your eyes and imagine. imagine what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser

-- imagine the recommendations for her will be picked as attorney-general and head of the civil rights division and other an important positions of justice. imagine -- this is one of the most critical issues and this election. imagine what the supreme court will look like after four years of mitt romney presidency. folks, this election in my view is a fight for the heart and soul of america. [applause] these guys are not bad guys, they just have a fundamentally different views. the best way to some of the president's view, my view, and i think your view is we see a america in a way -- what you do

unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me. we are our brother's keeper. we are our sister's keeper. we have an obligation. at the outset as i said, i believe this election will come down to character, a conviction, and vision. i do not think it is even a close call. it is time. it is time for the naacp to do what it has always done. what it did for me, a young kid in delaware to stand up, make our case, stand our ground, and make our vision for america. god bless you all and they got protect our troops. thank you. --may god protect our troops. thank you.

♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the campaign collection is about 1000 objects that comes from the very beginning of the nation and goes right up to the president. that is important for us because what we are trying to do is keep this large tradition full and documented and reflect the larger story of american lives. >> a look at the smithsonian's campaign memorabilia collection sunday at 7:00 eastern and pacific. more from "the contenders." this week, wendell will he. he never ran for political office before winning the republican nomination.

he would become an unlikely ally to fdr. american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> the house has finish legislative business for this week. party leaders outlined next week's agenda including defense spending. come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: i thank the democratic whip for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. r legislati business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension -- excuse me -- madam speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of which will be aounced by the close of

business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. -- mr. hoyer: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will come to order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. mr. hoyer: i again yield to the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank you. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5872, the sequestratn ansparency act sponsored by congressman jeb hensarling. this is a bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on january 2. chairman paul ryan and the budget committ passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so i expect it to be brought up under suspension of the rules. finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the house will consider h.r. 5856, the department of defense appropriations act, sponsed

by congressmanill young. this will be the house's seventh appropriations bill of the year. i expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on wednesday, july 18, and thursday, july 19. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that scheduling information. as the gentleman knows, we have -- as i calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in july and the beginning of august of which three of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. as a result, we don't have much time left. i would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the -- i understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor?

mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the question. madam speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo, making members aware of ere we're headed for the remainder of the summer -- remainder of e july period. i would say to the gentleman, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. as we know, the regulatory atmospheren this country is making it more difficult, more expensive for small busesses and lawyers to create jobs. we will be focusing on that, and the following week, madam speaker, will be t week in which we'll bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year. in addition to that, we'll

bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited ocedure so that we can actually achieve results for the american people so that our job creators and working families can get back to work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the gentleman's answer and i think we have conssus on this floor by cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the federal government or by the state government or by local governments. we have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. i think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. however, when i ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on the -- couple of levels. i think i may have mentioned this before, but what concns me is that bruce bartlett, who

i think the gentleman probably knows, former reagan and president george h.w. bush official saying that no claim for regulatory issues have increased. he says this. repuicans have embraced the idea that this is holding back employment. they assert that barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulation which cated uncertainty of business and prevents them from investing in hiring. as i said, he said, no hard idence is offered for this claim. he then says, in my opinion that means -- bruce bartlett -- not my opinion, regulatory system is a kenard used by republicans pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. nornede, it's a case of political opportumism. that's his opinion.

not mine. my concern is if you ask economists on whether or not legislation -- many pieces of legislation that we baffed called jobs bills -- the gentleman has pointed that out -- economists say in the short term which is really what we need to do, we need to do in the short term and the long term is not going to create jobs. . this week we haven't done anything to create jobs. might i ask the gentleman, i didn't see it next week, do we expect the 32nd or 33rd vote on repealing the affordable care act either next week or week after or week after that? as the gentleman knows,c.b.s. opines we spent some 80 hours on that issue with whatever cost is attendant to that, do we -- you can answer both questions, i suppose, but certainly i would be interested and members would be interesd to know whether or

not we are going to have another vote on repealing the affordable care act. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say to the gentleman about this week's vote, in fact today, today we voted on a bill that will help us mine it in america. the gentleman likes to speak about making it in america. why shouldn't we also be mining it in america? so it's very much a bill to falitate that business and industry in this country, in an environmentally sensitive way. and in fact 22 of the gentleman's caucus members joined us in that vote. mine it in america, madam speaker. as to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real growth in this countryle is something that i really -- i don't believe

the gentleman agrees totally with that statement. i know he and i both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. we don't want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or working families. so again, i would take issue with the suggestion that economists would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework doesn't have anything to do with job creation. of course it does. it has to do with the environment for, one torques take a risk, for investors t put capital to work, for entrepreneurs to go out, sign their name on the dotted line with the bank. of course regulation has something to do with job creation and growth. that is exactly our point. and i hope the gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we can roll back the unduel --

unduly burdensome frakework and make sure we have a smart framework of regulation so we can see america grow. i'd say to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal vote of obamacare. if the gentleman would like to do so, i'm happy to meet with him right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that this week. and i would say to the gentleman the reason why, perhaps we spend so much me on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many millions of americans. it's their health care. it's their families' health care. and at the end of the day this election season will underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the election. and the real question is, madam speaker, are we going to have washington-based health care or

patient-based health care? that's what it comes down to. who is in the driver's seat? patient and their doctors or washington-based burucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can have. and we all know what's happened with that approach under obamacare. costs have gone up, employers will be getting a plan. people will not be able to have the health care they have. that's why we spent the time we have on is bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman knows full well i think you have wasted a lot of time on this house floor. wasted a lot of effort on this house floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage you were simply appealing to the base you are just appealing to. this the gentleman believes what you would do if your bills passed you would take away benefits from millions and millionsnd milons of people. i think that's incontestable. it's incontestable that senio who are now getting more help with the doughnut hole for the prescription drugs which enhance

their quality and length of life would lose it if we repealed the affordable care act. it is incontrovertible, i will tell my friend, that millions of youn people who can't find a job, unfortunately in this economy, we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the president on this floor to even consider, pass or fail. millions of young people would lose their insurance. millions of children who have a pre-existing condition who now under the affordable care act cannot be precluded by the insurance companies was really who you want -- not you personally, b who the defeat of the affordable care act would put insurance companies back in charge. not government bureaucrats but insurance companies. so many of your republican governors don't want to set up the exchanges. all the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can

make a judgment do they like policy a, b, or c. it's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they are getting a good bargain for the price they are paying for their health insurance which is very expensive. i will tell the gentleman that the affordable care act will also create, c.b.o. says, economists say, millions of jobs in the health care area. so contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people to access to affordable quality health care. as mr. romney said, we require responsibilities so everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that if they can the want to insure themselves, so what? so the rest of us don't have to pay when they get sick. if they need help, as mr. romney said in massachusetts when romney care wasdopted, a model just like we have adopted for

the nation, it's important to make sure that ty get some help. that's what that bill does. in addition to that, we have made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies, not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies say, you're too sick. we are not going to cover you anymore. i will tell my friend, he and i ha a radically different view on what the consequences of the -- this 31 votes that we have had, that the gentleman knew were not going to pass the senate, knew the president wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. you are making a political point. i understand that. there are people who disagree with t affordable care act. i understand that as well. i frankly think had we dealt with jobs legislation during that 0 hours and considered the president's jobs bill, we would have millions of people employed today in america right now.

now, let me just -- so there is no misunderstanding so i don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion. he's right. he and i agree. we need to cut government red tape. we need to speed approvals. we need to make sure that we do not impede by regulation the growth of our econom and the growth of jobs. i couldn't agree with him more. and i think we ought to deal with that in a bipartisan basis and hopefully we will continue or perhaps start to do that, i might say, or contue to do that in some instances. the gentleman is correct. let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, you also mentioned bringing taxes down. let me ask you something. do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i'd say to -- madam speaker, to the gentleman, can he repeat the question? mr. hoyer: yes, do you expect the vote on taxes which you have referred to to occur the last

week on which i believe is the 29th of july, the we of 29 july, to be on that week? mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman, madam speaker, yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on a bill to extend the existing rates a we'll also be bringing up a bill. that extension will be for a year. we'll also be bringing up a bill that will outline t principles for tax reform that i know the gentleman also has said we need to reform our tax code so that we can help make it fairer, more simple, and so we can see the economy grow again. those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: i look forward to seeing the latter bill because the gentleman's correct. i think we do need to reform our tax system. we need to make it simpler. would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down as the bowles-simpson, gang of six, whoever you want to

refer to as suggested. that's moving in the proper direction. i also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we ing down the deficit and debt confronting this nation. i think as bowles-simpson pointed out, you got to do that in a balanced way. let me ask you something on the packages that you said are coming that last week. there have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either ofhose bills, as i understand, the ways and means committee. does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? and does the gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the ways and means committee? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i say to the gentleman, i think -- i disagree with the gentleman's hearings. i think the last year and a half chairman camp and his committee have been about looking at the tax code, talking about tax

reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased tax environment for this economy. we have been all about the economy and growth. i say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs bills, whave been doing jobs bills. he complains about the 30-some bills we have been doing relating to obamacare. i would say we have done even more than that relating to jobs. i would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit right now. they are on the doorstep of the senate and the leader over there refuses to bring them up. and so again i say to the gentleman we stand ready to work together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us here. and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have been talked about, have been dissected in terms of existing tax rates, where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy.

that's what we are doing. we have had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. if you want to stop the tax hike for all americans at all income levels, you'll vote for the bill. if you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the tax code is t complicated, it needs to be simplified, loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill. it's that simple. i yield back. mr. hoyer: when you say- i presume as the gentleman sa we are talking about two different bills, are we not? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, that is correct. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that clarification. let me say to the gentleman when the gentleman says there have been hearings on tax reform, i think that's probably accurate. what there has not been in my view and in mr. levin, who is the ranking member of the committee's view, there's been no hearing on the ramifications

of the bill which apparently is going to be brought to the floor which simply extends all the bush era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt, and indeed ramifications to the economy. i would say with all due respect my friend the majority leader, i don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. there have been issues should we reform the tax code. the gentleman, i agree, we should simplify, we should reform the tax bill. we should make it more compatible with economic growth and very frankly for average individual americans to -- who want to pay their taxes like to pay as little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well. so i don't really share t gentleman's view that there have been hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says is going to bring to the floor. that's what i asked. let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of it, are there going to be -- is there goingo be a

markup of the billhich you're going to bring to the floor in terms of taxes? to clarify, so that members on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of that action, and that members will ha an opportunity to reflect on that bill. mr. cantor: i would say -- madam speaker, i would say to the gentleman this is a very simple and clear choice here. given this economy, if one wants to raise taxes on all americans, you vote against theill. if you want to go and help folks through a more simple tax code and you want to look towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. straight up or down. there have been enough discussion, enough hearings in this -- in the ways and means committee as well as the budget committee.

these issues were central to our budget. you are a member on a budget committee as well as ours, had a full, open hearing on that budget document and markup, we believe now is not the time to raise taxes on working people, small businesses, and large. the economy is anemic. we don't have enough job growth. why do we want to take more people's hard earned money? that's why we are bringing this bill forwa. this bill is straight up or down. stop the tax hike or not. i yield back. . mr. hoyer: i take it the answer is no that there won't be a markup on a bill that will have consequences to all americans and extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our economy. is that -- am i correct in interpreting your answer is, no, there will not be a markup of this very important bill, you bring straight to the floor without committee consideration, is that an accurate interpretation?

mr. cantor: madam speaker. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i think the gentleman has heard my response. mr. hoyer: well, i heard your response and i accurately characterized it. i think that's a shame, mr. majority leader. mr. boehner said we were going to be an open house, that we were going to consider matters anthat everybody would have their opportunity to have their input. usually tax bills are brought to the floor not subject to amendment. you have just said, as i understand what you said, this bill, our way or the highway. you couldn't like the bill the way we brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. you won't have an option. you can't put any of your ideas in the bill. if that's the way you intend to consider this bill, mr. leader, i think that's unfortunate. and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the aisle will have an opportunity to deposit their position on taxes through the regular

process of a motion to recommit. and as i have said publicly yesterday when asked, are the democrats in the house going to be able to offer the president tax proposals? i said, absolutely they will. so we'll see. we'll see, madam speaker, if the gentleman decides to put forward the president's tax proposal, calling for a tax hike on american small businesses. we'll see if that happens, madam speaker. but we'll e and that will be the week it will happen. you're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not. i yield back. mr. hoyer: my way or the highway, that's what you said, mr. leader. very frankly in my view we have agreement. we have agreement on something that you won't bring to the floor and it is that all middle-class working americans will not get a tax hike. all of them. and everybody up to $250,000 of income will have no tax increase. but we have a big deficit and a

big debt. and we need to pay our bills. we have a debt limit vote coming up at the end of this year. very frankly we took the country to the brink of default, and very adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence. you talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, mr. leader. i agreed with you. i think we need to instill confidence, not undermine confidence, but i will tell my friend, if you wanted to work together as you've said on a number of occasions now, as much as we did with the export-import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't work together on. they were passed on a partisan vote for the most part. not all of them. and some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. and guess what happened? they became law. the president signed them. export-import bank, the jobs bank that you were -- not the jobs bank -- the jobs bill that you promoted and which i voted for, you said you want to work together. now, it's interesting when you say work together because what

you say you're going to give is a motion to recommit, and what you will instruct is for all of your members to vote no. it is a purely procedural vote. and as you have for the last 18 months, your members will vote no on motions to recommit. notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the substance. and the fact of the matter is, mr. leader, we can have a vote that passed with 435 votes. 435 votes. everybody in this congress says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working americans, on working americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. as you know that's more income. but we won't get that vote except on an m.r. vote no. it's a procedural vote only. it's not a substantive vote. i say not only to my friend, will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it

appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so we can vote on that. yes, we have about disagreement, but you're prepared to hold hostage working americans by saying, if the richest people in america might have a little bit of a tax increase, then the everybody else is going to get a tax increase. you said it different way. i understand it. but the -- but the reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which i think there's overwhelming support of and making sure that working americans and, yes, small -- 97% of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all. we have agreement on that, mr. leader. why don't we bring that to the floor and show the american public that, yes, we can come together as you have suggested, yes, we can agree and yes, we can make sure they don't get a tax increase. and, yes, we can have a debate

on the balance and you will take one position. i may take another position and the american public will see that and they can make a judgment on -- with whom they agree. now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public would agree with me and you will think the overwhelming majority of the american public will agree with you. that's what democracy is about. let us have this debate. let us have this vote. let us make sure that working americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country. i yield if the gentleman wants to respond. mr. cantor: madam speaker, what i say to the gentleman is holding hostage working families is denying them a job. it's about jobs. and, you know, the gentleman can play with the statistics all he wants and claimed that 97% of the small businesses will get a tax break this way and let's leave the others for later. but the significant fact is it's the others -- it's the others is where the significant job growth can be.

why would we want to go and tax job creators. we know that 50% of the people that will get a tax hike under the president's proposal get at least a quarter of their income from small business. and the more their income the more the percentage. that means the jobs. so why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people because washington takes more of their money? why would we want tax rates to go up on anybody in this anemic economy? and why would we want to go and raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control spending in washington cause what you're doing is digging the hole deeper? that's our position, madam speaker. and so i would ask the gentleman straight up, is the gentleman going to bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the president's proposal? is that going to be the motion to recommit? will the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their motion to recommit? i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if the gentleman is asking if i will bring forward the president's proposal the answer is absolutely yes. i don't want the gentleman confused in any way. if the motion to recommit is the only option we have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option. but we don't -- we're not going to pretend either to ourselves or to the american people that's a real vote. you want to put it on the floor as an amendment. you want to have a real debate on it, not five minutes on one side and five minutes on the other side which the motion to recommit is limited to, y're shutting us down, you're gagging us and, yes, you are putting middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, i know and the american people know the president of the united states has said he will veto your bill. he has said he will sign a bill that together we could pass making sure that 98% of americans do not get a tax increase. but what you will -- are

proposing to do, mr. leader, is to bring to the floor a bill which simply protects the 2%. 2% should not pay more and the gentleman says, oh, they're great job creators. i understand what the gentleman is saying but, by the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. it was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009, and and i both know what happened is not solely because it was in place, of course, but -- i'll stimulate to that. but the fact is we had the deepest recession in year lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetime of anybody who is younger than 90 years of age under e program that you're proposing we'll continue with. i tell you, mr. leader, i don't think that's a great way to proceed. at least we ought to have opportunity to debate. at least we ought to have five minutes more.

it's a procedural vote, don't vote for it. i will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of your act and you do it knowledgeablely, it will be that middle class taxpayers will be put at risk. why? whether you agree with it or not, the president will veto it. the senate i don't think will pass it. and the fact of the matter is we can do for 98% of america that which we agree on. you don't want them to have a tax increase. i don't want them to have a tax increase. we agree on that. the americans can't understand, can't understand when we agree on that why we can't at least pass something on which we agree which will help 98% of america. in this struggling economy, as you clearly point out. now, you point out that -- you

didn't use the term, we only had 80,000 jobs last month. i was disappointed by that. that was unfortunate. but in the last month of the previous administration, we lost 818,000 jobs in one month with your program in place. that's 189,000, almost 900,000 turn-around from 818,000 to 80 ,000 minus. not enough. not enough by far. and i want to work with the gentleman to create many more, work with them on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, make it in america legislation. if we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we think it would be helpful. so i say to my friend tha i feel very strongly as you can tell that if we're going to

have this vote, with is an extraordinarily consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute, not just an m.t.r., not just a procedural vote, not just a five-minute debate on my side, five-minute debate on your sid don't you think americans expkt more in terms of a very -- expect more in terms of a very substantive vote in a legislative policy form, and i ask the gentleman to consider that objective. does the gentleman have

vice president obama at the

naacp annual convention. mr. obama said the video message. mr. biden was at the convention in houston. several live events tomorrow here on c-span. the center for strategic international studies hosts a forum on violence in syria and the assad regime at 10:30 a.m. eastern. at 1:15 eastern, the opening session of the national governors' association meeting. from williamsburg, virginia. the work force committee meets at 3:00 eastern then president obama's in virginia tomorrow. just after 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> when you realize that these remnants of armies were not coming to his aid.

that is when he collapsed when he felt it would come to an end and it was a question of suicide. antony beevor with a new look at the second world war. >> his main objectives of not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage and being ridiculed. so he was determined to die. >> more with antony beever sunday at 8:00. now hearing on the home and security departments challenges and priorities. former house intelligence committee ranking member jane harman, former dhs inspector and admiral thad allen. this is a little more than two hours. >> good morning.

the hearing is conveyed. thank you for being here. this is the second in a series of hearings the committee is holding on the past, present and future of: security -- of

homeland security. also senator collins has been kind enough to support my desire as i and my service in the senate to take a look back at where we have been in home runs security over the last 10 years. more important, to look forward and try to anticipate some of the -- discuss some of the unfinished business and anticipate how we can meet evolving threats. we hit a very -- i hope to create a record which will be of help to this committee and its new leadership next year. we had a good hearing yesterday with a panel that was describing the revolving homeland's security threat.

today, but will focus on the department itself, how it is done over the almost 10 years now and what it should be doing in the years ahead. the department of paul much security does not include all the federal government's major homeland agencies. the department of state, defense, justice, health and human services along with key intelligence agencies of our government all play important roles in protecting our homeland security. state and local partners as well as the private sector and as we discussed yesterday, the american people themselves, all have said the vitter responsibilities. the center of homeland's security was intended to be the department of homeland's security. it was intended to be not only the center point but the coordinating point of the agencies that were brought

within it. and also to make sure we were interacting with a lot of other agencies over the federal state and local governments that have the irresponsibility and some opportunity to contribute to our homeland defense. as i look back, i would say that the department has, and awful long way in its first decade. this is a mission in a sense has the final destination. it has to continue to get better. there are ways to meet the evolving threat. there are ways in which the fact -- first decade, their red thing that happened that were not as good as we wanted. as i go back to in years ago, the vision that congress have for the department of homeless security was recreated it was to have a department that would be

more intent -- more than the sum of its parts. a department that would integrate key, and security functions such as border prepared ness and infrastructure protection. and the department that would help ensure that we would never again fail to connect the dots so that we would prevent the next 9-11 from happening. the department has made tremendous strides forward in the nearly 10 years since the passage of the homeland's security act. achieving some of the goals we talked about and that we had in mind tan years ago. al qaeda, because the claimed credit for 9-11, and its affiliates have not carried out a successful attack. not one anywhere near the catastrophic dimensions of 9-11

since 9-11, which i think is a credit to our offensive forces and to the tremendous work that the homeland security department has done. let me talk about areas where i think there has been significant progress. we have a screening system now at points of entry to the united states that is integrated with information from the intelligence community. it has become very affective at detecting bad actors trying to enter our country. our aviation screening system is vastly improved from what we have before 9-11. we also now have much more robust two-way information sharing. not only within the federal government but with state and local governments. that is in large measure due to

the leadership of dhs. in a different aspect of the dhs responsibilities, our nations prepared as a response efforts led by fema have improved since the seven years since hurricane katrina which obviously showed how inadequate fema was at that point. the response to just about every natural disaster that has occurred in our country since then has been significantly better and on a very positive reviews. these are important achievements. we should not forget them in the occasional griping from people who do not like to take their shoes off or go through screeners at airports. the department still has a ways

to go. let me mention a few areas where i think there is more to be done. most of these have to do with the administration department with process. the process is important. for example, the department operational components i think are still not adequately integrated with its headquarters and with each other. that causes problems. in least less than optimal use of the department's resources. the department of homeland's security continues to have are forced -- were forced more route challenges -- work force morals challenge.s these have improved over the years but no where near to the extent needed. the department also struggles with setting requirements and

effectively carrying them out for major acquisitions. and ensuring that these acquisitions and trackball they are under way. the department of homeland security is that unique among federal agencies in this problem. but this is the department that we helped create and we have oversight responsibilities for it. their performance has not been adequate. in the years ahead, the department in a different way will need to take actions to anticipate and respond to involving home and security threats, including to increase its improving capabilities with respect to cyber security in response to cyber attacks on our country. the greater challenge of course is that the department of

homeland security will have to find a way to do this in flat or declining budgets. in a budget environment like the one we have now, the tendency is to focus on preserving and protecting current capabilities but the risk of doing only that is that we will be under invested -- under investing in system needed to make involving -- to meet evolving and new threats of tomorrow. i think in its second decade, the department will have to be as agile as our enemies. that may mean the department will have to cut back in some of its nontraditional areas of responsibility. if they seem less relevant to the threat, take that money and

invest it in programs to meet new threats that come along. the three witnesses we have, jane harman, admiral thad allen and richard skinner, are uniquely prepared by experience and capability to contribute to our discussion and build exactly the kind of record i hope this committee will build to hand over to the leadership in the next session. i cannot thank you enough for being with us this morning. we look forward to your testimony. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> nearly 10 years ago, the creation of the department of homeland security brought together 22 different agencies into a single department to focus on protecting our country and its citizens. yesterday, we explored the

emerging security threats our nation is likely to confront. in my judgment, the largest threat is a cyber attack. today, we will examine whether dhs is well-positioned to address these as well as other, longer-standing threats. the changing threat landscape at home and abroad requires the department to be nimble and imaginative, effective and efficient, qualities not often associated with large bureaucracies. yet the men and women of dhs can take pride in the absence of a successful large-scale attack on our country during the past decade and in the department's contributions to thwarting

numerous terrorist plots. there have been successes and failures over the last 10 years. information sharing has improved, but remains a work in progress. ten years ago, we envisioned that dhs would be a clearinghouse for intelligence. although incidents like the failed christmas day "underwear bomber" make clear that information sharing is still imperfect, numerous public and classified counterterrorism successes since 9/11 demonstrate that information sharing has indeed improved. this is also true with respect to information sharing between dhs and the private sector an essential partner in the protection of the homeland, as 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is privately

owned. the growing network of state and local fusion centers also presents opportunities not only for the improved dissemination of information, but also for the collection and analysis of intelligence from the local level. as we discussed yesterday, however, these centers have yet to achieve their full value in aggregating and analyzing local threat information. tsa, the agency within dhs that is most familiar to the public, has strengthened airline passenger risk analysis, but it troubles many americans to see tsa screeners putting the very young and the very elderly through intrusive, and in most cases unnecessary, pat downs.

tsa is making progress toward implementing more intelligence focused, risk-based screening through such efforts as pre- check, but many challenges remain for tsa. dhs has bolstered the security of our borders and identification documents, but two iraqi refugees associated with al qaeda in iraq were arrested in kentucky last year. when a bomb maker, whose fingerprints we had had for some time, is able to enter our country on humanitarian grounds, it is an understatement to say that "work remains" -- as dhs's self assessment report states.

in order to meet and overcome current and future threats, dhs must support its components with stronger management. since 2003, gao has designated the department as "high risk" because of the management and integration challenges inherent with such a large undertaking. what people often don't realize is the hight risk desgination refers not just to being at risk for abuse but program failure. dhs must implement changes that will hasten the day when the department is no longer included on gao's high-risk list.

the roles of the department's components have evolved over time. as a positive example, i would note the adaptability and "can do" attitude of the coast guard. i don't believe there is another agency within the department that has done a better job of adapting to new challenges and its expanding post 9-11 mission. this was never more clear then after hurricane katrina. as this committee noted in its report on katrina, the coast guard demonstrated strength, flexibility, and dedication to the mission it was asked to perform, and saved more than half of the 60,000 survivors stranded by the storm. many experts have predicted a disaster in the cyber realm that

would compare to katrina or pearl harbor. compared to 10 years ago, the cyber threat has grown exponentially. clearly, this requires an evolution of the department's mission to secure critical systems controlling critical infrastructure, a goal we hope to accomplish through the legislation chairman lieberman and i have championed. despite the fact that dhs has made considerable strides over the past decade, it still has a long way to go. to understand what changes are needed for the future, and to prioritize our limited resources, we must learn from past mistakes and be able to

better measure what has worked and what has not. to do so requires metrics and accountability, an area where the department has been challenged. i appreciate the outstanding experts who are here today to assist us in evaluating the department's progress and future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator collins. our first witness is congresswoman jane harman. we have three of what we used to call the gang of four. -- the big four. much better. can sayhe fin four. no.

[laughter] what i am referring to in this inside conversation is we were privileged to constitute a bipartisan leadership on the ultimate adoption of the 9-11 legislation which followed the creation of the department of homeland security. i really got to know jane well. i greatly admire her. even like her. [laughter] she comes to us today as the president of the woodrow wilson center. her tenure in the house includes services as chair of the house committee on homeland security subcommittee, as intelligence and information sharing and terrorists and risk assessment and as a ranking member of the house permanent committee on

intelligence. i am delighted you could make it and we welcome your testimony now. >> thank you, senator lieberman and senator collins, for the opportunity to join dear friends and to return to capitol hill to testify on a topic i'm passionate about: the security of our homeland. i am honored to be testifying with admiral allen who is here and mr. skinner. they have far more hands on experience with this topic than i did. our collaboration over many years shows that bipartisanship -- indeed tripartisanship -- is possible. we had a good gig going and our legislative efforts yielded significant results and many special times.

well over 10 years ago, i joined the chairman in a hardy little band of legislators who thought a homeland security function made sense in the aftermath of 9-11. something far less ambitious than the plan ultimately sketched out by then white house chief of staff andy card. we envisioned a cross-agency "jointness" similar to the 2004 intelligence reform act structure, which the three of us, and former rep. pete hoekstra, negotiated. two of the big four happen to be females so of course we did 98% of the work and that's why the bill passed. >> i want to note that the women

left at that. [laughter] i always thought of you as the fab four. >> back to the homeland bill, i remember once the white house proposal was announced, we decided to embrace it because that would insure presidential support. and so it was. though dhs comprised of 22 departments and agencies, congress legislated four main directorates: border & transportation security, emergency preparedness, science & technology and information analysis & infrastructure protection. the information analysis directorate was supposed to analyze intelligence and information from other agencies,

inlcuding cia and nsa, involving threats to the homeland and evaluate vulnerabilities in the nation's infrastructure. something we definitely need to be doing. emergency preparedness would oversee domestic disaster response and training. border security would streamline all port-of-entry operations and the s&t directorate would acquire scientific and technological tools to secure the homeland. the initial strategy has clearly morphed into something different. we all learned thatmerging government functions is difficult, and the threats against us have not been static. dhs has evolved. but so have our enemies. while dhs has experienced real success, there have also been some hiccups and significant growing pains along the way. it's certainly not the first department to run into a few problems.

to fix those problems, we should not rearrange the chairs. what we should do is make a clear assessment of what works and what does not. here are some of the functions that execute well -- last year as he said, customs and border protection stop more than 3100 individuals from boarding u.s. bound aircraft at foreign airports. cpb processed more than 50 million travelers at 15 pre- clarence locations in the same year. tsa now fully implements secure flight, the program screening passengers from or with in the u.s.. extending our borders by using real-time thread based intelligence in addition to multiple layers of

extending our "borders" by using real-time, threat-based intelligence in addition to multiple layers of security is working to mitigate terror threats. the department expanded the "if you see something, say something" campaign to dozens of states, cities, transit systems, fusion centers, federal buildings, shopping malls, sports arenas, and retail outlets to boost public awareness and reporting of potential threats. fusion centers around the country work together to share tips to arrest and convict the 2010 times square bomber. there are problems that we can discuss but some are terrific. the office of the infrastructure protection conducted more than 1900 security surveys, 2500 vulnerability assessments on the nation's most critical infrastructure. but the challenges are significant. i do not want to abuse my time so i will wash through them. the intel function has never fully developed. part of the reason is that president bush stood off the terrorist threat integration

center which is now the national counter-terrorism center, outside of the department of homeland security. a significant portion of the jurisdiction moved out. intelligence reports are meant to be consumed by state and local law enforcement but many into this -- many entities consider dhs information as spam. the new strategic plan for fiscal years 12-16 said that intelligence is an area needing enhancement. we can discuss that if you want. >> if you want to take a few extra minutes, you should go ahead and do that. >> thank you. >> one of the enhancements necessary in my view is writing reports that are actually useful local law enforcement. that was the point of establishing the interagency threat assessment and coordinating group.

in which i understand may suffer some funding problems and i want to thank you, mr. chairman for fighting to restore the funds that may be taken away. the homeland mission is so large the the department must assess where it can be most effective and where it cannot. i believe that dhs will never be the leader in preventing cyber attacks but i do think it can perform the mission that you and your legislation suggest and i think it is absolutely crucial that the legislation congress enacts include parts that protect critical infrastructure. i support your bill. over the one that the house has been considering. i hope that congress will move forward on legislation promptly. i think congress has been a very disappointing player in this

process. not this committee but congress has failed to reorganize its committee structure and the homeland jurisdiction here but more significant in the house is anemic. the department has a report to more than 80 committees and subcommittees. we have simplified that somewhat but not enough. the one recommendation of the 9- 11 commission that remains unimplemented basically is the recommendation to reorganize congress. what are the biggest opportunities? while the department should be praised for overhauling its privacy and civil liberties office, it should not stop there. you and i urge the white house -- which is mandated in the 2004 law. in the bush administration, that

board barely function. i think that would be fair. in this administration, all the membership has been reported but they're not confirmed. we do not have the function yet. dhs should do more to reduce over classification of intelligence. your committee work for a year to help pass the act of 2010 but little has happened to implement it. it should be a high priority. the secretary must continue to be the face of common security. janet deval, happens to be an old friend and before she took office, i suggested she be the everett of threat warnings. just as he was. this reminds me of a silly thing. there was a color-coded system for homeland's security warnings. i remember the department saying that we were moving from pale

yellow to dark yellow. i commented that the homeland secretary should not be an interior designer. the point of this is, there are some home and functions that only the secretary can carry out in one of them is being the respective voice to what the rest of us of the threats we face. in conclusion, but -- no major attack has occurred on u.s. soil since 9-11. dhs and this committee deserve credit. soon he would join the ranks of grandparents like me who work outside the congress. this week, the ranking member collins -- did you break cal r ipkens record?

>> today. >> 5000. can we all applaud you? [applause] both of you bring such skill and dedication to this work. i strongly doubt your new roles will diminish your passion and mine remains as strong as ever. i really salute you, dear friends. thank you, mr. chairman for the opportunity to testify. >> take you very much for your testimony. i was watching tv today that cal ripken broke the previous record. my wife was befuddled by my behavior. i began to cry. she did not understand that but i will try to control my tears today. you said something i want to draw attention to.

you saitated some statistics about border security and counterterrorism prevention. almost nobody in the country knows this but people ought to have a greater sense of confidence. i believe they do when they get on the plane. last year, customs and border protection stopped more than 3100 individuals from boarding the westbound aircraft at foreign airports for national- security reasons. that, out of 15 million travelers at 15 p clarence locations -- pre-clearance locations. we are all safer as a result of it. thank you very much for your thoughtful testimony. next, admiral thad allen, of the coast guard.

as we remember, he led the federal government's response to hurricane katrina and the deep water horizon oil spill and in both, distinguished himself. in katrina, he was the singular source of real storage -- reassurance to the american people that somebody was in charge and was effectively coordinating air -- corresponds efforts to the people who needed help. it was a great moment for our country. admiral alan, i believe he may be undercover as a result of your facial hair but i know better that you are not currently a senior vice presidents at hamilton inc.. thank you for being with us this morning. >> mr. chairman, ranking member

collins, members of the committee. i have sat before these hearings cal was times and i am delighted to be here this morning. i really mean it. [laughter] it is an honor to be here with my colleagues. jane harman has been a tremendous leader and richard and i worked closely in the last 10 years of the evolution of the department of homeland security. the perspective i bring to morning we did this morning is someone who is work this problem inside out. i was the commander on 9-11. we closed new york harbour and boston harbor and the tremendous challenge of evacuating people. we marked a sea change for the coast guard. in the fall of 2011 and 2012,

there was much discussion about how to aggregate these types of functions and increased security for the united states. i consulted with admiral james lloyd and there was some kind of feeling there would be an abrogation of functions as the records -- as rep harman said. the bill was placed in 2012. i want to settle a context. i think it is important to have it on the record. there was a push to have this bill passed by the first anniversary of 9-11. that did not happen for a lot of reasons. when the bill passed, the president was in a position where it had to be passed right away. it was signed on the 25th of november, 2002. it required the department be established in 60 days.

that means from the time the bill went on the hill and the department was created was basically about a year. from the time of the enactment of the bill of the first component had to move over was little over three months -- three months. when you -- when you do it that fast, you lack the elements of the liver planning and analysis of alternatives on how you want to execute the legislation correctly. i have talked for years about how the conditions under which the department were formed are some of the issues we have had to deal with. the legislation was passed between sessions of congress. there was no ability for the senate to be in panel and confirm appointees. although secretary ridge was done at a before he was required to be secretary. it took up to a year to get some of the other senior leaders confirmed. we were in the middle of a fiscal year. there was no appropriation.

some of the new entity's we had to basically reprogram funds from across government. it was a chaotic time to try to stand up the organic organization of the department and put together a headquarters. the nebraska avenue complex and the situation we are now where we are at st. elizabeth's complex. because of that, what happened was we have the migration of 20 to agencies with legacy appropriation structures, internal support structures, different shared services and different mission support structures in the departments where they came from. because of that, and a lot of the resources associated with how you run the components or the department rest in the components and still do today. in things like human resource management, property management and so forth.

over the past 10 years, there have been repeated attempts in the department to try to tackle some of these problems -- consolidation of financial management systems and an ability to create a corps accounting system. and these are emblematic in my view of the difficulty at which you encounter when you try to do things without them being bought out. this that was a transition planning office under an executive order but they were barred from sharing that because the law had not been enacted and nobody was able to make a handoff. i will not dwell on the past zero when i talk to people about how the department was formed, we need to understand that was a difficult time. we still carry the legacy of that moving forward. that said, as we look forward, we need to understand the

challenges about the way we think about apartments -- the department. we have to have a systems approach moving forward. i think that is a challenge trying to find the missions that. want to do that, the cable release unique to have a discussion -- once you do that, you know the things they need to have a discussion. there has been talked about secure borders and protecting our borders. when you think about it, are otter -- borders are not monolithic line drawn in the land. it is a combination of authorities. the ocean extends from the tee -- see to the economic zone. we also do analysis of data that facilitates trade.

as we move forward, many to understand that we need to take the collective threat environment out there and look at the consolidated authorities in jurisdictions and whether or not that is a mess. we have had the first homeland security review. that invalidated the budget priorities established with the administration came in in 2009. after 10 years, we need to take a look at the fact of whether or not we got the legislation right to begin with. what do the aggregate authorities of the components that have not technically changed since the the problem was created produce the right base for the department to move forward and meet these emerging threats. there is an opportunity to do that as we move to the second

qhsr. i know the department is working on that. we need to look at things like the cyber threat. resiliency involves not only natural disaster but the interface of the human built environment with the ever changing natural environment and take any strategic view on how we approach the emissions. i see my time is up 3 >> thank you very much. richard skinner, welcome back. i am sure it has always been a pleasure for you to testify before the committee. he served as inspector general of the department of homeland security from 2005-2011 and was deputy from the department's inception in 2003. in both of those capacities, he was helpful to this committee in

caring out its oversight responsibilities. he comes to us today as an independent consultant and we welcome you. >> thank you. it is good to be back and see everyone again. ranking member collins and members of the committee, it is truly an honor to be here. i was excited about the opportunity to testify today it is -- i am especially honored to be with such a distinguished panel. i have work with averell alan over the years -- with admiral allen over the years and i commend him for the service he has had with the coast guard and all he has done. we talked about homeland's security and its failings and successes, we tend to want to talk about the operational side of the house -- border security,

transportation security, intelligence capabilities. what is often overlooked is that those functions that are supporting all of that, behind- the-scenes so the speak, particularly financial management and grants management, these are the functions that cost the to the platform which the department's platforms must operate and are critical to the successful accomplishment of the mission. some of the challenges that were inherited -- the management support functions were short chains. reebok over the operational aspects -- and we bought over the operational aspects and we

did not bring the managements of core functions -- management support functions and we have been digging ourselves out of a hole ever since. there is a variety of reasons for that. a lot of it is cultural, and lot of it is budget issues. but the department is not where it should be as far as maintaining an effective management support operation. support its real mission in protecting our homeland. financial management is a good example. this is been a problem since we stood out in 2003. in 2011, the department has made some progress. for the first time, we're able to get a qualified opinion on our balance sheet. we reduced our management weaknesses somewhere from 18

material witnesses to five. that is significant. it is also unfortunate because we are not continuing to invest in taking our financial management systems to nextel for. if we do not do that, it is unlikely that the progress will be achieved. the province will not continue. the department in 2011 decided to change its strategy for financial management. rather than implement a department wide solution which we have tried twice and failed. now they're taking a more disciplined and wise approach to decentralize its financial management systems at the

component level. if we look at the 2012 budget, you will see that the initiatives have been curtailed. as a result, they have been put on hold indefinitely. it is not clear whether the department will resume its modernization strategy nor is it clear whether this new decentralized approach when implemented will give reliable and useful and timely information to make informed decisions about the limited resources. with regards to that it modernization, dhs and its components are still struggling to upgrade the respective infrastructure ball locally and enterprise wide. s, we has been progres did not know how many it systems

we had in 2003. it took 12 months to do an inventory. we had well over 2000. many of them archaic and outdated and useless. within two years from that, reduce our systems down to 700 and it has been reduced even further. so there has been fraught -- progress. someone hit on that earlier today, however boarded it is that we can communicate on a real-time basis and exchange information. that remains one of the department also biggest challenges. they have been slow to adopt the agency standard and formation it development approach. systems and not integrated and not meet user requirements and

not provide information technology capabilities agency personnel and partners need to carry out critical operations in a timely and efficient manner. earlier this week, the oig reported the it anbar met in the aging infrastructure does not fully support cbp's missions. the infrastructure has not been sufficient to support the missions and activities fully. as a result, employees were out on the field and creating a work around us and employed alternative solutions that could hinder their ability to accomplish the mission. technical and cost barriers, aging infrastructure, outdated it plan to guide investment decisions, have and continue to impede the department's efforts

to modernize the i.t. systems. those around irredenta of 2003 no we inherited a large organization with close to -- those around here in 2003 know we inherited a large organization. we had a skeleton staff to provide the oversight to manage those contracts. as a result, a lot of things went south on us. as we know from the hiring program. a coast guard deepwater program, which has since seen corrected, but the department has recognized this, and i would like to point out the secretary and abuse rector -- deputy

secretary showed a commitment to improve its functions and has been working hard to do that. much remains to implement those plans and address those challenges. the department needs to identify the resources to implement those policies. the complexity in the mission will continue to demand rapid pursuit of major investment programs. the department will continue to rely heavily on contractors to accomplish its mission, and we continue to improve high risk programs to reflect large dollar procurements that will show a sustained commitment to improving function, increased resources, and manage those contracts if the progress is to

oversee the work. finally, brand management -- french management, because this is something we spent millions of dollars on, and since 2003 through 2011, we have distributed over $18 billion through the woman security grant program. putting through a report but was just released on last monday, there was a system in place to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from major disasters and other emergencies. according to the report released earlier this week, we need to make important improvements to performance measures and

oversight. many states cannot demonstrate what improvements have occurred as a result of these programs, and fema cannot demonstrate how safe we are as a result of spending billions of dollars over the years. that needs to change. i think the department has to develop performance metrics and start holding the states accountable. it is impossible to determine whether annual investments without of posture. fema lacks the tools necessary, and it is critical they focus resources.

it is evident the senior management is well aware of these challenges, and they have made some headway. of the question is does the department have the resolve to sustain these efforts? the ability to do so is fragile, not only because the early stage of development is in, but also because of budget constraints and current lack of resources to implement. in today's environment of large government deficits, the new challenge will be to sustain the progress already made and to continue to make necessary improvements. unless the department and congress stay focused, and it will be harder than ever to facilitate solutions for critical management functions and ultimately to insure the success of homeland security.

and that is my statement. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, you were very helpful, and i are appreciate it a lot. we will start with a seven- minute round of questions for each senator. it is striking and not surprising that each of you is focused on the unfinished work, the deficiencies, and the management operations of the department, and there is an actual tendency to focus on operations, and operations are going pretty well, and unless management is carried out of efficiently, the operation of the department is going to suffer, and i thought you were helpful in reminding us of the circumstances in which the departments were shaped, which

were quite hurry because of the sense of threat of remain very much in the air after 9-11 but also because of the time it took us to get it going, and i have fallen into the habit of saying this is the most significant change in our national security apparatus since the end of the second world war, certainly together with the intelligence community, but we did it very quickly, so let me give you a chance to get a quick answer. what are the most important things apartment ought to do to improve management functions? is it money? is it personnel?

is it a lack of will to focus on management, but what needs to be done? you want to start first? >> it is a variety of issues that are holding us back. one is the resource issue. we could have done a better job with the resources we were given. we could have made the changes, but we did not take it vantage of opportunities. it is also a cultural issue. the department and its components need to come together and realize we need to, for the good of the department and for the good of the country and for the good of the mission, that they are going to have to start working better together.

they are going to have to give up some of their turf and work in a more integrated fashion, and i think that is one of the things things that is really holding everyone back. is particularly when we are talking about the integration of our i.t. systems. when we get to the grass roots, they are going to start to see push back, and i do not want to give up my system to do this -- we have to overcome that. >> it is not surprising we were watching that have been over the decades. what you are saying is that a lot of agencies have still maintained too much of an independent management structure, including something as critical as it. >> when we talk about reports,

and i have testified on this -- needs to be given the authority to ensure compliance and that people are entering into the wanting to maintain their it enterprise. good >> that is what people should do? >> that is what the department needs to do internally. i think admiral allen stated there are three alternatives. the least feasible would be an external-driven, but unless they do something -- now we are 10 years old. now we can comprehend what is right and what is wrong, so

unless we start doing something to ensure we are going to start moving in the right direction so we can support our operations and may be an external forces would have to be put into play. >> you focus on the need for improved unity of efforts and operational coordination, and there is no pressure on who -- no question that was the main objective we had in mind for the creation of the department, so i wonder if you would talk about what you think if anything we in congress should be doing to promote or facilitate those efforts in the years ahead. >> in regards to operational coordination and execution, there have been several attempts to establish a robust execution system that takes place through the system. one of the problems was it was

kind of, as you are, and a lot of people stayed in the facilities. there are a lot of command centers around town that are independent of the department. fema runs a headquarters. i am not proposing we go to a joint structure. to create unity of effort, you have to have a way to do unified planning and coordinated averages and to basically a kind of create a data processor across the federal government. it comes down to two things. they talked about analysis and sharing that is necessary.

all of this is done to create a unity of efforts. there was a head wind, but i think that needs to move forward, and i think they have to do something to work the problems every day to create that effort. >> they you want to add anything to that? >> you cannot legislate leadership, but they need to articulate what the focus of the department is, and presumably congress should participate and making that, but the department

cannot do anything. i think there is a huge role to collect information and use that information, but i do not think they need to compete. i think as part of this and other structure, a more targeted way would-be accomplished better. >> if i did have a comment -- if i could add a comment. there has been a discussion that there needs to be an intelligence function, and i think that really needs to be put in place.

>> it would be a coordinating function. >> that is possible to do without statutory authority. >> you have had extensive experience not just on the homeland security, but on the intelligence community, and i know you have continued at the wilson center. our committee has held a variety of hearings to try to highlight possible and vulnerability is -- possible vulnerabilities and how we respond. you said that dhs has evolved.

one of the problems is figuring out what is the greatest threat and what resources should be concentrated on which threat. if a weapon of mass destruction is smuggled into the cargo? is it an act of bioterrorism? is it homegrown terrorism, which we have done a great deal of work on? is it the cyber attack? if you were the secretary of the department, what would be your priority? what do you believe the chief focus should be? that is a hard question, and the first-ever would be it should not be the department's response

ability -- the first answer would be that it should not be the department's responsibility. i think part of the answer to your question has to come from dhs possible role. dhs is not in the prevention business, certainly not in cyber prevention, but it is much more in consequence management business, so i think we have to keep in mind that our enemies are attacking us asymmetrically. if we announce we are looking at three things, they will attack us in the for their regard, so i do not think that is a great idea. i think we have to keep looking. asay's "the washington post"

an article about cyber risk, and that makes richard targets out of us, and i actually believe it, and now -- richer targets out of us, and i actually believe it, and there is a case that they should be false -- should beef up managability. i think the bigger attacks are harder to pull off, because we have been quite effective, and they might have been using ingredients from our country, not always a border problem, so

something i always worry about is the radiation material in machines in hospitals, which could be compromised and made into dirty bombs, so it is a huge problem, but we have to keep eye gel and understand how those people are coming ask us -- at us. >> i was interested when you describe the gains made by the department does fragile, greeted by the department as fragile, and i think that is a good note. when i think back to the last decade at the department, i can come up with numerous examples of failures in procurement. the problems with improper payments in the wake of hurricane katrina, which

approached a billion dollars and your office spent so much work on, i.t. projects throughout the department that have failed, and you talked about the importance of having a robust acquisitions staff, but the an important safeguard was having aig, and you are an effective watchdog that brought to light a lot of problems. right now the department is without an acting ig. could you share what qualities you think this committee should be looking for in a new inspector general? if you could also describe the

scope of the office. only a huge department. isn't the office one of the you just saw? >> it is. it is the third, fourth, or fifth largest in the federal government. in my opinion, it is going to acquire expensive executive experience with demonstrated leadership skills. this is not a place for training of leader. this is somebody who should have already demonstrated leadership abilities and someone who should have some background or appreciation for audits and inspections that can provide the leadership and the vision for the office. the ig, within itself does have

multiple editions with regards to missions and financial audits. in the 1950's and the 1960's, it , but nowtly financial commo we have learned we have to recruit and motivates a wide range of people who are confident about doing policies, people with engineering backgrounds, people with policy backgrounds, way beyond audit and management, but the organization should have demonstrated management skills and should have extensive executive experience.

>> thank you. >> let me reiterate our thanks to each of you not just being here today but for your willingness to serve our country in many ways. i want to follow up on a point senator collins was making the record we play executive branch swiss cheese from administration to administration. it is getting worse and not better. we have had a gaping holes and major leadership problems because we could not agree. the of the station could not figure out who to nominate. -- the administration could not figure out who to nominate.

in the bush administration we saw it again, and when you see major weapon systems cost overruns of $4 billion, and after 18 months, having a vacancy, it is unthinkable, but i want to go back to the point with respect to filling a position you once had, i do not know the administration is going to come back to us and say this is the right kind of person to fulfill this role. you give an idea of what the administration should do, but this has got to be a priority. we need to work together to make sure we can get it done.

it is real important. these are great hearings. i think it is unfortunate our colleagues are not here, but i want to thank you for providing these for us and our staff. at a hearing we had a couple days ago, we focused on cyber security and looking for a to do thilist. what we are looking for is common ground to see if the panel could give us some ideas to find the 70% we agree on and to do that and not to waste more time. when you look at different approaches, 22 major bills during the senate and

legislation senator mccain and others have looked at, when we find common ground, give us some of ice to melt this together in ways that make sense -- some ideas to meld this together in ways that makes sense. >> this debate, we keep having about the role of government, i think the argument now the bill's sponsors make is that infrastructure has to be in the bill. we are not protecting the country. i am there. i think that is right. i do not think it is a republican or democratic argument. i think it is a proper role of government to provide for the common defense. if we are going to provide for

the common defense, we need to protect our critical infrastructure. if i were doing that, i would find any possible way to keep that in the bill, and i would negotiate other stuff like how information is shared. one thing groups are concerned about is a violation of privacy, but if we have a privacy and civil liberties or that was functioning, we could help the board now implement regulations. with no cyber bill, our country is extremely vulnerable, and those who have been briefed understand the capability of this tool now, and 10 years ago when we were setting up this department, i do not think any of us was talking about this.

i do not think what capabilities this was. it was stiver, -- cyber, and we were in some prehistoric age that is my age, and as it ,volves, and we have to evolve and it is overdue but some strong legislation should pass. >> thank you. >> this is really a question of what is the role of government. good when we are going to do a complex regulatory environment, these questions are raised. we face of the same problems and challenges looking to port security after 9-11.

we used to say if you have seen one port, you have seen all ports, and if you go between the sectors, there is a different varying ability to protect their assets. in other cases there is not a market-driven reason to do that. i think we need to understand what are the standards we are trying to achieve to secure infrastructure and to apply those to each sector and to produce a different outcome for each one and there is a way to think about it and to move ahead. if there is a role in government it becomes a matter of execution as far as personal information. we need a bill. i cannot urge you strong enough to get a bill out this year.

as far as development of assets or information sharing or industry-led organizations, i think that is something the needs to be worked out in congress as it will works through your good -- in congress as the bill works through. we should build on what has already been done. the progress has not been as significant as we think, but we should move forward with the bill. >> i do not know if you are keeping a to do list of things you want to check off before the end of the year. house representatives continue to delay legislation.

good in the gov actually passing, they continue to delay until it is $25 million a day. i do not want to come back and have to deal with that you're a good i may be back next year, but i hope i have a chance to serve a bit longer, but the other thing that is trying to get done is cyber. one concluding thought, a lot of times we focus on the stuff we have not done well. they have high integration on their list. now there are maybe tens of thousands of people, and there is still a lot that have a life

and families because of the protections in place, and no small part because of the work that has been done 10 years ago. i think that is important to keep in mind. i am a person who cares a lot about trying to figure out what works and to make sure we are spending taxpayer money in the most cost-effective way weekend. we are looking at a split of the end of this year. we are looking at ways to spend money more cost effectively, and one encouraging thing for me was .he creation of the c.f.o. said they have to have financials, and they have to be audible. i think you cannot mention it -- you cannot manage would you cannot lecture.

there is a lot of work to be done, and we need not lose sight of it. >> i do have a bucket list. i try to engage in the formation of a bucket list caucus, and i think it is cyber security. there was a bipartisan effort to reach a meaningful compromise. the priorities for the committee are cyber security. i think all the witnesses and no, but it cannot be said too much about the need to have a cyber security bill adopted this year, it is noteworthy there seems to be somewhat of a

divided on this question here in congress among those who have had responsibility for our national and homeland security across the last two administrations. there is real unanimity of opinion but we have to adopt the bill, and i am not saying they support a bill like the one that came out of our committee. admiral o'connell, i believe was your attorney and secured baker, so i hope it will have an impact in helping us get over 60 votes in the senate. >> the only way we are ever going to finish most of them is to get the bill on the floor debated and amended, and i think the same is probably true with the cyber bill.

we have to get it on the floor. i hope before august we will actually do that. >> i would say you are the rookie with the most cal ripkin- like record, and i appreciate that. >> thank you, and thank you for holding these hearings. these are extremely helpful and i am learning a lot. i would like to thank you for your service to the country. i would like to ask each one of you what was the primary reason for establishing the department. i want to go down the list, and if the previous answer is yours you can tell me, but i want to acknowledge the with the reason.

he smiled -- i smiled when you said 90% of the work was done by women. >> i remember the time vividly. on 9-11ere all youhere walking to the dome of the capital, which most believe was the intended target of the plane that went down in pennsylvania, so we have no evacuation plan. we close these buildings, reopen them during the day, a huge mistake, but it was terrifying, which was the point of a terror attack, but i felt our government organization was completely inadequate to the new set of threats, and we needed something different. we missed clues.

two hijackers were living in plain sight in san diego, and the fbi did not talk to the fbi internally or the cia, or we might have been able to unravel the plot. we might have somehow found a better way to put government agencies together. was a simplerthere way to do this, but we embraced what president bush proposed. >> the concept of a border security agency actually predates 9-11. there were discussions about trying to do this by in the nixon administration, so the concept is not novel. as someone who has worked with these agencies for nearly 40 years, the relationship between the coast guard, fema, emigration, and customs have never been better. fema is a better organization

coordinationaren' in with the coast guard. i was also asked one time what was the best part about leaving and moving to homeland security. i said we were appropriations. there was a bureaucrat in warmer -- bureaucratic war. it was ugly. that does not happen, and while there are overlaps and ways to talk about how we can coordinate more effort, some of the bureaucratic struggles i saw throughout my career have gone away. >> out of those agencies, it was five you were originally thinking of? >> that has been a discussion that has gone on for years. >> out of the 22, how many of those?

but the organization has already had a physical presence, but it has been discussed for quite awhile. >> whole concept of homeland security predates 9-11. there was a bill that got introduced for a couple of years prior to 9-11. it was brought in and dusted off and started the ball rolling. quite frankly, vol concept was to have unity of effort to bring together the different functions within government so they can work together to not only protect or prevent another terrorist attack but also to develop a resilience to recover from a terrorist attack, so it brought together these different

elements that would sit under and one roof with one common mission to respond and mitigates against not just a terrorist attack but also a natural disaster. >> here is my concern. i have gone through that merging process. i also understand when you go through a large organization, so much of the effort is directed toward feeding the beast. we are trying to do all of these things for integration. have we created something too big to manage? we have $60 billion in overhead. should we may be split some of

these into different areas? i was talking about information sharing and maybe taking it back to the national intelligence. is there an intelligent way of taking a look at this? we have made something even larger, and we made it less effective. >> on the front end, we bit off too much, but we made a tactical decision that going along with the president's proposal was the fastest, easiest way to get something to happen. there have been huge growing pains. it has been 10 years. i would recommend narrowing some of the functions, but i would be against my view of rearranging deck chairs, because that is extremely painful, and this one

is becoming a cohesive organization. more leadership to integrate some functions that are not integrated would be good. sustained leadership would be excellent, and i think it has come a long way, and it would really serve the function of protecting our country. if i had to pick something, it would be congress. this country would have a lot more jurisdiction, and that is true as well. >> as far as the issues of management and so forth, we are going to have to get over the first part. it has been 10 years. they expect the department will start functioning better. i think there is a leadership management imperative that has

not been exhausted yet, and i would support those comments. i think we have an opportunity to have a leadership management agenda that is focused on the department takes care of blocking and tackling, and until we have done that we have not exhausted the department. good >> i agree wholeheartedly. this is not the time to do readjust the deck chairs. if you study the history, you have to understand the environment in which it was created. this was an emotional environment. they were very upset by the results of 9-11. the spill was pushed through very quickly -- the bill was pushed through very quickly at a historic pace. we were not given the

opportunity to think it through so we could prepare ourselves. we saw the screeners at record time, and we had to go and read do a lot of that. that environment created a lot of problems. when we did not think it through, we short changed those when we stood up. we brought all of the operations without management's support to back these operations. >> let me close with an interesting article i read in newsweek secretary gates was talking about. secretary rumsfeld said there were 17 layers between implementation and the military. that is not moving in the right direction in terms of efficiency. >> the department has reduced

layers, because when it was originally set up, the department had the opportunity to reorganize, which they did, and they have removed layers. to be empowered. the progress we have made is substantial. i do not think the department has a good way of marketing itself. it has a long way to go. the biggest threat the department has right now is budget constraints, the ability to sustain what they have already started and the ability to make the improvements they need to move forward and address evolving threats. >> thank you very much. >> that was a constructive and. senator, welcome, another

member who was involved on committees to priorities like this d'iberville -- the cyber bill. it is your turn for questions. >> thank you very much, and i thank senator collins for her efforts and for holding this hearing to examine what has happened to dhs, and also to try to come about with some reform that can improve the efficiency and delivery of services of this department for the country, so i want to thank you for this opportunity. i also want to take the time to

thank the federal workers. i have always been concerned about our human capital, and here is one of those situations where federal workers responded, and i want to thank them for their response, so here we are now examining what has happened and how we can improve it. i would like to ask the congresswoman, your written testimony notes improvements of the privacy office and the urgent need to stand up for privacy and civil liberties oversight board. i strongly agree.

dramatic technical advances in the past decade allowed dhs to obtain and use americans personal information in new ways, so my question to you is what are the key privacy challenges the age as will face in the future -- privacy challenges dhs will face in the future, and is the department equipped to face those challenges? >> thank you, and life outside of congress is quite sweet. i want to assure you i am really ok and enjoying my life. i watched carefully as the department developed, and i have

seen progress and good effort in the privacy protection area, so i do not want to be critical. what bothers me as a more general matter is the absence of people inside the executive branch and policies formulated their as regulations develop and new actions are contemplated to say cut there is another way to think about this, because as i have often said, and ben franklin said it first, security and liberty are not a zero sum game. you have to give more or if both or less of both. if you think about that, we are going to basically shred our constitution, and none of us wants to do that, and if you punt after we are attacked, we

are definitely going to shred our constitution, so my basic point is we need advocates over in the right rooms and the right time as the executive branch contemplates security actions. doing is pretty good. i have seen problems that relate to what information is collected, how long it can stay there, who has access to it, the usual stuff, and i think mr. skinner more than any of us can answer why the systems are working. your there were things i was able to stop. they werethem thiis going to test satellites to

accomplish certain homeland security missions over the continental united states, and that worries me because i did not think the guidelines were specific enough. the office was discontinued, which i thought was a very good outcome. >> thank you, congresswoman harman. this week the national journal poll released information that almost two-thirds of respondents said the government and businesses should not be allowed to share server security information, -- to share cyber security information because it would hurt liberties. you said the need to protect personal information in the

event of a cyber attacked. could we please discuss the importance of including robust privacy and civil liberty as safeguards in any legislation considered on the senate floor? >> i think it is very important. what the final legislation should look at, i do not know, but it is the same point the security of liberty were not a zero sum game, and we have to think about how to protect information because we also are blocking access by business interests or government interests but pose a grave threat to the .com, .gov space.

these are serious tools, and the point of legislation is to protect our personal information but also our government secrets. that is the point of the legislation, but individuals should not be forced to share information that is unnecessary to share, so it is complicated. i have to look at the information, but the bill offered is closer to what i think would keep our country save and protect our critical infrastructure. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i have one more line of questions a little bit different than what we focus on, and it builds on yesterday's hearing when we discussed with the

experts and interesting and unsettling range of future homeland security efforts. i want to ask what is your assessment of the current capabilities to assess and eats and toture thrust take actions to address them, and if it is not adequate, i want to go down the road, and the coast line -- the coast guard has a plan called project evergreen, and i would like to talk to you about that and how it might relate to dhs if it does. is there the capability to

adequately anticipate changing threats and response? >> i think i am least qualified to answer that, because i have not been in the operating mechanism of the department, but i think it is on leave and would be my answer. threats are better understood than others. if we give an answer to that, the bad guys will somehow planned around us. we cannot do that. we have to be agile in reassessing that all the time, but i do not think most of the planning mechanisms are that good. the ones i have seen death network does have to do with airplanes security, which worked very well, and port security,

which involves pushing orders out -- pushing borders out and layers of protection, but i do not know how to answer a threat across the range of addressethr. >> about 12 years ago the coast guard initiated a project, and this was trying to look strategically into our future using alternative planning, a method to try to figure out what you should do to plan for the future, and to summarize it, you look at the transmitter out there and develop alternative worlds you might see, and you and you come upms,

with strategies. you compare what they all said, and if they come up with three or four of them the same, there is a robust set of threats. the coast guard is on its third or fourth iteration. our goal was to regenerate every four years. it has been extremely helpful. i actually greeted our performance on 9-11 against what we thought was going to happen when we did not know the events of 9-11 would occur. and my response was from the old management book whose all my cheese, what would you do if you were not afraid -- "who stole my cheese,"what would you do if

you were not afraid? you cannot stand at the port of entry and say, and what is it i should do? you cannot stand at a screening line and say what should i do regarding airline passengers. we need to understand we have a physical and virtual dimension. we need to carry out sovereign responsibilities. i usually say we have air, land, sea, and the domain -- a space domain. we need to interrupt the supply train of trouble. good a thing that flows through those is things like people and cargo, but it is also the weather and germs and electrons and money. we need to understand that not withstanding the jurisdictions, at the departmental level and policy planning and coordination, how do we sense

those domains and environments? we should start making trade- offs based on rest of where we need to put resources as far as redeploying, heightening threat levels in advance of national security. it requires us to step back and review the homeland security enterprise radically different rather than the components. >> mr. skinner, d you have a reaction to the questions? >> it would be hard to add to what was just said. >> it was a pretty good answer. >> i do recall that during some reviews with the department we are always looking for emerging address -- emerging threats. they would find other ways to

smuggle illegal items onto airplanes, so i know they are always looking at what they are going to do next now that we have identified this technique. as far as strategic assessments, i am not aware of that occurring, but it does not mean it was not occurring. we talk about the evolving threats. this is not just a dhs responsibility. this is a government responsibility, and we have to rely very heavily on what is going on outside of government, dealing with what is going on now and now outside our systems, so people have those expectations. this is dhs responsibility for a

sole responsibility. i think it would be a big mistake just to focus on dhs. >> i want to go through that exercise you were talking about with the coast guard. i assume you are talking about factors that might not observer. i hope that the dhs looks set worldwide demographic trends think about the terrorism threats, what is happening out in the world that we might not be thinking about now or what is happening in the technological world that may be converted to a weapon against us as their plans and cyberspace have been.

>> human of the scenarios they tried to pull to the global extreme. the pandemic, basically that it goes global and redefines sociopolitical boundaries and implications related to that. and natural disasters here you try to bring your leaders in and try to understand which one of those are more consequential or have the greatest risk. you can it -- you can talk about it from the agency standpoint. there's project horizon were the state department to do this on an energy basis about 10 years ago. but it really never got the attraction inside the government. it is a useful project. it requires some investment and time credit records some championship at the leadership level. it also -- it requires some investment and time and requires

some championship at the leadership level. we are able to see these people in very thoughtful and very resourceful and bringing their thinking to the problems. >> senator lieberman, could i add one thing. as we think about these huge threat, catastrophic that'threat is important to drill down on the other threats like the underwear bomber was unable to detonate a bomb that was external to his body. now the worry is that tradecraft has evolved so there can be internal bombs, very much like mules carried drugs and that would elevate some of our detection systems. at the low -- at that level, i think we need very sharp focus. things of that kind will continue to happen. there's one particular bombing

during a man who seems to be the ace bomb maker who is still alive and well and doing this. it is not just a question of borders. if is the question of very smart focused thinking about what could these people do next. >> you mentioned technologies, mr. chairman. when you look at the dances in nanotechnology -- at the advances in nanotechnology, you start creating the part of the possible in ways that threats could be applied in different ways. i think there is a technological thing we have to keep our eye on. >> i agree. this is a tall order. investing on this kind of future thinking, right now, it would probably save us in years ahead. thank you very much. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has been very helpful to hear

from you some of the problems that existed prior to the department of homeland security creation to remind us that all of these agencies were working cooperatively before they were brought together and that somehow bring them made -- bring them together did not work as well. nevertheless, as i was reading your testimony, i could sense a certain frustration with how the department could be functioning better. for example, you talk about a lack of uniformity, contrary ability and transparency and budget presentations throughout the department. you said the department head has struggled to revolve in mission execution coordination.

something has to give. what do you believe needs to be done to solve some of the problems that you illustrated in your written testimony? >> if i could come i would like to divided into two answers. one involves mission execution and one involves mission support. if you go to work every day, you either execute the mission or you support the mission. if you can explain what we're doing, we have made one of two mistakes. we did not explain your job or you do not -- or we do not need your job. the place you've hit where there is discretion to do something. we moved components into the department with different appropriations structures from the legacy departments. i'm talking about the appropriations level, the project program and a dirty little that create the far wall and which need to reprogram between how your present

personnel costs, bring costs, capital investment costs, i.t. costs and so forth. right now, because of the way the budget has performed the legacy the apartment, you cannot put the budget side by side and look at compare ability -- comparability. this is something -- there are two sides to this. the administration needs to put forward a budget that has comparability in the way that the numbers are presented. there will have to be some flexibility to put this together where we have a comprehensive and understandable basis by which to understand how we are funding the department and the cost associated with that. that is something that does not need any legislation. it is a management activity, both in the department at omb, which plays a key part of this, and on the hill. like the security plan fo

future years defense plan. we have never realized that. they do want to commit to a five-year projection. but this kills management. we have acquisitions that our budget-induced, but you never see that because there is not an open and discussion. on the execution site come it has everything to do with unity of effort, which is undergirded by operational coordinating and planning. if you talk about the threat that i explained on different domains, that is hard to explain at that level. to be able to look at this as a portfolio and look at future cases, to look at how you trade off compatible domains, drums, electrons, money, people and so forth, we have to create the capacity to move the many that

we have to do with every day and we have to do that close to the secretary. so the secretary can be consequential in the planning and execution of zero -- of ongoing operations and export that competency with credibility across government. >> thank you. mr. skinner, you talked about how the department initially had 7000 -- or rather 2000 different i.t. programs and that had been narrowed down, but there are so many different i.t. programs operating within the department. i'll is thinking when senator johnson was talking about the tension between -- and i was thinking when senator johnston's talking about the tension within an organization which can be effective that a fundamental issue that has not really been

answered about the department has to do with the amount of authority at the department level, the chief information officer should have, the chief financial officer, all of those positions, the chief acquisition officer. what is your view on that? should the secretary level position have authority over the component agencies in the area of information technology, for example? >> if you go back at some of the work we have done over the years, we have always made recommendations are we had concerns when the cfo did not have sufficient resources and did not have a corporate authorities -- did not have appropriate authorities to

compel component, to follow certain guidelines or perform in a manner in which the department or the secretary had envisioned. secondly, it was the cio that did not have sufficient resources in the office of the cio and did not have sufficient authority to compel offices to follow the departmental guidelines and directions. the same holds true with the chief financial officer. all three, i thought, we had studied and made recommendations to see that the chief financial officer as well has the resources that the tory to ensure compliance at the component level. one of the things i would like to add if i had the opportunity is that because, when we stood

up and the components were brought together and retained their authority, often times, this was the environment we were living in paired it with a very emotional environment. expectations were too high. now we have homeland security, with all our problems would be solved. we knew that would not happen, but the public did not know that. the mission demands that were put on us at that point in time in our history tromped good business practice. we expect this to happen. we expect to secure our borders, stop illegal immigration, make sure everything had begun yesterday. good -- we maderumped a lot of mistakes. now we are able to analyze everything that we have done,

lessons learned, where we want to go, and now it is just the matter of getting the resources to get it done and the authority is. >> thank you. >> admiral allen -- >> your analogy to the business world, you have every right to ask that question. this was probably done without due diligence. >> thank you, senator collins. i want to give the senators who chance to ask more questions if they have them. you have to leave, we understand and we still love you. i do not think i have never said that to a witness before. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman, i love you, too. [laughter] is there another round of questions? aboutn we're talking cyber security yesterday, was talking about the priorities and

what needed to be done. i came away with that that the first elected do is set the standards. who do you believe is best capable of setting the standards on cyber security? >> i think the technical expertise on cyber security is in the nsa. and it should remain there. they are best at it. in terms of being the public face to do the cyber security work that is not in the .mil and .gov space, i think that home and security has to do it, implement it. but i do not think it needs to retreat technical expertise that the nsa. -- it does not need to repeat technical expertise at the nsa. >> if i could give you the

blowup of the deepwater verizon fell two years ago, there were not subject to third independent -- two independent third-party inspection current me to understand what is the role of government and how we produce the effect. but think we need oversight. i think it is logical that should be -- that it should be homeland security. there has to be accountability and somebody has to address the american people. >> at the tennessee plays a major role -- i think the nsa plays a major role. those standards will not be set in stone. they will evolve over time. because ivar security is evolving over time. -- because cyber security is evolving over time. it is a logical home for it at

home and security. >> is there any rollouts of the private sector in terms of the service providers -- is there any role outside of the private sector in terms of service providers? >> my training in public administration, i worked in the regulatory field for a couple of decades. one of the things we have to watch out is that, if we do not take this into a rule-making process, it will take 10 years. the government has to take the best of the private sector and get to a conclusion. the question is how to do it. >> if i could just add, as senator collins said, 85% of our capacity is in the private sector. and the private sector in this area is much more agile than the government sector. so this has to be a collaborative effort print i thought your asking who should implement the standard setting.

a legislation should set the standards are set up the process to set the standards. the point i was making that come inside government, our technical competence in this is at the nsa. >> thank you, senator johnson. >> i know time is valuable to a congressman -- to the congresswoman. i don't have anymore questions for you. meaning you can leave if you need to. , we have a great panel of leaders and experts here today. we are fortunate to have you. you know to be in your written testimony that dhs has relied

heavily on contractors since its inception, in particular in service contractors working side-by-side with federal workers. "i have worked closely with the department don its effort to federal employees to contract mx." my question to you is does the department curly have the employees to contract the balance to achieve its mission in the future? >> i was aware of the initiatives to bring that right balance. i have been reading reports and observing what is going on within the department. i am mostly attached, even

though i am retired. i see that there is progress being made there. nevertheless, there is still an imbalance. recently, the coast guard made tremendous progress in bringing in in-house employees to do what was governmentally inherent jobs instead of relying on contractors. at the same time, they still do not have -- and this is as recent as may be too much for three months ago that i read this. the sufficient resources to complete their missions, they are still relying on contractors to do what they would like to be doing themselves. but there is a very concerted effort and i think this has been in all the components as a result of the leadership. >> @ rell alan, as you know, the

department has worked very hard to improve its strategic human capital functions. however, dhs still faces challenges in implementing its department-wide objectives and goals, such as improving employee morale. and retention. what are the most pressing challenges facing the dhs workforce? and how do we address them going forward with dhs? >> i have provided staff for the record that i testified in march before the subcommittee, the homeland subcommittee for the public service rankings and morale in the department. there is a more intensive

discussion. i will try to highlight some of the issues here. some of the issues derived from the nature by which the department was formed. when immigration service one way and we formed iscvp, we developed different structures and different pay/benefit structure, different work rules and different things. a lot of the salaries are funded by fiver six different fees that are legacy fees from agriculture, immigration and land-order entry. that is pretty difficult environment to try to manage and adelaide address and estimate

salaries. the implications of that is that there is not enough to implement it in the year and it affects employee morale. separate from that, on the discussion of the morale of the department, it is not something that you mandate or set out as a goal to achieve. morale is a byproduct of performance in the workplace. where employees feel there are empowered and have the right tools and understand they're doing the things that will enable them to be successful. when you have that, you have morale. i think the department needs to put the conditions in place which improve the performance we talked about here today. i think morale becomes a natural byproduct of that. many to understand that people do not leave organizations, the lee bosses. there is a dhs fellows program. there is a capsule program for

seniors. i think there should be some leadership development programs. we don't require the people that are managing these programs do go hand to hand every year and tried to deal with program funds or what is left over at the end of the year. >> with that, i would like to finally asked -- mr. skinner, in particular, it seems as though we have had morale problems in tsa. the turnover there is great and has been. it seems as though it is a part of dhs where the workers have

problems. can you make any expressions on act and the problem and the challenges we face, particularly in tsa? >> this is something i have never studied with regards to tsa. i was well aware of the turnover issues and we did discuss this with the tsa administrators when i was there in private meetings. one of the problems that we have observed with regard to tsa is the pure nature of its work. it is very tedious work. and people's expectations when they take these jobs are not always met. secondly, when we talk about the leadership, this is leadership

up and down the chain of command. at the air force themselves, there was oftentimes a lack of leadership and people's expectations of their leaders were not being met. but as to come up with empirical information or a conclusion as to why there is a high turnover rate, i'm sorry, i didn't do or we did not complete a study in that area. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> this has been a very productive morning. i want to thank the three witnesses, each of you in different ways, who have given great service to our country. i think you added to another step in that direction. you're prepared testimony was very thoughtful and will be part of a permanent record and by your testimony this morning. you have given the committee a lot to think about. i think you will give the new

committee leadership in the next session a lot to think about. frankly, i think you will give both the current and new leadership of the department an agenda for action to continue what has been real progress, but obviously a lot of work to be done. >> i have enjoyed working with all three of our witnesses over the years. it is terrific to have them back today to share their extraordinary experience and insights with our committee. thank you all. >> thank you. so the record of the hearing will remain open for 15 days for any additional statements were questions. again, thank you very much. the hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> when you think about cyber actors, let's put them into five groups. you have nation states. you have supper criminals. you have hackers. you have activists. and you have terrorists. not all of those are nation states. when you think of the deterrent theory, you're not just talking about nation-on-nation deterrence theory. you have actors that met to consider. and in one of these attacks, you may not know who is doing its, who was attacking your systems. either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector or the power grid for your systems capabilities for some time.

it doesn't matter who did it. you still lose that. so you have got to come up with a defensive strategy that solves that. >> watched national security agency director keith alexander assess current and future cyber threats online at the c-span video library. >> in a few moments, the justice department news conference on a settlement agreement with wells fargo over unfair lending practices. in little more than a half hour, president obama and vice president biden address the naacp and a convention. mr. obama sent a video message. mr. biden was at the convention in houston. after that, house leaders preview next week's agenda. >> tomorrow morning, our guests include james carville and stan greenberg to talk about their new book "it's the middle class, stupid."

then challenging the constitutionality of the dodd- franc law. and then you can call in with your questions about the new report on children. our guests are edward and kristin more. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, on book tv, growing up in the shadows and secrets of the weaponry facility, kristin iverson looks at the effects on the environment and the people saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. then peter collier on the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> carter, in her opinion, was mcgovern with a magnolia accent. and she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979, she was in full-fledged

opposition to carter and what she saw carterism, that appeasement. and in 1979, she saw the fall of the shock and the fall of nicaragua and some less reading experiences for her and people like her. >> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. and then at 10:00 p.m., anthony wofford -- anthony swofford. >> the justice department says wells fargo has agreed to pay $175 million to settle accusations of unfair and discriminatory lending practices to african-americans and hispanics. this is a half hour.

>> good morning. i am pleased to be joined by tampere's, lisa madigan, and thomas curry to announce a step forward in our ongoing efforts to protect american consumers, to ensure fair treatment for struggling borrowers, and to seek justice and recover losses for victims of discriminatory lending practices. today, the department of justice reached a significant settlement totaling at least $175 million with wells fargo bank, the nation's largest originator of residential home mortgages. this settlement constitutes the second largest fair lending settlement ever reached by the department and it will resolve the government's allegations that, from 2004 to 2009, wells fargo engaged in discriminatory lending practices against

qualified african-american and hispanic borrowers and thereby violating the equal credit opportunity act and the fair housing act in these activities to place in at least 82 geographic markets across 36 states and the district of columbia. as a result of the investigations conducted by the department of justice and the treasury department's office of the comptroller of the currency, systematic discrimination was discovered in wells fargo's lending practices. this resulted in more than 34,000 african-american and hispanic wholesale borrowers paying an increased rate for loans simply due to the color of their skin. this includes approximately 4000 african-american and hispanic wholesale borrowers who were steered into subprime mortgages. under the terms of the settlement filed today, these victims will be able to receive the much needed relief they deserve. as part of the agreement, which is subject to u.s. district

court approval, wells fargo will provide $125 million in compensation to those wholesale borrowers who were victimized by widespread practice of charging higher fees and rates to non- what are worse. the bank will provide another $50 million in direct payments for down payment assistance to residents in eight metropolitan areas where the banks discriminatory practices have a significant impact. in a distant -- in addition, agreed to anhas accrue internal review of its detailed mortgage practices with additional compensation for minority borrowers who received subprime loans while white borrowers with the same credit profiles were offered prime loans. we will hold financial institutions accountable, including some of the nation's largest, for lending

discrimination. an applicant's creditworthiness and not the color of his or her skin should determine what borrowers pay and what borrowers qualify for in loans. with today's settlement, the federal government will ensure that african-american and hispanic borrowers who are discriminated against will be entitled to compensation and borrowers and communities hit hard by this crisis will have the opportunity to access homeownership. put simply, there's no place for discriminatory lending in the marketplace and it will not be tolerated by the department of justice. in fact, today's summit marks the second time in just seven months but the department has taken action to bring relief to borrowers who were steered into subprime loans based on their race or national origin. and it underscores our unwavering determination to work closely with law enforcement allies and government partners in order to hold lenders accountable for unfair and

unlawful practices wherever and whenever that might occur. in recent years, this commitment has led the department and specifically the civil rights division, it's fair lending unit, to aggressively combat bias, fort discrimination, and work to restore confidence in our housing and lending markets. since this establishment, less than 18 months ago, the fair lending unit has finally resolve a record of fair lending matters. as a result of this work, we see an unmistakable message. this department of justice will use every authority and retool and every resource at our disposal to ensure fair access -- and every tool and every resource at our disposal to ensure fair access for all and to ensure the rights of every american.

we can all be proud of the results we have obtained and the progress that is currently in the way. and there is no question that we stand poised to take this work to the next level. i want to thank every support staffer, every investigator and every attorney from the department of justice, the illinois attorney general's office under the outstanding leadership of attorney-general madigan and ron maiden and come in particular, the office of the comptroller of the currency who initially launched this investigation before referring it to the department of justice in 2010. it was their tireless efforts that brought about the settlement that made today's announcement possible. i would also like to acknowledge wells fargo's cooperation in reaching this agreement with the department and its commitment to correcting course by implementing stronger for

lending policies and controls to ensure that such unacceptable behavior does not occur again. and now i would like to turn things over to another key leader in this work. willorreperez tampere' provide additional the tells. >> -- additional details. >> i am particularly honored to be joined by my friend, the attorney general of illinois, lisa madigan, who has been a national leader in this effort and a tireless champion of behalf of the people of illinois on a range of issues, including fair lending and protecting the rights of consumers. i would also like to thank the u.s. attorney of the district of columbia where this was filed. he is unable to be here today. he was also an in valuable partner in this case. and the deputy general, i would

like to acknowledge the critical contribution of the comptroller of the currency. they have been an excellent partner in this case. the work of the occ and other regulatory partners is essential to the effective enforcement of our fair lending laws. at the core of this complaint is a simple story. if your african-american or latino, you were more likely to be placed in a subprime loan or pay more for your mortgage loan, even though you were qualified and deserve better treatment. this was a case about real people, african-american and latino, who suffered real harm as a result of what wells fargo 's -- result of wells fargo's a discriminatory lending practices. where they're rock-solid credit score receive a subprime loans of a prime loan. and she was not told that she may have qualified for a prime loan with better terms.

the time she realized she had an adjustable-rate mortgage and not a fixed rate mortgage, it was too late. the damage was done. this is also about communities, such as the city of chicago that we visit -- that we visited last year, where house after house was either boarded up or headed for sale sign. today, the sediment with wells fargo is the second-largest in the department's history. the settlement shows that, while we will vigorously investigate practices, we will work constructively with responsible lenders that are willing to take the necessary steps to ensure equal credit opportunity for all. i have spent considerable time in recent weeks with a number of senior leaders at wells fargo who have had open and frank discussions. we have that time agreed to disagree. and at the end, we were able to reach a resolution.

our investigation began in earnest in 2009. we received the referral in 2010 from the occ, which had been conducting its own parallel investigation of wells fargo's lending practices in a baltimore and d.c. metropolitan areas and a finding of discrimination. the department's lawsuit is the culmination of this thorough investigation of their lending practices, which included a review of more than 2.7 million wells fargo loans originated between 2004 and 2009. it was during this time that the subprime boom that some of the most harmful practices took place. the complaint alleges that between 2004 and 2008, wells fargo discriminated by steering approximately 4000 african-

american and latino wholesale borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. people with similar qualifications should be treated similarly. they should be judged by the content of their credit worthiness and not the color of their skin. yet our investigation revealed that african-american borrowers who obtained a loan from a broker working with wells fargo or almost three times more likely to be placed in subprime loans than a similarly qualified white applicant. latinos were almost two times as likely to be placed in a subprime loan by a broker working with wells fargo than similarly qualified white applicants. the complaint also alleges that, between 2004 and 2009, wells fargo discriminated by charging approximately 30,000 african- american and latino wholesale our worst higher fees and rates

than non-hispanic white borrowers simply because of their race and national origin rather than the borrowers' creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrow or risk. what does this mean in reality? let me give you a few examples. it meant that an african- american wholesale customers in the chicago area in 2007 seeking a $300,000 loan paid on average two thousand $9 -- $2,900 more in fees than similarly qualified white applicant. these fees were not based on any objective factors relating to credit risk. these fees in fact amounted to a racial surtax. a latino borrower in the miami area in 2007 seeking a three and a thousand dollars loan paid on average $2,530 more than a similarly qualified white applicant. the surcharge for african- americans in the miami area was $667.

all too frequently, wells fargo african-american and latino borrowers have no idea whatsoever that they could have gotten a better deal. they had no idea that white borrowers with similar credit would pay less. that is discrimination with a smile. african-american and latino customers of wells fargo in 82 geographic markets across 36 states and the district of columbia were victims of these discriminatory practices spirit of the roughly 34,000 total victims identified in our complex, roughly half are latino and half are african-american. those borrowers who were steered into subprime loans paid on average tens of thousands of dollars more for their loans and were subject to possible pre- payment penalties come increased risk to credit problems, the fault, foreclosure and economic and emotional stress. these effects can be devastating and they can last for years.

in fact, the occ did a survey last year and found that, as of june 30, 2011, 28% of subprime loans nationwide are seriously delinquent or in foreclosure compared to 5.5% of prime loans. in other words, the decision to place someone in a prime loans versus a subprime product can have enormous consequences. the impact of lending discrimination and the harm to a person's credit can be far reaching. and the collateral damage to whole communities when widespread patterns of discrimination occurred deprived those communities of equal opportunity. and this is why the proposed consent order we filed today addresses both the individual harm and the community harm. the settlement will provide $125 million in compensation to approximately 34,000 qualified wholesale our worst we their charge a higher price or were

steered to subprime loans based on race or national origin. borrowers will be compensated for the direct costs or other harm they experience. we know the prime qualified borrowers were steered to subprime loans generally experienced a greater harm. as i mentioned, this case did not -- was not simply but individuals and families who were victims of discrimination. it is also about communities. under the terms of this settlement, wells fargo has agreed to commit an additional $50 million to community improvement programs based on its successful terrible was program to assist communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. we have identified eight areas that will receive this important investment. metropolitan washington, d.c., chicago, baltimore,

philadelphia, the oakland/san francisco bay area, new york city, cleveland and riverside- salmon and tuna-ontario, california. these are areas that were heavily impacted -- riverside- san bernardino-ontario, california. these are areas that were heavily impacted. wells fargo has agreed to conduct an internal compliance review of a subset of its retail subprime loans during 2004-2008 to identify any prime qualified african-american or latino retail customer who was improperly placed in a subprime loan. wells fargo will compensate these borrowers in an amount similar to the amounts paid to borrowers who received improperly subprime loans from the wholesale division. all amounts paid to retail customers will be in addition to

the $125 million in relief for the wholesale customer. while the federal government must be a credible deterrent to those who would choose to violate our fair lending laws, the best policing is often the policing that comes from within. that work is vital to ensuring fair and equal treatment for borrowers and the success of thoughtful and comprehensive compliance work and attention to fair lending is reflected in the fact that the vast majority of lenders across the united states are not violating the law. that is why i believe that wells fargo should be commended for implementing strong fair lending policies and agreeing to conduct the internal review of its retail lending for the time during the mortgage bom. i have been impressed with their leadership and believe that we will continue to work in a collaborative fashion. we have a shared interest in ensuring equal credit opportunity for everyone. deputy attorney general cole describe the opportunities for the lending unit and task force

for the interagency. we will ensure that those harmed by discriminatory conduct during the mortgage them get compensation. we will also investigate and bring enforcement action to confront emerging discriminatory practices or longstanding discriminatory practices in the credit market. we will continue to aggressively enforce the law to protect the rights of all who face discrimination, to ensure full and equal access to credit for all as the law requires. lastly, but certainly not least, i want to commend our dedicated team of attorneys, economists, investigators and support staff, as well as all of our sister agencies who are here today and have been involved in this effort to ensure equal opportunity to the american dream. our career staff is remarkable and i am fortunate to be in the position of assistant attorney general of the department of justice. i have mentioned the important role that the occ attorney- general madigan and, i want to

say thank you to the u.s. attorney from quite literally all over the country who offered in valuable assistance in this case. if we had not been able to resolve this matter, it would have been a team effort with u.s. attorney's offices in over 50 jurisdictions. and this has been a team effort and we will continue to use this as a tool in our law enforcement arsenal to ensure that people have equal credit opportunity across this country. with that, i will turn the podium over to the distinguished attorney general of illinois lisa madigan. >> good morning. i am pleased to announce that i am joining the justice department's settlement in resolution of a fair lending lawsuit i filed against wells fargo three years ago. for illegally discriminating against thousands of illinois borrowers of colored during the peak years of the sub prime lending spree. this settlement sends a clear

message that the fair lending laws of this nation and of the individual states will be and must be vigorously enforced. the unfortunate reality is that discriminatory lending is not some shameful relict of our distant past. as alleged in my lawsuit and borne out by the justice department's investigation as well as my own, wells fargo was making mortgage lending decisions based on the color of borrowers scans as recently as five years ago. if you were african-american or latino shopping for wells fargo mortgage at the height of the housing bubble, your chance of being sold a high-risk loan was far greater than those of a white borrower with a credit profile who was comparable to yours or even much lower. chicago-area african-american borrowers with an annual income of $120,000 or more were vastly more likely to be sold in subprime wells fargo loan than

were white borrowers earning $44,000 per year. stark racial disparities such as these cannot be explained away by mere chance or marketplace demands for borrowers lack of sophistication. rather, as alleged in my lawsuit, the fact that a disproportionate numbers of minority borrowers were sold toxic subprime murrieta as was the direct result of policies and practices of wells fargo's own design. the policies and practices were illegal and they helped destroy a generation of wealth in the african-american and latino communities in the chicago area and cities throughout the nation. today's settlement will not roll back the clock. it will not undo the devastating consequences of wells fargo's misconduct on african-american and latino families and their once vibrant neighborhoods. but it is a significant step forward. in my ongoing efforts and of those of my partners in the federal level, the whole bank is accountable for their

disgraceful role in causing the worst financial crisis of our lifetime. just as importantly, today's settlement affirms the basic american tenet that a person's race or ethnicity should never determine his or her access to affordable credit and to a better future. in closing, i want to thank the attorneys from the left suwannee -- from the illinois attorney general's office for working diligently and passionately on this lawsuit for the last three years. i also want to commend deputy attorney general poll, tom perez for all of their hard worker and dedication in crafting this settlement. let me handed over to the comptroller of the currency, tom currie. >> thank you, lee clisa.

providing fair access to credit and treating every customer fairly. every person who applies for a loan should be evaluated on the basis of objective credit factors and not the color of their skin. the practice of steering minority borrowers into a higher priced subprime loans is not just an acceptable, it is illegal. the occ is committed to eradicating this practices. the action being announced today should send a strong message to every institution that lending discrimination in all of its forms will not be tolerated. this case is an example of interagency cooperation that represents the government at its best year multiple agencies working together for the benefit of the citizens we all sir. the occ's work began in 2004 when we started an investigation of wells fargo's mortgage lending in the baltimore- washington area. based on our findings, we referred the case to the department of justice and we

continue to work with the department to route. i would like to commend everyone at the department who participated in negotiating. they put the public first at every step of the way. i am pleased that the occ's examiners, economists and enforcement authorities were able to play a role in this action. i believe that they brought this matter to an appropriate conclusion. thank you. >> 0, a correction, in 2009 was our investigation. >> we have time for any questions. >> two things -- if the evidence here is so strong that there was a racial surtax, why settle this case? why not pursue it?

second, are there any states that are not part of the settlement? >> as for your first question, there are real people affected. we were able to reach a resolution with wells fargo not to provide assistance to people. when you have protracted litigation, that could take years. there is obvious mutual litigation is on everyone's side. our goal is to help people and to come to a resolution that can in fact help ensure equal credit opportunity. so i am very appreciative of the collaborative spirit that wells fargo bought the table. week undeniably had moments where we disagreed and disagreed strongly. but we came together because we had the shared interest in people credit opportunity for everyone. and moving forward to ensure that the proper policies and practices are in fact in place. add to your second question, there were other matters that was fargo had involving fair

lending issues. you heard about illinois. there was a matter involving the city of baltimore. and there will be announced later today regarding that matter as well. and finally, the state of pennsylvania, the pennsylvania human relations had a matter with wells fargo and that has also been resolved. that is part of this global resolution. i think it is a good day for american homeowners and american would be homeowners that can benefit from this. >> to questions -- they say that it is the mortgage brokers fault. how do you respond to that? second, what kind of time frame do you anticipate the mediation will get to homeowners? there is some concern about the country white settlement. >> wells fargo and any lender

that has a wholesale or a retail arm is responsible for the conduct of people who are working under their supervision. the complaint alleges that individuals, originated, whether retail or wholesale -- or given discretion and were not properly monitored. that unfiltered or unmonitored discussion regrettably, in this case, and in other cases that we have seen, resulted in african- american and latino being victims of discrimination. whether you have a whole still practice or resell practice, you have an obligation when you're working with and directing originators to make sure you're doing so in a matter that complies with fair lending laws. your second question related to

-- oh, the time frame. there will be an administrator who will administrate this settlement agreement. i'll understand, in the countrywide case, we are on track to meet the deadline set forth in the case. i am confident that we will meet the deadlines here. we know that will fargo has been very responsive. there are consent decree calls that have not been done yet because we want to make sure that there is an appropriate selection process. but we have a lot of experience in this. i appreciate the need for people to get relief as soon as possible. but we want to make sure that we have and the corporate process for identifying them. >> is there a specific time frame? >> i believe that within, i want to say six months to 12 months, so in the next year is the time frame put forth in the agreement. >> to questions, first for the

justice department. it sounds like the disparate impact case, did you find evidence where they were involved in intentional discrimination in the basis of race. for the comptroller, this referral came in before your tenure. are you making fair lending referrals a particular priority of your tenure? >> we don't plead legal theories in the complaints that we file. we alleged that the conduct constituted discrimination. so you will see in the complaint that is filed that there are allegations that the unfettered discretion and insufficiently monitored discretion resulted in discriminatory effects on individuals and you will also see allegations that a lot of the internal honoring --

internal auditing process place that was fargo, including a process called their a-paper filter that would ensure qualified people would be placed with the proper product, was not working. you will see those allegations in that complaint. but we don't played specific intentional discrimination. we are not required to. >> their lending is not only illegal, it is also a bad banking practice. we have had a longstanding practice that goes way back prior to my becoming comptroller of referring instances of credible violations of the fair lending act. this is a continuation of a longstanding practice at the

comptroller's office and also an example of unsafe banking practices to the extent that an institution is engaging in illegal conduct. >> with this settlement you have not taken action against the two biggest players. what other investigations do you have ongoing in this space? >> we have it other investigations pending but i cannot comment on those active investigations. >> we settle but like -- a case recently with suntrust, which is now the third largest fair lending settlement we had reached. >> it looks like the settlement kicks down the road at the question of the retail arm. you could not reach an agreement on that. could you explain a little bit more of the status of what you think happened or what they say happened there and how you resolve that aspect? >>

the consent decree has provisions relating to a process that we will be undertaking jointly with wells fargo as part of the internal compliance monitoring. it is designed to look at the time frame of 2004-2008 and determine whether or not there are retail customers who are african-americans who were victims and not treated in a similar fashion to similarly qualified non-minority applicants. we have agreed on a basic methodology to do that. we can do it in short order. they have agreed to compensate victims we identify through this process. i expect there will be victims identified, somewhere around 4000 is my expectation. but we do not know at this point. we will do the process and see where this process leads us.

>> the term the deputy attorney general used is at least $175 million. >> you were there on monday wondering how you think your attorneys are doing. can you explain our summarize why this case is so important? >> the case is pending and it is really inappropriate for me to comment during a pending case. our pleadings will continue to do the talking for us. it is my understanding closing arguments will occur tomorrow and the case will be submitted to the court. we will continue to vigorously enforce section 5 and other provisions of the voting rights act. >> why did you bring the case in the first case? >> we fought our objection with the state of texas, we concluded that they had not met their burden of establishing the absence of discriminatory

purpose and discriminatory intent. that is what the trial is about. the burden is on the state. we are presenting our case and the state is presenting bears. -- theirs. the intervenors are presenting bears and the court will soon speak on this issue. >> one more question. >> there have been reports in the last month or so that government talks are speeding up with regards to the gulf of mexico oil spill of 2010. can you characterize where those talks are? >> short answer, i cannot. it is a matter that is currently in litigation under investigation and as i am sure you are used to covering the justice department, we do not comment on matters under investigation or in litigation.

>> [inaudible] >> he has, indicating it is under investigation and litigation. >> it is under investigation and litigation. [laughter] >> thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> hitler had virtually no plan. collapsed, when he realized it was going to come to an end and it was only a question of suicide. >> a new look at the second world war from a of hitler's rise to power to his dark, chaotic final days. >> his main objective was not to

be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage. he was determined to die. eva braun was determined to die with him. >> sunday at 8:00 on "q&a". >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c- span. a forum on and violence in syria in the assad regime, a a a at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the opening session of the national governors' association annual meeting from virginia. the governor's education and work force committee meets at 3:00 p.m. eastern. president obama is also in virginia tomorrow. we'll have live coverage of his campaign event in roanoke, just after 7:00 p.m. eastern.

>> vice-president joe biden spoke at the naacp convention in houston thursday, outlining the policy differences between president obama and mitt romney. the vice president's comments were preceded by a recorded message from the president. this is a half hour. >> i want to thank the moment to thank your board president for the leadership and strong partnership that form with my administration. i want to thank everybody for coming together, not just today, but every day to been the ark of the moral universe toward justice. i stand on your shoulders and at the naacp, you have always believed in the american promise, the idea that a matter who you are or what you look like or where you come from, america is a place where you can

make it if you try. that is why he fought so hard for good jobs and quality education and a justice system that treats everybody fairly. that is why you help make health care reform are reality. that is why you are still fighting today because you know that our mission right now is not just to recover from the recession, it is to reclaim the security that some americans have lost. our goal cannot just be to put people back to work. although that is priority number one. we have to build an economy where everyone can have the confidence that a hard work -- their hard work also pay off. that is what i believe. that is why as long as i have the honor of serving as your president, i will get up every day and fight as hard as i can for that diverse, hopeful, optimistic, hardworking america that we love. an america where we are looking out for the middle class and an america of where we are creating the ladders for people willing to work hard to get into the middle class.

that is my promise to you. if you keep standing with me, if you keep persevering like the naacp always has, then i know we can arrive there together. thank you some months. i am proud of all that you do. michelle, malia, sasha and i send our deepest regards. ♪ [applause] ♪

>> naacp delegates. it is my great honor to introduce to you a friend of the naacp. [applause] at the age of 29, he became one of the youngest people ever collected to the united states senate. our speaker meted from washington to bombing him, delaware, by train -- to wilmington, delware, by train every day and was reelected to the senate six times.

as a senator from delaware for 36 years, he has established himself as a leader of some of our nation's most important domestic and international challenges. now serving as the 47 vice- president of the united states, joe biden continues to provide leadership on important issues facing our nation. [applause] of relevant interest to this audience, joe biden was a standout high school i that -- an athlete who participated in an anti segregation sit in at a wilmington theater. he is married to dr.

jill biden and they have three children and five grandchildren. naacp delegates, again, and join me in providing a warm naacp family welcome to the vice president of the united states america. joseph r. biden. [applause] >> hello. thank you very much. you know what they say, flattery is ok as long as you do not inhale. you keep this up i will start inhaling. [applause] it is good to be home, it is good to be back. ladies and gentlemen, madam chair, as we used to say that in the senate, to excuse a point of personal privilege, where is

delaware? hey, delaware! i'm a lifetime member of the naacp. [applause] there is that old expression. you go home with those that brang you to the dance. they brung me to the dance. i was educated, and i went to the battle with mouse. hey, mouse, how are you doing, man? mouse and i go back a long way. to the days when i waw a public offender.

mouse got my back a bunch of times. it is so good to be with you all. i want to thank you all for your leadership and for your friendship, and, again, personally, for your loyalty. it is not an exaggeration. were it not for the leadership of the naacp, the men and women who educated me when we would sit over in reverend wright's churches -- remember, mouse, those days? i learned so much and i owe so much. ladies and gentlemen, this is not about me. this is about another office. this is about the presidency.

this is about -- [applause] more than any other office in the land, the presidency is about character, the character of your convictions, whether you put country above politics. from the very moment that barack obama took his hand off that bible on that cold january day on the mall, he has done just that. he has put country first. [applause] when the economy was about to go over the cliff, i watched him make some of the toughest decisions any president has had to make since franklin delano roosevelt. he saved the financial system of the nation and prevented a worldwide depression. it was not a popular decision,

but it was essential, and he was right to allow credit to flow again. he stepped up to rescue the automobile industry. it was not popular, but it was critical, saving jobs and creating 200,000 new jobs. this is the man who made the call to go after osama bin laden. it was a bold decision, a bold decision, with profound risks for our warriors as well as his presidency. but he made it and he made that decision on his own. bin laden is dead and america is more secure because of this

man's decision. he passed affordable care act, a goal striven for by presidents starting with teddy roosevelt. it required him to use up almost all of his political capital. he prevailed where no president had done before. he was right. he was right. he cut $100 billion from the federal debt over the next 10 years. he provided access to affordable health care to 30 million americans, 8 million black americans who would never have had insurance. [applause] this is a man, this is a president who has the character of his convictions. almost never since he has taken

office, during this entire time, has the republican congress reached across the aisle to help. on the recovery act, which kept us from sliding further into depression, only three republican senators and not one house member voted for it. on the affordable care act, no republican in the senate and none in the house on the final vote. but it was not just on the big- signature issues, it was on the easy, obvious things where we got no cooperation. extending the payroll tax, only seven republicans initially voted for it. lilly ledbetter equal pay, three republicans voted for it in the house. when we attempted to raise the debt limit to maintain the full faith and credit of the united

states, not a single republican met the responsibility of meeting that requirement, resulting in a negotiation that brought us to the brink of disaster, ultimately causing america's credit rating to be lowered for the first time. it was not until later that we learned this was a plan, obstructionism was the plan from the outset. according to a recent book by robert draper, the author stated in a meeting the night of inauguration, according to draper, republican leaders from paul ryan to eric cantor to kevin mccarthy, mccarthy is reported to have said if you act like you are a minority, you

are going to be in the minority. "we have to challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign." newt gingrich, who was also there, said, and he was prophetic, "you will remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sewn." they were seeds of obstruction. mitch mcconnell said, "the single most important we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president" -- not to get us out of this recession, not to promote jobs, not to do the things that needed to be done, but make barack obama a one-term president. and, folks, their discipline is

amazing. they have never let up. but neither has my guy, neither has president barack obama. he has not given up. he continues to be driven by the character of his convictions, and, folks, in the end, that is what the presidency is all about, your character, your convictions, and one more important thing -- it is about your vision for the future of america. and here, the candidates for president have fundamentally different visions for the future of this country. by the way, i think mitt romney is a fine family man.

at least he is driven by what he believes. but the differences are so basic about how we view that america. let me give you a few examples. on education, we see education as central to the vision of how do we assure america's ascendancy throughout the 21st century. we see it as the most important criteria for minority children. we see education, a future where once again america has the highest percentage of college graduates in the world, a future where high school graduation rates are not a matter of what neighborhood you come from, what your economic circumstances are, but a future where everyone has access to education beyond high school because six out of 10 jobs the coming decade are going to require more than a high-school

diploma. a future where everyone can find a decent job, where quality, early education is available to our children, increasing exponentially the chances to succeed in school, where class sizes are small so kids can get personalized attention they need, where we demand more of our teachers and we treat them like they are professionals -- high standards, and pay equal to other professions. look, education does not play a central role in the romney republican vision of the future of america. it is on the back burner. it is not a priority. you doubt me? just look at the budget for the future. massive cuts in early

education, the one thing all educators agree on is the important initiative to deal right upfront with the achievement gap. elimination of the tuition tax credit for families, cuts in pell grant scholarships for children of low-income families, cuts in title one funding for lowest-performing schools, cuts of $2.7 billion, cuts in special education funding. in my view, backing away from the proposition we have held for years and years, that children should be educated to the degree to which they are educable. cuts by $2.2 billion, cuts in job training. listen to what they say, when he says. he says the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps. tell that all those private schools.

tell that all those parents. energy -- we envision a future where clean, energy represents an increasingly large share of energy consumed in america. we see a nation that breathes clear air, where cities are not polluted, where asthma does not claim the lives of african- american children four times greater than it does of other children because of the environment in which they live. romney sees a different energy future, where renewable energy is not a priority, where romney's allies in the congress oppose any incentives to invest in clean energy, but insist on retaining a $4 billion tax cut for the oil industry, a tax cut even they acknowledge they do not need.

women's rights -- we see an america where no woman pays more for health care than any man in america, where women have access to quality childcare, where women receive equal pay for equal work. we see a future where the barriers are removed for women and girls who want to participate in science, technology, engineering, and the math fields, where the violence against women act is not just a law, but a part of american culture, where the government does not make choices for women, where every woman has unfettered access to contraception and family planning if she desires it. in short, we see an america where our daughters have every

opportunity our sons have. governor romney and his allies in the congress envision a different future for women in america. the governor is not sure what his position is on the violence against women act. he is not sure whether or not lilly ledbetter law that we passed is good. planned parenthood -- get rid of it. innovation and medical research, we see an america where hiv is a thing of the past, where infant mortality is drastically reduced.

that is why we continue to invest in basic research, the national science foundation, the research universities. romney sees a very different future, where he cuts funding for nih and the national science foundation. health care, we see a future where everyone has access to affordable health care, where seniors have access to prescription drugs at a lower cost, they have access to preventive care, making their lives more livable and reducing costs, where insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition, where there are no limits on insurance policies, where children can stay with their parents on their policy until they are 26, where medicare is guaranteed and medicaid is expanded, were no

americans face the possibility of bankruptcy because they get sick. [applause] romney's allies see health care a different way -- controlled by the insurance companies, where pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, where coverage can be taken away if you sick or hit your limit, where medicare is voucherized, 19 million people are cut off from medicaid, where millions of people will have to wait another generation before they can get a decent chance at health care. on the tax system, we see a system where everybody pays their fair share, where the

middle class tax cut is maintained and where no one making a million dollars a year or more pays a lower percentage than middle-class or lower-lass families, where the college tuition tax credit is made permanent, where the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit are preserved, where everybody, and i mean everyone, has skin in the game and no one gets played for a sucker. [applause] the tax code that governor romney and his allies envision continue to be skewed to help the very wealthy -- $530 billion of that tax cut over the next 10 years going to just 120,000 households in

america, while we cut and put into disarray all these other programs, while the debt continues to climb. he proposes a $1.6 trillion tax cut and the people who can qualify are the people who make only $1 million or more. he eliminates college tuition tax credits, the lower income tax credit, and the child tax credit are cut. the result? 2.2 million african-american working families will see a tax increase if he succeeds. that is a fact. on foreign policy, we see a future where we, the president and i and the democratic party, see a future where american leads by the power of example as well as the example of its power, where the democracies of

the world join to share the burden of maintaining world peace, where we continue to reduce nuclear arms around the world, where responsibility is turned over to the afghans and american troops can start to come home. [applause] governor romney and his allies see a different future for america's involvement in the world, one that still has combat troops in iraq. remember, he criticized us for bringing them home? where we set no date for leaving afghanistan, we stay, and he does not say how long, where the new start treaty with russia, endorsed by every former secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security advisers, where he said

he would have voted against it, and i suspect means where he would abandon it, where russia is viewed in his mind as the greatest geopolitical threat america faces. we are in the future, where we once decided to go it alone. this guy's vision of american foreign policy is mired in the cold war, and the cold war is over. [applause] on civil rights, your r'aison d'etre, your reason for existence, remember what this organization is all about.

it was about the franchise, the right to vote, because when you have the right to vote, you have the right to change things. [cheers] and we, the president and i, and all of us, we see a future where those rights are expanded, not diminished, where racial profiling is a thing of the past, where access to the ballot is expanded and unencumbered, where there are no distinctions made on the basis of race or gender in access to housing and lending.

did you think we would be fighting these battles again? i was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years. we went through these battles. i did not think we would be back. i remember working with republicans, republicans, and by the way, this ain't your father's republican party. remember? remember working with republicans on motor voter, on expanding the franchise on early voting, on voting by mail? some of these were republican ideas. but this is not the republican party view today, nor romney's.

they see a different future, where voting is not easier, where the justice department is prohibited from challenging those efforts to suppress the vote. but i know you know, but i am not sure -- the house of representatives voted affirmatively to prevent the justice department from even investigating whether or not there was voter suppression? >> there is a lot more to say, but this is preaching to the choir. let me close, my friends, by

saying i want you -- i mean this sincerely, disclosure eyes and imagine what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser on constitutional issues is robert bork, imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as head of the civil rights division or those other incredibly important positions at justice, imagine, and i mean this to me is one of the most critical issues in this election -- imagine what the supreme court will look like after four years of a romney presidency. folks, this election in my view is a fight for the heart and soul of america. [applause]

these guys just have a fundamentally different view. the best way to sum up the president's view, my view, and i think your view, is we see an america where, in the words of the scripture, what you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me. as president barack obama says, we are our brothers' keeper, we are our sisters' keeper, we have an obligation that at the outset, as i said, i believe this election will come down to character, conviction, and vision, and it will not surprise you, and i do not think it is even a close call. so it is time for the naacp to do what has always done, what it did for me in delaware -- to

inspire a generation, stand our ground, and make a vision for america. god bless you all, and may god bless our troops. thank you. thank you. ♪ >> throughout july on c-span radio, historic supreme court oral arguments focusing on election issues. >> they referred to us as being an anomaly independent, professionally run, that the candid it knows who is helping them and why. we think these are code words for saying we are effective and because we are effective, our speech ought to be choked off.

>> saturday, from 1985, the federal election commission, at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> the house has finished its legislative business for the week. during the wrap up of today's session, party leaders outlined next week's agenda, which includes defense spending. this is a half-hour. mr. cantor: i thank the democratic whip for yielding. monday the on hoe is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected noater than 3:00

p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension -- excuse me -- madam speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. -- mr. hoyer: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will come to order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. mr. hoyer: i again yield to the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank you. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5872, the sequestration transparency act sponsored by congressman jeb hensarling. this is a bill that will bng needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on january 2. chairman paul ryan andhe budget committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so i expect it to be brought up

under suspension of the rules. filly, and in keeping with funding our national security, the house will consider h.r. 5856, the department of defense appropriations act, sponsored by congressman bill young. this will be the house's seventh appropriations bill of the year. i expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on wednesday, july 18, and thursday, july 19. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that scheduling information. as the gentleman knows, we have -- as i calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in july and the beginning of august of which three of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. as a result, we don't have much time left. i would ask the gentleman if there is any expectatio of

having billsther than the -- i understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. other th the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on theloor? mr. ntor: i thank the gentleman for the question. madam speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo, making members aware of where we're headed for the rainder of the summer -- remainder of the july period. i would say to the gentleman, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. as we know, the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult, more expensive for small businesses and lawyers to create jobs. we will be focusing on that, and the following week, madam speaker, will be the week in which we'll bring forward a

piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year. in addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so that we can actually achieve results for the americanpeople so that our job creators and working families can get back to work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the gentleman's answer and i think we have consensus on this floor by cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the federal government or by the state government or by local government we have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. i think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. however, when i ask aboua

jobs bill, the gentleman responds on the -- couple of levels. i think i may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that bruce bartlett, who i think the gentleman probably knows, former reagan and president george h.w. bush official saying that no claim for regulatory issues have increased. he says this. republicans have embraced the idea that this is holding back employment. they assert that barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulation which created uncertainty of business and prevents them from investing in hiring. as i said, he said, no hard evidence is offered for this claim. he then says, in my opinio that means -- bruce bartlett -- not my opinion, regulatory syst is a kenard used by

republicans to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. nornede, it's a case of political opportumism. that's his opinion. not mine. my concern is i you ask economis on whether or not legislation -- many pieces of legislation that we baffed called jobs bills -- the gentleman has pointed that out -- economists say in the short term which is really what we need to do, we need to do in the short term and the long term is not going to create jobs. . this week we haven't done anything to create jobs. might i ask the gentleman, i didn't see it next week, do we expect the 32nd or 33rd vote on repealing the affordable care act either next week or week after or week after that? as the gentleman knows, c.b.s. opines we spent some 80ours on

that issue with whatever cost is attendant to that, do we -- you can answer both questions, i suppose, but certainly i would be interested and members would be interested to know whether or not we are going to have another vote on repealing the affordable care act. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say to the gentleman about this week's vote, in fact today, today we voted on a bill that will help us mine it in america. the gentleman likes to speak about making it in america. why shouldn't we also be mining it in america? so it's very much a bill to facilitate that business and industry in this country, in an environmentally sensitive way. and in fact 22 of the gentleman's caucusembers joed us in that vote. mine it in america, madam speaker. as to the gentleman's question about the suggestion th

perhaps the regulator environmt does not affect the potential growth or real growth in this countryle is something that i really -- i don't believe the gentleman agrees totally with that statent. i know he and i both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. we don't want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or working families. so again, i would take issue with the suggestion that economists would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework doesn't have anything to do with job creation. of course it does. it has to do with the environment forone torques take a risk, for investors to put capital to work, for entrepreneurs to go out, sign their name on the dotted line with the bank. of course regulation has something to do with job creation and growth. that is exactly our point. and i hope the gentleman will

join us in the week that we bring these red tape reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we can roll back the unduel -- unduly burdensome frakework and make sure we have a smart framework of regulation so we can see america grow. i'd say to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal vote of obamacare. if the gentleman would likto do so, i'm happy to meet with him right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done tt this week. and i would say to the gentleman the reason why, perhaps we spend so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many millions of americans. it's their health care. it's their families' health care. and at the end of the day this election season will underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and participating in our democracy

cause the kind of health care that we will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the election. and the real question is, madam speaker, are we going to have washington-based health care or patient-based health care? that's what it comes down to. who is in the driver's seat? patient and their doctors or washington-based beaucrats deciding wt kind of coverage we can have. and we all know what's happened with that approach under obamacare. costs have gone up, employers will be getting a plan. people will not be able to have the health care they have. that's why we spent the time we have on this bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman knows full well i think you have wasted a lot of time on this house floor. wasted a lot of effort on this house floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage you were simply appealing to the base you are just appealing to. this the gentleman believes what you would do if your bills passed you would take ay

benefits from millions and millions and millions of people. i think that's incontestable. it's incontestable that seniors who are now getting more hel with the doughnut hole for the prescription drugs which enhance their quali and length of life would lose it if we repealed the affordable care act. it is incontrovertible, i will tell my friend, that millions of young people who can't find a job, unfortunately in this economy, we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the president on this floor to even consider, pass or fail. millions of young people would lose their insurance. millions of children who have a prexisting condition who now under the affordable care act cannot be precluded by the insurance companies was really who you want -- not you personally, but who the defeat of the affordable care act would put insurance companies back in

charge. not government bureaucrats but insurance companies. so many of your republican governors don't want to set up the exchanges. all the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can make a judgment do they like policy a, b, or c. it's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they are getting a good bargain for the price they are paying for their health insurance which is very expensive. i will tell the gentleman that the affordable care act will also create, c.b.o. says, economists say, millions of jobs in the health care area. so contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people to access to affordable quality health care. as mr. romney said, we require responsibilities so everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that if they can they

want to insure themselves, so what? so the rest of us don't have to pay when they get sick. if they need help, as mr. romney said in massachusetts when romney care was adopted, a model just like we have adopted for the nation, it's important to make se that they get some help. that's what that bill does. in addition to that, we have made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies, not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies say, you're too sick. we are not going to cover you anymore. i will tell my friend, he and i have a radically different view on what the consequences of the -- this 31 votes that we have had, that the gentleman knew were not going to pass the senate, knew the president wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. you are making a political point. i understand that. there are people who disagree with the affordable care act. i understand that as well. i frankly think had we dealt

with jobs legislation during that 0 hours and considered the president's jobs bill, we would have millions of people employed today in america right now. now, let me just -- so there is no misunderstanding so i don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion. he's right. he and i agree. we need to cut government red tape. we need to speed approvals. we need to make sure that we do not impede by regulation the growth of our economy and the growth of jobs. i couldn't agree with him more. and i think we ought to deal with that in a bipartisan basis and pefully we will continue or perhaps start to do that, i might say, or continue to do that in some instances. thgentleman is correct. let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, you also mentioned bringing taxes down. let me ask you something. do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the august break? i yield to my friend.

mr. cantor: i'd say to -- madam speaker, to the gentleman, can he repeat the question? mr. hoyer: yes, do you expect the vote on taxes which you have referred to to occur the last week on which i believe is the 29th of july, the week of 29 july, to be on that week? mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman, madam speaker, yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on a bill to extend the existing rates and we'll also be bringing up a bill. that extension will be for a year. we'll also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles for tax reform that i know the gentleman also has said we need to reform our tax code so that we can help make it fairer, more simp, and so we can e the economy grow again. those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: i look forward to seeing the latter bill because

the gentleman's correct. i think we do need to reform our tax system. we need make it simpler. would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down as the bowles-simpson, gang of six, whoever you want to refer to as suggested. that's moving in the proper direction. i also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring down the deficit and debt confronting this nation. i thi as bowles-simpson pointed out, you got to do that in aalanced way. let me ask you something on the packages that you said are coming that last week. there have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either of those bills, as i understand, the ways and means committee. does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? and does the gentleman expec there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the ways and means committee? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i say to the gentleman, i think -- i

disagree with the gentleman's hearings. i think the last year and a half chairman camp and his committee have been about looking at the tax code, talking about tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased tax environment for this economy. we have been all about the economy and growth. i say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs bills, we have been doing jobs bills. he complains about the 30-some bills we have beenoing relating to obamacare. i would say we have done even more than that relating to jobs. i would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit right now. they are on the doorstep of the senate and the leader over there refuses to bring them up. and so again i say to the gentleman we stand ready to work together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us here. and that is the purpose of

bringing forward the bills that have been talked about, have been dissected in terms of existing tax rates, where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy. th's what we are doing. we have had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. if you want to stop the tax hike for all americans at all income levels, you'll vote for the bill. if you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the tax code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, loopholes closed, you'llote for the bill. it's that simple. i yield back. mr. hoyer: when you say -- i prume as the gentleman said we are talking about two different bills, are we not? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, that is correct. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that clarification. let me say to the gentleman when

the gentleman says there have been hearings on tax reform, i think that's probably accurate. what there has not been in my view and in mr. levin, who is the ranking member of the committee's view, there's been no hearing on the ramifications of the bill which apparently is going to be brought to the floor which simply extends all the bush era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt, and indeed ramifications to the economy. i would say with all due respect my friend the majority leader, i don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. there have been issues should we reform the tax code. the gentleman, i agree, we should simplify, we should reform the tax bill. we should make it more compatible with economic growth and very frankly for average individual americans to -- who want to pay their taxes like to pay as little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well.