ecurity which begs the question about them directing what the private sector should do. i want to go back to a 2010 report in which they reported the private sector expectations are not being that for the government. only 27% of private sectors survey responded and met the expectations to a great or moderate stand. of those receiving information, there was concern that it was not tailored to each sector's needs. i guess my question, i would direct this to you first. i would direct this first to you. in what areas has the government made progress in sharing information with the private sector? and do you have further recommendations? >> that is a good question. we have followed up on our information made out of that report. we have found that dhs has started to implement a couple

of them, that it remains a challenge area. dhs has taken a number of steps. the secretary earlier mentioned about the nkeg. that is an area in which it has started improve the sharing of information, through that mechanism. i also heard where dhs has issued a relatively large number of security clearances, which can help facilitate some of the sharing of information. but challenges still remain. we still find that, for example, it has not yet developed a predictive analysis capability, which would help lead to providing threat information, alert information, to private industry. as mr. kepler indicated in his prior remarks, it seems like that is still an area of improvement that can be made on the part of dhs and other

federal partners. >> mr. kepler, do you feel you have timely and relevant information from the government? >> we do not get specific information. when we get to the point that we can mitigate something, to get back to who it was and where it was, and how we can address it in the future, that is rarely, if ever, given or known. we talked about industrial espionage. there is clearly, from the government's viewpoint, nation-sponsored espionage going on. i need the help of the government to address that. that type of information, and how to deal with that collaboratively, we do not get. >> let me add an element to a comment that is probably missing, aching sure that dhs and federal partners have a feedback mechanism or loop where they can solicit and

receive feedback from private sector partners on how well they are doing and providing cyber information. >> how important is information sharing appear among others in the industry? how is that working today? what is needed to improve it? >> most of the industries in critical infrastructure -- the challenge is to start to work across industries. obviously, you look at cascading issues with power, with i.d., to be able to share information. to bridge those stovepipes needs to be improved. >> what is your biggest concern about the executive order implementation process? >> one concern is, to my point a minute ago, this is cascading. when you think about a significant failure, which is

part of the risk the executive order is supposed to address -- to me, the thing we have to rely on is the ip suppliers and government, to make sure the communications networks work. that means we are focusing more downstream than upstream on what the fundamental issue is. most of the area needs to be around cyber, the infrastructure we are building around the internet, and how that is being managed. we all rely on that, including the government, to work. the standards have been talked about a lot. transparency and how we are going to do risk assessment -- or is the gross risk of what could happen, but understanding what has been mitigated.

i am concerned about how you develop a list of high-priority risk, to identify and start to apply the resources you are going to apply. you can create an environment where you create a list of generic issues, and risk things. we do not know how to get off that risk list. we have been under the physical side, and we have yet to get sites authorized, in terms of getting assessment against their authority. you add cyber into that. i think in the next half a year to a year, to try to get all that risk assessment done -- that is an area that can have unintended consequences, unless we think through that clearly. >> let me follow up on that. as far as i am concerned, so far, it has been a failure. we have spent billions of dollars. we have very limited accomplishments there. it is not because we do not intend to. cyber is five or six times more complex than that. if dhs cannot implement, and there has not been the same type of cooperative work in

terms of standards -- in other words, one of the great things about the executive order is, the president did have the staff say, bring industry and tell us what to do. there was upward communication. that was somewhat lacking, in terms of the cetap, and is still lacking, in my opinion. what is your confidence level on dhs on cyber? >> i guess that is my point. if you look at the way it is laid out and put together, i think it is a sound thought process. we support the concept of cetap. do you have the personnel to work on that? as it relates to realities out there in cyber, we have process

control systems, technology, report cards. the issue is, do we have a confident structure to evaluate those risks, and then do the assessment and government to collaborate with it? that is where we need to improve. my impression is, it is more an oversight issue than a legislation issue. >> mr. wilson, i made, in my opening statement, a comment that we have not seen a report on fisma, or whatever you want to call it. you all found that only eight of 22 agencies are in compliance with that. that is a decline from 13 agencies in 2010. what is the problem? >> we are also looking forward

to receiving omb's fisma report. it usually provides a lot of information, especially where the ig's conduct overviews. that is one of the issues where, we have found, over the years -- and why we have been designating federal information security as a high risk area since 1997, because of agencies' -- i won't say inability, but lack of success in meeting the requirements for securing their systems. >> let me explain what that means, so everybody understands. only eight federal agents, at this time, out of 22, meet the guidelines for securing their network. >> one of the statistics for assessing the risk, which kind of gets to mr. kepler's point. agencies -- that is one of the

challenge areas. it is not an easy job, in terms of implementing security over time. the environment is constantly changing. new technologies are being implemented into the computing environment. the threats are becoming more sophisticated. and business practices are changing. at the same time, it is important that the processes that agencies implement -- the appropriate processes. based on that risk, cost effectively reduce those risks to an acceptable level. make sure they are tested and remain appropriate. if we do not assess the risk appropriately for the very beginning, has a cascading effect, in terms of other controls. >> plus, it wastes a ton of money. in the federal government, we spent $64 billion a year on i.t., and essentially 60% is wasted, because we do not contract appropriately. president bush issued hps-d7 pertaining to critical

information and cybersecurity, including information sharing with the cyber sector. this was 2003, 10 years ago. it assigns dhs similar tasks to those the agency was given in 2003. what is different? >> a couple of differences is that hspd7 primarily focused on counterterrorism, whereas this particular executive order is looking at a more broad-based threat vector, if you will, including resiliency, and the like. the other difference is that niv has responsibility for creating the cybersecurity framework.

>> actually, they are responsible for creating voluntary standards that are going to be maybe not so voluntary after they are created. >> that are labeled voluntary for a cybersecurity framework. i believe it is up to dhs and sector-specific agencies to develop a program to help encourage adoption of that framework. >> i am over my time, mr. chairman. i would like for you to make a recommendation to senator carper and i on what you would see as the best oversight function we could have, in looking how the presidential

executive and the executive order is carried out. this is a complex area. none of us are computer engineers or electrical engineers. and having that guidance from you would be very helpful for this committee. >> i would be happy to talk to your staff to do that. >> thank you. >> we share that information as well with senator rockefeller. next in order -- senator cowan is next in order, followed by the senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte. >> thank you for your appearance and testimony today. my first couple of questions are to you, mr. kepler. thank you for coming in. i hope you did not mind me referring to you having a platinum system in place. a couple of things. i wonder if you would tell me if you agree. it has been said that 85% of our critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector. if that is the case, would you agree that if the owners of that critical infrastructure fail to harden their systems, and we are subject to a cyber attack, that disruption or destruction of those systems could carry catastrophic

consequence not just to private industry, but to governmental sectors? do you agree with that? >> yes. >> there has been a lot of talk, and i think a lot of agreement, that there is a need for more and better information sharing, and issues surrounding that. do you think -- are you satisfied, from your perspective -- you look at these issues not just for dow, but for private industry as a whole. you think if we have better information sharing, and some of those protections, we will have done enough to ensure that, at least at a minimum level, we are doing enough in the government and private sector to thwart cyber threats? >> i think the information sharing is the one that lacks the most.

the reality is, if you think about how you mitigate risk in general, it is around applying technology, creating disciplines with standards and management systems, and having information sharing about what is going on externally. over the last 10 years, we have built up capability, and the standards have evolved and not. the industry developing operating discipline around this is healthy. what is missing is a willingness to share technical information. we are getting attacked. we do not know who will. the threat has changed in the last five years. there are resources that need to be addressed. i think information sharing is a key area. i think the management system around this -- we have a lot of rules. i think the management system -- i think government has to help step up and address. >> in my prior job in state

government, one of the things i had to do was to oversee the regulatory process. it used to tell the team that the agency has two, before you regulate, hesitate. think about the cost and the impact on businesses and others. when you think about overly prescriptive, what most concerns you that legislation might do? >> when you talk to companies like ours, big companies, you go to some of these sectors, and there are more than 50,000 companies you have to deal with. muni structures, if you are in water. one size does not fit all. you have to be able to assess the risk. the infrastructure is not all winked. you have to prioritize this. for me, that is the key area you have to work with the sectors on. what enemy are we trying to fight? what problem are we trying to

solve? what are the highest risks to work on? that is the key area that needs to be addressed, or we will be applying standards to areas with low priority risk in that approach. >> do you have a viewpoint of whether if we had a floor, a baseline that everyone could look to or try to adhere to, that might better aid us to address the concerns? >> that is my point. you have to have some commitment, some base floor, on the product to provide people, and how they get configured, and a responsibility and operating base on how you work on it. dow can bring these technologies in. but a small business that may be linked into a supply chain of critical infrastructure cannot do that. i think that is where some of

the industries who supply those products have to be involved, because they are smaller businesses with the same technologies that consumers use. >> a question to you in the first instance, and maybe you can answer as well. ticking up off the executive order the president issued last month, you spoke about the collaborative effort between industry and government to come together and work together on some issues. i wonder if either of you have an opinion about how useful it might be to create a task force composed of government, cyber security experts, researchers, and tech vendors to contribute to a database of cyber threats that could be accessed by industries in real time, or issue alerts? and you talk about information sharing, is that something you are thinking of conceptually? >> conceptually, we have us cert. we have nyack. we have the standard committees to work through. i think there is a cultural issue on information sharing.

government does not want to share it. and business is reluctant to share it. i think the legislation passed to go with the cultural aspect, and deal with the issues that have been excuses and on our side. and the ip protection, and those things. government, from an enforcement point of view, you are nervous about giving up your percent of the criminal. government is nervous about trying to manage secrets. we have to create an environment where we can share key information on these threats. that is the critical issue. >> i would say there is precedence, to some extent, in that there is a database called the national vulnerability database. it is not a database of threats, but it is a database of vulnerabilities that include, for example, software defects, defective software, and mis-configurations.

many tools are used to scan devices. draw from that database to look for configurations and systems. >> thank you. forgive my indulgence for going over my time. >> thank you for coming early and staying late. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today on such an important issue. i wanted to ask -- i have served on the armed services committee as well. bae systems are one company and our state, and they have invested over $100 million in their cyber defenses, which compared to dow is probably small.

one thing they brought to my attention is that they believed that the interaction they had in the pentagon, with the pentagon, that they believed they had a world-class ability to share information. they are a defense contractor, so that is a natural partnership, that there was a good collaborative model. one of the worries i have had, in thinking about this -- i am new to this committee, and learning. i know there has been a lot of work done by others, and i certainly want to understand that work. as i look at the gao report that was issued, i appreciate the work you did on that. you talk about information sharing difficulties in dhs. we have been talking about some of the concerns we have about dhs's capabilities. are we trying to use any models from the pentagon? also, it worries me that we are going to have to replicate

something that apparently, in the pentagon, we are doing fairly effectively. how do we take those lessons? can dhs get to a point where it is, frankly, as effective as some of the work being done at the pentagon? >> that is an excellent question. indeed, the pilot programs you are referring to, called the dib pilot program, meaning the defense industrial base, we issued a report over that program. as it happens, we have also made a recommendation in a report that will be coming out soon, so i cannot really talk about it yet -- the executive order has a line in it, i think under the information sharing section, to look at that program, the defense program

and expand it to the other sector, or the other critical infrastructure sectors. that is one of the activities that is planned. >> do you think that dhs will have the current capability to do that? the pentagon is obviously in a situation where they are dealing with a national security threat, but industries like dow art dealing with international security threats. what is your assessment on dhs's ability? i understand there is a command to do that in the executive order, but how can we help them do that? what is your opinion on what the difficulties will be with that? i do not think any of us want to invest in replicating things that already exist in the government, given the physical constraints we find ourselves in. >> it is good practice to learn from the efforts of others.

what did not work, as well as what did work, and apply those lessons as you perform your own. certainly, there is a lot of in a fit to doing this, including for that particular pilot program from dod. in terms of dhs's capability to do that, i guess we will actually find out. i must say that i can't really give you a clear answer on that, as we have not examined that particular issue. their success in other programs previously has been, they have made some progress in several areas. as gao often reports, more needs to be done. >> that worries me. i hope that is something we talk about more in this committee. this is such an important threat to our country. it cannot just be, we are not sure. we obviously need to work together to make sure we can prevent the threats facing the country, and also our businesses, our economic growth.

and i would say, mr. kepler, one thing that i certainly, in reviewing the executive order, want to understand -- my prior life, i was an attorney general. thinking about liability protection for the private sector, how does any executive order fully get at the type of liability protection that the private sector needs, in light of the fact that, presumably, it is not just liability protection between the government and the industry that is being regulated, but also the liability protection of third parties? >> i think that is the challenge. in my comments, i said that is an area where legislation may be needed to address that. if you think about major things like terrorism, i think there are vehicles you can use. i think there are a lot of issues around intellectual property and legal things that are not really defined, and you start looking at issues around espionage and nationstate sponsored commercial

espionage. i think that is something you have to think through from a legislative point of view, not an executive order.

i look forward to following up with you and learning more about how we can accomplish that. >> i thought those were good questions. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> we are going to have another round if it is okay with you. >> you have not finished. >> i would like to maybe do another round. it will take 15 minutes. does that work okay? >> sure. no problem. >> good. >> how about another two rounds? >> whatever you need. i will start over. one of the things i like to do at the end of the hearing is sometimes to ask what you have learned. just be thinking about what are your takeaways from this. the other thing i would ask to you share with us is what

should be our takeaways and when i speak to a group sometimes, i like to tell them what i will tell them. you tell them. then i tell them what i told them. you had a chance to do at least part of that. i will ask you before you leave to kind of sum up at the end which will be the key take waist. for me one of the key takeaways, i think it was friend i think he said like when cyber security strategy is good business strategy they will know we have really gotten somewhere. and there has been a lot of back and forth on information sharing, and senator, she was attorney general for her state. i asked some of our staff why why don't we do a better job of information sharing from the government side to the private sector? if you are the fbi, you are trying to bust a drug ring, you know, you may let a deal go

down. if that happened just an efficient to move up the food chain and go after the bigger catches. i don't know if that is what is going on here or not, but one of the messages for me, one of the take awaist is information has to be a two-way street. i tage that away. i take that away. on the terms of dhs, i have been hosting a series of classified briefings we where we have dhs, the fbi, national security agency coming in. we have been impressed by the approved capabilities of dhs. this is not the grandfather's role. this is not where they were ten year ago. they have gotten some good people and enhanced their capabilities. i like to say the road to improvement is under construction. obviously, they have more to do. everything i know i can do better. certainly, that is true for them. all right. with that having been said, what did you all learn? secondly, what are some good

takeaways that you would have to be reinforced with? >> well, i will follow the last point. it is daunting. i appreciate the work they are doing. i do agree the organization has improved over the years, and stuff. one of the challenges i would say is we do keep changing the rules a little bit on the number of commissions and structures and groups and things and so i am looking at stabilization of that and really doing a little bit more oversight on the process and learning from it. i think the things i learned i think we came in feeling that the executive order was in the right spirit of what we were trying to do. we certainly like the concept of the information sharing. we are big on standards to begin with. we have been there and it is good see how the senate here is

looking at embracing that and the executive order has embraced that. i think they really listened well to the organization, so i think the spirit rough how we want to get there is there. if you ask me what the two talkaways i would like you to leave with i think, the risk management to me and how we define that is more important than the standards. i think the standard momentum there is so we can put a stamp on it. i believe it is used effectively in government and industry, so the real issue is, are we really targeting what problem we want to solve? i think that is really putting the definition around risk management if you will. how do we solve the problems? who is the real threat? really make sure we have foreign policy around that. >> thanks. >> where we, i would say one of the takeways would be just to continue providing the oversight and follow luge. one of the challenges in the past with standards, not standards but the tragedy and

the different aspects of this is seeing it all the way through, and making sure that there is follow up, that there is feedback loops in terms of the agencies making sure what they are doing is the right thing to do, and that, that we from, you know from this particular committee is provide the oversight that it has in the past. certainly in our role is to continue to help agencies in terms of their evaluating their progress and make recommendations, with appropriate. >> yeah, one last question if i night. i might. what's the most common cyber attack that your company faces and how that threat could best be alleviated? >> yeah. if you look at the higher risk. so these numbers sound bizarre. when you look at the things that used to be a big deal like

viruses. there is still hundreds of thousands of those. we can protect those pretty well. i think, a we are challenged with the most is the threats from highly resourced organizations today, that that are targeted and persistent with us, and with the concern because throws developed, that they end up going down and get learned and might break down into less sophisticated hands and stuff to work through. so i think the fact that we have large organizations and by not by my reading, those are some countries, and organized criminal organizations that is a big problem. and it is something that the government needs to kind of step in and help business and actually the country work on. >> i.p. theft in the. >> yeah. i think i.p. in general, company to company, it is the framework of government today manages that. it is this issue now of international and, i think

country-supported i.p. theft in doing that as well as, you know basically just general intelligence gathering into companies that had never really happened to the extent we are seeing it now. >> thank you all very much. appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you bet. >> one last question if i could for mr. kappler. whatwhatwhat is the ceo's name? >> andrew. >> very impressive. i spoke to us. he may hold a leadership position. >> yes, he does. >> do you know what that is? >> what the position is? >> i think he is chairing it now. i i the is as well. we appreciate very much and need the continued input from the business roundtable. we kell come the input from the chamber of commerce and other business groups as well. we are mindful of the contribution of the business

roundtable. i would ask you to pass along our thanks to your ceo. we would like to hear more of that going forward. this has ban good hearing. we have been here to the bitter end, it has been good. it has not been birth at all. it has been sweet. this is a hard issue. my staff heard me say this before. this is not an shall easy issue for me to get my head around. i almost reached a point where it was dangerous. after this hearing today, i knew it was dangerous. i hope it was helpful. this is a shared responsibility here. it can be on the legislative side. it can't just be key stakeholders including the business community. it is all of us together. because we have a shared responsibility and if we do this right we'll help our country hold on. our colleagues, senator rockefeller, we want to do this right.

you are helping certainly helped. many thanks to you. i understand that the hearing record is going to be open for another 14 years. no, not really. another 14 days. we are on a short time frame here. 14 days for any additional questions or statements from our colleagues, if you get anything, respond promptly. we would be most grateful. anything else for the record? >> no, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. >> tomorrow on washington journal, some of the latest political news in washington includingment obama's attempts to reach out to congressional republicans and senator rand paul's recent filibuster. we'll talk to peter cook of bloomberg tv and rachel of politico. we talk about states that have the highest and the lowest tax rates and how they impact household spending. the simpson center on the announcement last week that the

u.s. will provide financial and food aid to the syrian opposition. plus your e-mails phone calls and tweets. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and right after washington jurn until on newsmakers michigan congressman sandra levin. he will look at tax reform choices facing congress and the future of social security. senator levin is the ranking member on the house ways and means committee. he is interviewed by steven sloan of poe lit towco and the national journal. wash newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> one of the things that an early american wife was taught to do, she supported her husband's career usually through entertaining. dolley was both socially adapt and politically savvy, so she could structure her entertainments in such a way that she could lobby for her husband under the guise of

entertaining. she also thought it was very important to create a setting in the white house almost like a stage for the performance of her husband and the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> first lady dolley madison. we'll follow her journal from a widow into the women that history remembers. the wife of the fourth u.s. president, james madison. we'll include your phone call facebook comments and tweets on dolley madison monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3 and c-span radio and c-span. org. tonights the annual gridiron dinner. the gridiron club is a 65-member group of washington, d.c. journalist. president obama is scheduled to attend the dinner and make remarks. cameras are not allowed but our c-span crew will capture the sights and sounds of people arriving at the dinner within the next hour. last wednesday, kentucky senator rand paul dime the

senate floor to filibuster the nomination of john bren noon be the director. he questioned attorney general eric holder's testimony on drone strike and later joined by other senators during the 13-hour filibuster. here is a half hour portion of it now. >> the issues we are discussing today are profound important for the american people for ther reasons that senator paul has identified. the americans have every reason to bean concerned. any kind ofe decision are made by government that impairs one of the fundamental god-given, protected rights that americans have. any time the government wants to intrude upon life or liberty or propertyty it must do so in a way that comports with time-honored centuries-old understandings of due process. the rule of law, in other word,ct must operate in order to god protect the god-given interest to make sure they are not arbitrary deprived of any citizen.ere a we with talking wheel the

sanctity of human life. whe when the interest at stake is not just liberty or property but life itself, we have to protect it. we have to take steps to protect that. and so i think it is important that we carefully scrutinize and evaluate any government program that has the potential to deprive any american citizen of his or her life without due process of law. so i was concerned, as were you, senator paul, recently when the obama administrationas leaked what was characterized as a department of justice white paper. outlining the circumstances outlining the legal criteria that this administration wouldn use in deciding when and whether and under what circumstances to snuff out human life. the the human life of an american

citizen, no less, using a drone. m now the memorandum started out with certain somewhat predictable or familiarepts concepts.rted the memorandum started out byning explaining an imminent standard. explaining that certainly couldpe not happen absent and imminent threat to american national security. an imminent threat to american life, for example.hi when we think of immense. we think okf something that iswe t emergent. we think of an emergency. something going on at the moment, which -- unlessin interrupted presents some kind of aange dangerous threat. h significantly; however, this is d not how the department of justice white paper actually red, although it used the word imminence. it defined imminence as something far different than we normally think of. language certainly in any legal or constitutional analytical

context. so if -- if i could read from that memorandum senator paul, i would point out that this condition of imminence is described as follows. it says, "the condition that an operational leader an operational leader of --f a group presenting a threat to the united states the condition that an operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states does not require the united states to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." now senator paul, wouldn't it be your understanding that if something is imminent, that it would need to be something occurring immediately? mr. paul: well, yeah, and i think there's really no question about using lethal force against an imminent attack.

and i think that's why we need to make the question that we're asking the president very clearnd the question is if planes are attacking the world trade center, we do believe in an imminent response. we do believe in an imminent defense for that. the problem is that if we're talkingbout noncombatants w might someday be involved, if they aren america i seeo reason why they shouldn't be arrested. mr. lee: and so if we're dealing with something that is imminent, we are talking about something that's about to occur it's urgent and that typically is the standard. any time gernment officials in other contexts, law enforcement for example sometimes regrettably and tragically law enforcement officers have to make a spur of the moment judgment call in order to protect human life. sometimes in doing that, they have to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do. this always turns on some kind

of an imminent standard. it always turns on some kind of an emergent threat, something that is about to occur that is occurring at the moment. and y we're told in black and white right here in this white paper that this condition that of imminence does not require the united states to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. that begs the question, what then is the standard? who then makes this determination? presumably it's the president of the united states. perhaps it's others. reporting up in the chain of command to the president of the united states. but if actual imminence isn't required as part of this ostensibly imminent standard, what then is the standard? is there any at all? and if there is a standard, why is it so why isld it so broad you could drive a 747 through. you if that's the case. t how that is come partible with

time-honored notions of due process. those notions deeply embedded in the founding documents.e they come from good and cannot r be revoked boy any government. i wish i could say that the imminence standard problem in the department of justice is the only problem it is not. we look the very next page thee, page dealing with feasibilityo b of capture the united states has to be continuing to monitor whether capture becomes feasible at some point.o to this standard on page 8 of the department of justice white paper that says add to the o

feasibility of capture. capture would not be feasible if it could not be physically during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to concept to a capture operation. in other words, they are saying that it has to be with, it has som to be something that could notph in physically during the relevant window.dow? what the relevant window? it makes no effort, whatsoever to define what the relevantindo window is who then makes this determination and according too w what factors is that determination made. here yet again, we have a standardless tan tarred. we have an dard that is so mal broad, that is so easily

subject and so many varying interpretation. no one can look into this and decide who the government may quill the dren and who the the government not kill with a zone w that is a problem. p that it seems to me senator paul is funnelmentally incompatible with time-honored notions of due process. would you not agree with that?me >> i think that is where thek t crux comes down to this. talking about having an imminent standard.ates it is a dramatic change we we have a full airing of debate o over this. >> well, the senator fromor kentucky yield for a question? >> yeah, i will yield the floor. i will allow to you make comments.

>> if you yield for t a question i will ask whether you are aware of the exchange that somehe members of the committee had with the attorney general this morning on this subject.or >> yes. >> and were you aware of the fact that some of us asked attorney general holder for the more robust analysis that provided in the series ofa memoranda authored by the office of legal council, the u.s. department of justice's chief advisory body and the t fact that so far the department of justice has declined to make those available to members of the committee. >> yes.es i am aware of that. in fact, i think we have the transcript of some of the conversation from this morning. eye can supplement thatuppl question by describing what i encountered in connection with that. i expressed frustration to the attorney general over the fact that members of the committeensib have oversight responsibility

with regard to the operation of the u.s. department of justicee have not had access to that memorandum and that this is part of our responsibilities. this is something we ought toth be able to see so far not something we have been able to see i encourage the attorneyou general to make available to a members of the senate judiciaryry committee those very documents, which he claimed add some additional in sight and give us some additional analysis abovebe and beyond what this white paper is saying. so i thought that may be relevant to you and addressing my question.ti >> absolutely. >> at this point, do you want to talk? >> at this point if we have,-- mr. president, i will have comments entertained from senator cruz. question?ti >> would the senator from kentucky yield for a question?

>> any questions? >> don't yield the floor.ck i will ac among the question to the chair. >> thank you, senator. >> i would like to ask your row rea actions to the testimony that the attorney general eric holder gave this morning in the senate judiciary committee and i would like to describe that testimony for you and then ask your reaction to that testimony. and i will begin by saying that senator after senator on the ju dish arbury committee invoked your leadership on the issue ofdron drones and asked attorney general holder about the standards for drone strikes inne the he! the united states.eed indeed although, you did not serve on the ju dish arbury committee, it was as if you were serving because theor attorney general was forced ove over and over again to respond and i would note that you are standing here today like a modern mr. smith goes to washington must surely beel

making jimmy stewart smile, and. my only regret is that there are not 99 of your colleaguese here today standing with you in defense of the most fundamental principal in our decoration of independence and ouron constitution namely that each of us is en do youd with certain rights by our creator,ur and the first among them is life. the right toir life. the right not to have life arbitrarily extinguished by our government without due process of law. now hearing this morning, attorney general holder was asked about the letter he sentn you, in which you asked himhe whether the united states' government could use a drone dro strike to kill a u.s. citizen u on u.s. soil.itizen as you know attorney general holder responded in writing that he could imagine thewher circumstance where that would be permissible and the two examples he gave were number

one pearl harbor and the tragicwo attack on this country on september 11th, 2001. in the course of the hearing attorney general holder was asked for more pacifics onarti that in particular both of those were military strikes on our country with imminent and, a indeed, grievous loss of life, that flowed from it and few, if any, disagree that the united states' government may act swiftly to prevent aak military attack that would take immediate loss of life. q the question that attorney general holder was asked three different times was whether the united states' government could take a u.s. citizen who was suspected of being a terrorist, w on u.s. soil losh was not engaged in any imminent threat to life or bodily harm, who was who simply sitting at a cafe, couldte the united states' government use a drone strike to kill that u.s. citizen on u.s. soil?

three times when asked that direct question attorney general holder responded that in his judgment, that was not "appropriate." now the first question, and if i may, i would like to ask a a series of question.st the firstio question does it i surprise you that the attorney general would speak in vague in terms of appropriateness andecut prosectorial discretion rather than the bright lines of what the concitytution protects namely the right of every american to have our life protected by the constitution. >> mr. president, i am quite surprised although, i guess i should not be that we don't get direct response and it is a p direct question. it is a question i have been asking all morning. i am talking about situations where you have a noncombatant and someone not posing a threat

who they think may some day p pose a threat because that is what we are doing overseas. if that's the standard overseas. i am asking thatg is the standard here so it amazes me and part of the reason we are i here today. the senator for additional questions.imes declining to answer a direct question. a would killing a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil with a drone striken when that u.s. citizen did not present an imminent threat would that be constitution? after three times simply saying it would not be appropriate? finally the fourth time attorney general holderl responded to vigorous questioning in particular, the

course of the questioning, the point was made that attorney general holder is not an advice columnist givinged a vase onette ty get andess. appropriateness. the attorney generals the chief legal officer of the united states and i will note i observed it was astonishing that could not giveno a simplewo one-word one syllable,er a two-letter teen the question does the constitution allow theen federal government to kill with a drone strike a s. citizen on u.s. soil.s who is not posing an immediate threat. the t proper answer should be no.re

whether it would bewhet constitutional to do so the fourth time the attorney general asked that and so thett question that i wanted to ask is the reaction to thisnd exchange and in particular par when attorney general holder on the fourth time finally stated his opinion. i assume the opinion of the department of justice that it is unconstitutional for thefe federal government to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil that does not pose imminent threat. when he stated that, mywas response was this i wish he hadsaid said so in the letter to you to begin with. i wish john brennan in his questioning that you provided had said so to begin with, and indeed i then said that the senator from kentucky and i are intending to introduce legislation in this body to make clear that the united states

government may not kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. and i observed that if the torney general's view was that it was unconstitutional for the u.s. government to do so, that i assumed he would be suprting that legislation. i welcome the reaction to that exchange. mr. paul: well, mr. president the -- the response is a little bit troubling that it took so much work and so much effort of cross-examination to finally get an answer. i will note that in his final answ i in the final answer, i don't see the words constitutional ores unconstitutional. he is responding to senator cruz's words of constitutional. he said let me be clear t translate the appropriate toi no. i thought i was saying no all right no. words do make a difference. i would feel comfortable if we would get in writing a letter that says

doesn't believe killing people, not actively engaged in combat with drones in america on american soil is constitutional. it sure would have short circuited and saved quite a bit of time. i will say though, that i will believe a little more of the sincerity of the president and of the attorney general if we were to get a public endorsement of the bill that says drones can't be used except for under imminent threat, and define that as a -- an imminent threat where you actually have a lethal attack under way. and if we could get to that, i think this is something that really both parties ought to be united by. it's such a basic principle that i coun't imagine we couldn't unite by this. i think you have done a long way to trying to get these answers. but i think what still disappoints me about the whole thing is that it takes so much work to get people to say they're going to obey the law.

it takes so much work to get the administration to admit that they will adhere to the constitution. it should be a much simpler process, but i commend the senator from texas for not letting go and for trying to get this information. i would welcome any more comments that he has. mr. cruz: if the senator would yield for one final question? is the senator from kentucky aware of any precedent any supreme court case, any lower courtase the decision of any president of the united states beginning with george washington up to the present the stated views of any member of this united states senate beginning with the very first congress up to the senate, up to the present. is the senator from kentucky aware of any precedent whatsoever for the proposition that this administration seems unwilling to embrace or at least

embrace explicitly and emphatically? namely that the constitution somehow permits or at least does not foreclose the united states government killing a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who is not flying a plane into a building who is not robbing a bank, who is not pointing a bazooka at the pentagon but who is simply sitting quietly at a cafe, peaceably enjoying breakfast is the senator from kentucky aware of any precedent whatsoever for what i consider to be the really remarkable proposition that the united states government without indicting him without bringing him before a jury, without any due process whatsoever can simply send a send a drone to kill that united stateson citizen on u.s. soil. >> mr. president, i am aware of

no legal precedent for taking the life of an american with the fifth amendment or due process. what is troubling though attorney general e eric holder is on record as actually arguing that the fifth amendment rightri to due process is to be determined and is to be applicable when determined by the executive branch. i would appreciate the comments and opinion of i may continue my questioning and give my views on that question and ask your response to my views on whether the executive maywn determine its own limitations.at i would sug guess the genesisti of our constitution is found in

the notion at the president is not a king that we are not ruled by a monarchy and that no man or woman is above the law. accordingly no man or woman may determine the the applickability of the law to himself or herself. not one but two revolutions the first revolution they won was bloody battle for our independence from king george. and a great many of them gave the ultimate sacrifice so we might enjoy the freedom that wenj do today. do but the far more important war m they won was the war of ideasn h where men and women had been told that rights come from fro

kings and queens and are given by grace to be taken away at the whim of a monarch. what our framers conclude instead almighty and sovereignty does not originate from the monarch or the president it originates from we, the people. and accordingly the constitution served, as thomas jefferson put it, as chains to bind the mischief of government. d i would suggest that any time power is arrogated in one place, in the executive that liberty is threatened. and that should be a view that receives support not justrom republans, not just from democrats or independents or libertarians, that should be a view that receis support from everybody that none of us should want to live in a country

where the president or the executive asserts the authority to take the life of a united states citizen on u.s. soil without due process of law and absent any imminent threat of harm. i would suggest the idea that we should simply trust the attorney generalrust the director of the c.i.a., trust the president to exercise an astonishing power to take of life of any u.s. citizen that trust in my judgment is fundamentally inconsistent with the bill of rights. and i would ask the senator from kentucky's reaction if you share my understanding that our rights are protected not at the whim or gracef the executive but they are protected by a constitution and ultimately they are rights that each us was given by our creator and we are obliged to protect the natural rights to

life, liberty and property that every man and woman in america enjoys. mr. paul: well, mr. president this is what makes it this debate so important. this debate is about fundamental rights that we -- that most of us or many of us believe that we derive from our creator and it's important we not give up on these, that we not allow a majority vote or one branch of the government to say we've now decided you don't get all of these rights anymore. our founders really wanted to make it difficult to change things, to take ay our rights. and so this is an important battle and one in which i think we should enge because the president needs to be more forthcoming. the president needs to let us know what his plans are. if he's going to overrule the fifth amendment and if the attorney general's going to decide when the fifth amendment applies, that's a pretty important distinction and change from the history of our country. mr. president, at this time, i'd like to ask for any comments, without yielding the floor but

ask for any comments or questions from the senator from utah. mr. lee: in response to your -- your question i -- i would like to add to your remarks and those of the junior from texas the fact that in the concluding paragraph of the department of justice white paper on this issue the department concludes as follows. "in sum an operation in the circumstances and under the constraints described above would not result in a violation of any due process rights." it's a rather interesting colusion in light of the fact that two out of the three analytical points outlined above in the memorandum in the white paper are themselves so broad as to be arguably meaningless or, at a minimum capable of being

interpreted in such a way as to subject american citizens to the arbitrary deprivation of their own right to live. first, as i mentioned earlier by proposing an imminence standard that leaves out anything imminent -- in other words, it's not just peanut butter without the jelly; it's peanut butter without the peanut butter -- there is no "there" there. they define out of existence the very imminence standard that they purport to create and follow. that is not due process. it's the opposite of due process process. secondly they outline a set of circumstances in which this attack may occur where capture is infeasible and then they define an understding of feasibility that is so broad as to render it virtually meaningless. so at the conclusion of the memo when the memo says, "in

sum, an operation of the circumstances and under the constraints described above would not result in a violation of any due pross rights," it's describing constraints that are not really constraints. and that is a pblem. that amounts to a deprivation of due process. in light of these circumstances i think it really is imperative that the american people and at a minimum those who serve in this body, or, at a minimum those who serve on the senate judiciary committee that -- that we be given an opportunity to review the wholesale legal analysis identified by the attorney general today that have been prepared by the department of justice's office of legal counsel. this is the chief advisory body within the u.s. department of justice. it is the job of the fine lawyers in the office of legal counsel to render this advice and we ought to have the benefit of that.

at a minimum we ought to have the benefit of that within the senateudiciary committee. so wn i asked the attorney general this morning whether he'd make those available, i was surprised and a little bit frustrated when he declined to offer them immediately. he said that he would check in withhose that he needed to consult with. i reminded him that he is, in fact the attorney general. he does in fact, supervise those who work in the department of justice. also work and a measure aimed at streamlining 35 job training and retraining programs. you can watch the house live on c-span. the senate returns on monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern with votes scheduled at 5:30 on two judicial nominations and during

the week the debate on the mash sure that founds the federal g. for the remaining six months of the current fiscal year. politicians, journalist and other members of the d.c. establishment will gath forespeeches and sat tire. tonight president obama is scheduled to attend and make remarks. cameras are not allowed inside of the dinner although the groups allowing one print journal toys report on the evening.

earlier this week, president obama signed the reauthorization of the violence against women act. the legislation aims to create and expand programs that support victims of sexual and domestic violence. this event is 35 minutes. ♪

please welcome diane. [cheering and applauding] >> good afternoon. i am known as diane. i am a citizen of the southern new indian tribe located in colorado. [cheering and applauding] when i was 26 years old i dated a non-indian, a white man, after six months we were married. my non-indian husband moved into my house on the reservation. to my shock just days after our marriage, he assaulted me. after more than 100 incident of being slapped, kicked punched and living in horrific terror i left for good. during that year of marriage i called the policeman ny times.

i called our southern tribal police department but the law prevented them from arresting and prosecuting my husband because he was non-indian. the county sheriff could not help me because i am a native woman and the beatings occurred on tribal reservation land. after one beating, my ex-husband called the tribal police and the sheriff's department himself just to show me that no one could stop him. all the time that is called the police and nothing was done only made my ex husband believe he was above the law and untouchable. my ex-husband told me you promised us until death do us part so death it shall be. here finally armed with a gun, i am alive today only because my coworker pushed me out of harm's way and took the bullet in the shoulder, for this crime he was finally arrested. but because he had never been arrested for any of the abuse

against me he was treated as first time fonder. the state prosecutor and him reached a plea agreement of aggravated driving under. the bill being signed today were in law when i was married, it would allowed my tribe to arrest and prosecutor my abuser. when this bill is signed shall the violence against women act will finally reach native american women like me. [cheering and applauding] we thank the president for all he has done for women

everywhere and we thank the vice president for his incredible leadership. he was the leader who wrote the original bill and was instrumental in this bill that strengthens this important law. it is now my honor to introduce vice president joe biden. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much diane. [applause] thank you. some of you in the audience who are survivors know how much courage it takes to do what diane did. [applause] every single time. [applause] some people who don't know will say she recounted what

happened, but every single time time, you stand and recount what happened. it brings it all back. it brings it all back like a very bad nightmare. but your speaking out diane, and so many survivors like you are literally saving the lives of so many other women who god willing will be able to avoid the abuse that you had to put up with. i want to thank all the advocates here today. i got a chance to meet in my office with some of you a little bit earlier, not only those on the stage who again had a chance to meet with but the many women out in the audience as he look out and see familiar face like pat and ellie and paule texas sullivan moore from my home state and so many others. you know those of you who are

have been around with me know that -- quote my father all the time who would literally say the greatest saw that in could be committed was the abuse of power. the ultimate abuse of power is for someone physically stronger and bigger to raise your hand and strike and beat someone else. in most cases, that continueds to be a man striking a woman. or a man or woman striking a child. that is the fundamental premise, and the over arching reason why john conniers and i and others start sod many years ago to draft the legislation called the violence against women act. it passed 19 years ago. that is why we shortly thereafter instituted a hotline where women indies stress could call for help. i remember john when we did that hot lynne and was like, well, you know, it will be useful but i am not too sure

how much it will be used. well, the truth of the matter is, it has been used alot and saved a lot of lives over 2 million women have had the courage the courage to try to get out of ear shot of their abuser, escape from the prison of their own home pick up that phone and call call to a line, that you had no idea on the other end was going to answer and to say i am in trouble. can you help me? can you help me? i love those men. i would say when we started this about why don't they just leave? well physical they had one-third of the courage that these women those two million women who had that picked up the fen and called not knowing what to exact would be a whole lot better nation. we build a network of shelters

that are immediately available to women in need because we found out that the vast majority of children or homeless on the street as nancy knows and other, were there because their mothers were abused. imagine fleeing for your life with only the clothes on your back and your child in your arms? the shelter was the only life line. it has worked. we also specialize law enforcement units with trained prosecutors, victim advocates, court personnel tounder stand the unique challenges of this the access because of all of you today, we have been able to train judges and train intake officers so when the frightened woman shows up at the family court and says to the intake officer, i want to till speak up, will you. well, then they turn around and walk away, because there is only a very brief window as all

of you know, a very brief window again, after a woman screws up the courage the courage to ask for help all of these links of the chain have made a difference in the lives of women. it is one woman one girl one person at a time. one case at a time. you providers know that better than anyone. there is still too many women in this country who live in fear of violence losh are still prisoners at their own home too many victims that we have to mourn. we knew from the outset in 1994 that there was much more we could have done at the beginning if we were able to get the votes. with of we did what was necessary and important but we knew more had to be done to reduce domestic violence

domestic violence homicides to provide new tools as was just spoken to to prevent and protect native american women to address the proplex ty and the violence among young women and so much more. but because of the people on this stage in this room every time we reauthorized the violence against women act, we improved it every single time. [applause] we did this again first we have given jurisdiction to travel courts over those who abuse women on reservations regardless. [applause] they can be trained as to how to collect evidence particularly in prosecutions for rape. we are going to increase the use of proven model to reduce

domestic violence homicide. we have all focused on the tragic gun violence that has been in the news lately. i want to point something out to you. from 2009 to 2012, 40% of the mass shootings in america other than the celebrated ones you have seen 40% whether it is four or more people have been shot, the target has ban former imminent partner, oar close family member so they go into the office just like that young man or woman who stood in front of you, when your husband came with a load pistol to shoot you. 40% are a consequence of domestic violence. they created a strong strong antiviolence program. campuses will have more tools to educate students about sexual violence. [applause] so when congress passes law, the president will sign today. they will renew sacred

commitment to protect our mothers, our daughters, our sisters. they strengthened that commitment. ii want to thank them. you hope i don't leave anyone out. starting off with my own buddy pat who chairs the committee. pat, thank you. [applause] mike, that would not have happened had you not stepped up. [applause] lisa is not here. but my friend, who i don't want to, i don't want to get her in trouble, i know she likes me because i like her a lot senator, you know surrously you know it was republicans coming and standing up and saying this has to be done. in the senate, so we owe you. we owe you big. [applause] and by the way, if you ever want to partner to get anything important done, call nancy

pelosi. call nancy pelosi. [applause] and steny hoyer and congressman moore and my old buddy -- i hope i am not leaving anybody out here but mow, you know my old buddy, john coniars. [applause] [cheering and applauding] i am sure i am leaving someone out for which i apologize. look, where we know we have a lot more to do. we'll continue to make progress. one of the reasons we will continue to make progress is we are going to ask for three more years, the president of the united states my friend barack obama. [cheering and applauding]

>> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. [cheering and applauding] thank you. please everybody have a seat. have a seat. i want to thank all of you for being here. i want to thank secretary salazar, my great friend for letting uses into the building. [applause] make sure everybody picks up their stray soda cans and stuff afterwards. i want to thank attorney general holder for joining us. [applause] you are doing a great job. you mow we usually host these bill signings over at the white house, but there were too many of you. you helped to make this happen. [applause]

and you all deserve to be a part of this moment, i want to thank everybody on this stage. joe just mentioned the extraordinary work that each and everone of these leaders, both advocates as well as legislatures. >> let's ask congressman. >> well, from there you go. [applause] >> well, there you go. [applause] but everybody on this stage works extraordinarily hard most of all, though, this is your day. this is the day of the advocate. the day of the survivors. this is your victory. i love you back. [cheering and applauding]

this is your victory. >> i love you! >> i love you back. and this victory shows that when the american people make their voices heard, washington listens. so i want to join joe in thanking all the members of congress from both parties who came together to push this bill across the finish line. a lot to say a special thanks to pat leahy and mike crapo. thank you, guys, for your leadership. [applause] and i want to give much love to gwen moore who worked so hard on this. and i also want to take a minute before i begin to thank the senators who just a few hours ago took another big step toward sensible gun safety reforms by advancing the federal gun trafficking bill. [applause] the senate judiciary committee

sent legislation to the senate floor that would crack down on folks who buy guns only to turn around and funnel them to dangerous criminals. it is a bill in honor of hidea pendleton, who was murdered in chicago earlier this year. she marched in the inauguration parade and a few weeks later was gunned down about a mile away from my house. i urge the senate to get that bill a vote. i urge the house to follow suit, and i urge congress to move on other areas that have support of the american people, because we need to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals, and hidea's and many other families really do deserve a vote. [applause] finally, i want to thank joe biden for being such an outstanding vice president. [applause] that is right, you can stand for joe. stand for joe. give it up for joe biden. [cheers and applause]

joe is a hard-working vice president. he said i do not want to just be sitting around. i said, i promise you, i will not let you just be sitting around. he has played a key role in forging the gun-safety reforms by working with survivors of gun violence and their families. he forged the violence against women act 20 years ago, never forgetting who it was about. so on behalf of all you here and all that you who have had a positive impact to the violence against women act, the survivors who are alive today because of this law, the women who are no longer hiding in fear because of this law, the girls who are growing up aware of their right to be free from abuse because of this law, on behalf of them and

all their families, i want to thank joe biden for making this one of the causes of his career. [applause] as joe said earlier, we have come a long way. back when joe wrote this law domestic abuse was too often seen as a private matter, best hidden behind closed doors. victims too often remained silent or felt they had to live in shame that somehow they had done something wrong. even when they went to the hospital or the police station too often they went back home without any real intervention or support. they felt trapped, isolated, and as a result, domestic violence too often ended in greater tragedy. one of the great legacies of

this law is that it did not just change the rules, it changed our culture, and helped people to start speaking out, it made it ok for us as a society to talk about domestic abuse and made it possible for us as a country to address the problem in a real and meaningful way. it made clear to victims that they were not alone, that they always had a place to go, and they always had people on their side. and today because of members of both parties worked together, we are able to renew that commitment. reauthorizing the violence against women act is something i called for in my state of the union address, and when i see how quick it got done, i am feeling -- [laughter] [applause]

it makes me feel optimistic. because of this bill, we will keep in place all the protections and services, and as we said, we will expand them to cover more women, because this is a country where everybody should be able to pursue their own measure of happiness and live their lives free from fear, no matter who you are, no matter who you love. that has got to be our priority. that is what it is about. [applause] today is about millions of women, the victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. they are out there right now looking for a lifeline, looking for support. because of this bill they will continue to have access to all the services that were first established 19 years ago, the national hotline, a network of shelters, protection orders that carried across state lines, and because of this bill, we are expanding housing assistance so no woman has to choose between a violent home and no home at all.

that is what today is all about. [applause] today is about all the law- enforcement officials like police chief jim johnson. [applause] they are the first to respond when a victim calls for help. because of this bill, we are continuing all the training and support that bridges the gaps in the actual enforcement of law so we can actually bring more offenders to justice. and we are giving our law- enforcement better tools to investigate cases of rape, which remained a consistently underreported crime in our country. helping police officers deliver on the most important part of their job, preventing harm and saving lives -- that is what today is all about. today is about women like diane.

i am so grateful that diane shared her story. tragically, it is a common story. i know we have tribal leaders here today, and i want to thank you all for fighting so hard on behalf of poor people to make this bill a reality. [applause] indian country has some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in america, and one of the reasons is when native american women are abused on tribal lands by an attacker who is non-native american, the attacker is immune from prosecution. as soon as i sign this bill, that ends. that ends. [cheers]

that ends. [applause] tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people, and all women deserve the right to live from fear, and that is what today is all about. today is about all the americans who face discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. [applause] i want to thank sharon who is here -- where did she go? the work she is doing, great work she is doing with the anti- violence project, but sharon and all the other advocates who are focused on this community, they cannot do it alone, and now they do not have to.

that is what today is all about. that is what today is all about. today is about women who come to rosie hidalgo for support, immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. imagine that for so many, if your immigration status is tied to a husband who beats you or abuses you, if you are an undocumented immigrant, you may feel there's too much to lose by coming forward. the violence against women act already had protections for the victims to call police without fear of deportations, and those protections saved lives, and because we fought hard to keep them in place, they remain a lifeline for some many women. that is part of what today is all about.

[applause] today is about young women like a person who was brought into the sex trade by a neighbor when she was 12 years old. she was rescued with the help of an organization led by trafficking survivors. today she has enrolled in college, is helping at-risk girls stay out of the sex trade. i could not be more proud of her. [applause] so proud. with this bill we have reauthorized the trafficking victims protection act. that is what today is all about. today is about all the survivors and all the advocates who are standing on this stage.

it is also about the millions more they represent, that you represent. it is about our commitment as a country to redress this problem, in every corner of america every community, every town, every big city, as long as it takes, and we have seen incredible progress since 1994 but we cannot let up, not when domestic violence still kills three women today, not when one in five women will be a victim of rape in their lifetime, not when one in three women is abused by a partner. i promise you, not just as the president, but as a son and husband and father, we're going to keep at this. i know vice president biden is going to keep at it.

my administration is going to keep at it for as long as it takes. and i know that all the advocates up here, all the legislators, republican and democrat, who have supported this, i know they could not be prouder of the work that they have done together, and i think i speak for all of them when we say we could not have done it without you. so with that, let me sign this bill. [cheers] [applause] a bunch of pens. a bunch of pens. when you are dealing with one letter a time -- [indiscernible]

what was that?>> [indiscernible] [cheers] [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] ♪

♪

>> c-span cameras are live at the renaissance hotel. the annual gridiron dinner is being held tonight.

politicians are gathering. president obama is scheduled to attend and make remarks. he also has plans to visit capitol hill this week to read me -- to meet with republicans and that the cats democrats. the gridiron club is allowing one journalist to report on the evening. he will take a moment to watch the scene at the renaissance hotel.