you look at what that process constitutes, they have to certify that they can mitigate the risk that all, like the terrorists that are being released from guantanamo, are not going to be reengaged, and if detained, the place they are going to be detained is secure, and if detained, the place they are going to be detained is secure, where they cannot escape from, and it has to be in the national security interests of the country. i would submit we have given him a standard and if they cannot certify with respect to each individual at guantanamo that they have mitigated the risk so they are not attacking us again and they had made sure it is in the national security interest of the united states, they can make decisions to transfer under the process we've created for them. it seems those are fair considerations. we do not need to repeal a process. if they want to exercise it, justify to congress why these individuals do not present a

risk if we transfer them. i was troubled to hear him say he wants to repeat the aumf. we remain at war with terrorists. we only need to look at incidents from yemen, from somalia to north africa, and in benghazi we know that now is not the time where we can consider repealing the authorization for the use of military force. >> senators who are open minded to closing the base -- also the administration has told reporters that [indiscernible] >> on your second question, i would expect they might revise his comments about the situation. in yemen today maybe it has not filtered down to the writers. they are not at the top of the food chain.

the problem in 2009 when the white house counsel sat down with me and senator graham, they said we will have a plan so the american people can be sure these people will either he tried, stay in detention because they are too difficult to release and sent to another country, or they will be tried in whether it be military or civilian court, they never followed with a proposal because they could not send some of these people, yemenis, back to where they wanted them to go, to their home country, and also they have no plan as to where to move the detainees they were going to keep. senator graham, in defiance of all logic in my view, has offered that the charleston naval shipyard be a place for a

trial. senator durbin has assured us the illinois max prison would be a place they could send them. i am willing to sit down and discuss how we could do this, because i happen to believe that guantanamo bay is a terrible image of the united states of america throughout the arab world. we can disagree on that, but all of us are in agreement until we have a plan from the administration, then the status quo has to remain. >> in 2009 i came up with a plan and spent two occasions to talk to him about it. i spent time with rahm emanuel to find a way to move the prisoners back to illinois. no one suggested they come to charleston. i will correct that. [laughter] i would be willing, at the charleston naval brig, if they want to have a military commission trial, to look at

that location as a place you can do trials. the jail in joliet, illinois, was going to be the site. here's the problem -- to move the prisoners, you have to move the concept we are at war. i believe in due process and humane treatment of detainees under the law of war as well as in our civilian system. i challenge the president to embrace that law of war detention would be one of the options available for our country. there is a class of detainees that senator chambliss knows better than anyone else, that the intelligence is strong, evidence is of an intel nature, that this person is eminently involved in activities against our country and meet the definition of our qaeda- affiliated person who is actively engaged in terrorist activities. you are not going to take that evidence into a courtroom, military or civilian, but you will have to prove to a federal judge if the person is in fact

an enemy combatants. but under war, you do not have to take them to trial. that is when it broke down. if you want to try to find a new location to move these detainees inside the united states, you need to have a plan that will assure the people that there will be a system to keep these people off the battlefield, and if you're going to put them in court, that we have a way to distinguish between military court and civilian court, and if you are going to release them, we have a plan to make sure they will not go back to the fight. some will, but 28% is ridiculous. the difference between a concept and a plan is as follows. anybody who would send people back to yemen today is doing the people in yemen a disservice as well as the united states.

the president of yemen has been a better partner. things are getting somewhat better in yemen. i cannot believe, given what i know about yemen, and senator mccain is going next week, that the conditions on the ground in yemen and three of the people protecting our embassy in benghazi came from yemen are such that it would be a good idea to release people we have held for years as terrorists back in the yemen. that is a difference between a concept and a plan. >> thank you very much. >> you talked about civility [indiscernible] what would you like to see them do? >> arm the rebels, put in a safe zone, lead, go back and help the libyans do what we did not do after qaddafi fell, to help them with their border security, etc.

try to assist this new refugee problem the lebanese have. 10% of the population is already refugees. the strain on the government, outbreak of fighting going on in lebanon, it comes down -- what would happen in the united states? lead. the president does not lead. i get this from every single leader in united states no matter where i go, and we sit by and watch these people massacred, and now we are relying on the goodwill of the russians among which we have been relying now for over two years. i do not like to predict, but given the fact that the russians now have given more sophisticated weapons to their side, that the overflights of weapons from iran still goes on,

the russians supplying them does not give me confidence about a conference, although i note geneva is a nice place to meet, especially this time of year. >> i would like the president to announce a residual force in afghanistan, somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 to avoid what happened in iraq. people in afghanistan are trying to hedge their bets. the people are uncertain about what we are going to do. if the president announces a force, it will lead to a good outcome in afghanistan. we can win if we make the right choices, as we could in syria. the king of jordan could be overthrown in the next six months because his economy is under siege. the weapons moving around today in syria could fall into the hands of hezbollah. as to iran, we have talked and they have been enriching. call the chinese and russians and let them know that unless

the iranians change their behavior there will be a conflict and the best way to avoid it is for russia and china to get involved and help. >> [indiscernible] what recourse does congress have? >> we passed a resolution to provide arms to rebels. that is a signal in the right direction. i would argue six months ago you could not get that through. we had a resolution concerning iran. congress is finally waking up and acting in absence of presidential leadership, and you will see an additional resolution from senator graham in the next month or so concerning iran. again, if the arabs are watching, the president who said if they use they would cross a red line, do you think the iranians are serious about red

lines? i do not think so. >> we have an ability which i brought out in the past to bring amendments that can address detainee and interrogation issues, and if this is the course the administration plans to take, i would like to know why they cannot justify under the waiver process we've created for them the transfer of these individuals. that tells me they cannot tell me it is in the national security interest of the united states. >> thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> chairman bob goodlatte on

the irs targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. if we could start with issue of immigration moving through the senate, where does it stand in the house and the judiciary committee? there are several different approaches. the committee has held a number of hearings. we started hearings on the subject of immigration. then we moved to hearings on specific bills that we have introduced on the legislative language of those bills. yesterday we held a hearing on the senate.

in addition. there are i think three members of the house where a immigration law prior to coming to congress. judiciary committee, by the way. most members do not have in- depth knowledge of the immigration law. we have extensive time in the house holding briefings where we and members through the law how it works and how different aspects of it are not working and we listen to their ideas of how to improve. we have introduced three bills in the house dealing with aspects of immigration law. at best a border out of the committee. we have introduced two bills. when dealing with agricultural guestworkers and another dealing

with evr five. -- e-verify. that way players and ensure that people applying for jobs are able to do so -- that way employers are able to ensure that people a pine for jobs are able to do so. the voluntary system is very well-liked. --cial by the countries companies that use it today. a few membersday and i will introduce a high skilled workers bill. we have in the works right now a bill for the homeland security bill daley -- dealing with internal enforcement of our immigration laws. ash many entered on student or

worker visas. of the not address all ways that illegal immigration comes about. there is a group that prefers to be called the group of eight. they are in the process of drafting legislation. what thatious to see has. we will continue with regular order in the committee process. most members of the house have been pleased with the nature of which we have methodically look that every aspect of immigration. we will continue to do that in the hopes of getting a partisan bill that gets it right.

we are concerned about aspects of the senate bill and that we do not repeat the mistakes of 1986. in 1986, we passed the last major immigration reform bill. that granted a pathway to citizenship. they had an easy pathway to citizenship to about 3 million people and have the promise of a number of enforcement measures, including employer sanctions, but they have honored -- been on in the breach. they have not been enforced or implemented. as a result, the problem with people unlawfully entering the country has grown exponentially rather than having them solved. we are determined to not make the mistake again. host: there has been chatter in the newspapers and editorial pages about the house not coming up with a comprehensive bill like the senate did, but more piecemeal. guest: we certainly have taken what we caught a step-by-step approach, but we do want to

address all three major areas. there are hundreds of issues, but the three major areas in immigration law are improving our legal immigration system so that it really works to grow our economy, create jobs for americans and not lose out on opportunities, for example, which will be reflected in the bill that congressman issa and i introduced today. people graduating from american universities who have come from around the world to study at the best universities and then leaving the united states to go back to their home countries and other countries to compete with us and create jobs there. we want them to stay here and create jobs in this country. so, that aspect of it. also, you got to make sure that, for example, agriculture -- a

highly competitive international agriculture economy where food can be grown in every part of the world, we need to make sure that u.s. agriculture has the workers for these very tough and difficult jobs that they need, including the fact that after the 1986 law was passed, about one third of the agricultural workforce left the forms because they were able to work anywhere they wanted. if you have a program this time, the same thing would occur. so, unlike 1986, we want to be ready for that if this does indeed take place, with a workable program so we make sure that american agriculture has the u.s. workers and temporary workers from outside the country as they are needed. the second area is enforcement of the law. as i say, both at the border e- verify, very important. and the third aspect is what kind of legal status can we provide to the millions of people who are not here lawfully. that status could be different for different people. so, that is all being very closely examined and considered as well.

we think that in order to really have an immigration system that works for our country, works for our economy, all three of those areas need to be addressed. host: chairman goodlatte, what is the next step in the eric holder doj ap investigation? guest: the ap investigation is of considerable concern. we had the attorney general before the judiciary committee last week, and on many subjects i don't know if people can type in "eric holder, i don't know" and find a youtube video to find out many different ways to say "i don't know" on a multitude of subjects. one thing he said it on was the ap issue, and he said as the basis, the fact he recused himself of the decision -- the subpoena, which many stated they believe is overbroad, including mukasey. a lot of information about a lot of phone calls made. not the content but numbers that were dialed.

for a government to be slipping behind what these reporters have done. having said that, it is always important when you are dealing with national security issues to make sure that you are actually getting the process all the make sure that leaks do not occur when national security is being compromised. that is one of the issues, of course, in the ap matter. so, the idea of the justice department looking into leaks is not inappropriate in itself but if you deal with it in an inappropriate way is a problem. they turned the matter over to the deputy attorney general. the judiciary committee will be communicating with mr. cole, and we will be looking to hold hearings on this matter in the

future as well. lots of questions. the code of federal regulations provisions for news organizations to be notified when a subpoena is being issued that affects them. while i am sure that there are exceptions to that, it is hard to understand why there would need to be an exception here, he cut the records being sought are not held by the ap but being held by a telephone company. therefore, the organization, knowing it was taking place, not at least in initial view -- have compromised the investigation. secondly, there are reports that the associated press contacted the administration a week before they used the news information regarding the matter in yemen that was the subject of the underlying leak investigation. clearly they were attempting to be cooperative with the

administration and give them an opportunity to let them know why they should not have released that information. so, in this instance, certainly the administration has the right to investigate leaks, but the congress and the american people and the associated press and other news organizations -- we also have a report of a fox news reporter having even more intense investigation taking place with regard to his reporting. all of these things are of concern to us because of the first amendment of the united states constitution. and the judiciary committee is the committee that has the responsibility of protecting our bill of rights, dealing with constitutional amendments -- new ones offered but also the oversight of how the current mm it -- amendments to the constitution are being used by the administration and protected for the benefit of the people,

including, in this case, of course, the first amendment freedom of the press. it is very, very important the press have the ability to do its job without intimidation, without disrupting -- disruption of their ability to develop sources in a legitimate way. it certainly happens at times news sources are developed in a legitimate ways that could compromise national security for other reasons that are inappropriate, and those should be investigated, but investigated properly. there were a lot of questions about why this agonist -- investigation was conducted the way it was. host: a video on youtube, eric holder "i don't know your go with this put together by the touse judiciary -- -- "i don' know." together by the house? guest: certainly was not. i am sure it was done by some

interested viewer. as you know, youtube has lots of different things available. host: where is the trust factor when it comes to attorney general eric holder, between you and him? guest: certainly he is the attorney general of the united states, and we want him to successfully do his job. but there is a lot of question on the part of myself and a lot of members about whether he is doing that job effectively went on issue after issue, whether it is fast and furious -- certainly not the first issue -- but the big first issue with regard to the conduct of the justice department and the related agencies in the justice department. and then you have issues related to other matters where he is asked about questions and then simply doesn't know. but he is the chief law enforcement officer of the united states and he is supposed to know these things, and yet repeatedly we get a lack of answers from him. of course, with regard to fast and furious, he was pressed for documents. the documents were not provided. the documents were subpoenaed. he refused to supply them with a subpoena. the house of representatives has

actually held him in contempt of congress, and the effort to get those documents persist but has dragged on for years. there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the administration being forthcoming about legitimate oversight questions that the congress has. and it is important that any attorney general of the united states understand that and be more communicative than this attorney general has been. host: somebody who tweets as "oversight of gop" -- guest: have we passed a bill in response to sandy hook? meaning the newtown matter? well, we certainly are looking very closely at this issue. the national instant check system, the system that was heavily debated in the senate

and upon which they could not reach the votes necessary to pass legislation is up for reauthorization later this year. now, that could provide a basis for legislation. the instant check system will continue, whether reauthorized or not, but there are problems with the national instant check system. the two biggest being the lack of enforcement of the law right now with regard to people who violated the instant check system now, and secondly, the need for the states to put more data into the system about people who have been convicted of crimes that would preclude them under the law from owning firearms or people who have mental health commitments. again, have been found by a judge, to be a danger of themselves or others and also can be precluded under the law from possessing a firearm. as you know, those are the two major areas of concern with

regard to misuse of ire arms that result in tragedies like newtown or just murders and other deaths that occur around the country. we are looking at it from the standpoint of what can be done to improve that system. we think the very first thing that can be done does not require legislation, it requires the administration to enforce the law. in 2010, 70 6000 people -- 76,000 people went to purchase firearms either in gun stores or on the internet or at gun shows from federally licensed firearms dealers where all of them are required all the time to do an instant check, background check, and 76,000 people put false information on the forms. of those, the atf referred 4500 or slightly more than that to than 94 united states attorneys around the country.

of those referred, only 62 were prosecuted in 92 attorneys offices with thousands of assistant united states attorneys. so, the proposal in the senate to add additional requirements for additional instant checks on not commercial gun transactions but on individuals selling a gun to another individual does not make a lot of sense, and it appears to many people it would impose a burden on law abiding citizens and would not be an additional check against people who are not lawfully entitled to own firearms because they are not enforcing the law that exists now. host: we have about 25 minutes before the house comes in. our guest is bob goodlatte, chair of the house judiciary committee, republican of virginia. greg is a republican in kansas city, missouri. you're on the air. caller: good morning. you called for an investigation into the irs scandal. as bad as that's candle is,

-- as that scandal is, nobody has died from it. people died on 9/11 and countless members of congress -- there is a.-- a point. host: when it comes to the irs issued, had he called for an investigation? guest: we certainly have. just yesterday, a substantial number of members of the house are many, including myself, and the investigations subcommittee chairman jim sensenbrenner signed a letter to the attorney general asking about conduct of this investigation, and in particular, to investigate allegations that the way the matter has been characterized by the administration thus far as lower-level irs employees being the only ones involved, to investigate the fact there are reports that people outside of the irs and in the administration and in the higher levels of the irs knew about

this selective targeting of conservative groups and tea party groups and others a long time ago. perhaps as long ago as three years ago. and therefore, we want that to be included as part of this investigation. certainly want to get to the bottom of how this took place, but also want to know who knew about it, when they knew about it, why they did not disclose it to congress even though questions were asked that would suggest the appropriate answer would be, yes, this program is going on and is being conducted in this manner. the other thing that is really important to the judiciary committee and other members of congress with regard to all of these investigations is accountability. it is very important that when mistakes are made, people will be held accountable.

the general public understands that. they know in their jobs in the private sector, if you make a serious mistake, there are consequences for doing that. oftentimes they get the sense that the administration -- not just this administration but previous administrations and not make the effort to hold the people responsible accountable. in part, it may be because you hold a person accountable at one level, and they say why am i held accountable when i was told to do this by somebody higher up? that helps to unfold the entire investigation, to have real accountability, which the legislative branch of the government has a responsibility to do. we passed the laws that are becoming the law of the land him and we have a responsibility to check to see of those laws are being applied in the manner that was intended by the congress. and in this case, it appears they were not. i think it is a very serious question that people have about the fairness of the process,

when the internal revenue service target individuals or groups for investigation based upon first amendment free speech, based upon first amendment freedom of assembly, first amendment freedom to petition your government for address of grievance and does it in a way that would suggest that they are trying to disadvantage or even pressure groups that they may not have sympathy for or agreement with. you've got to make sure that no matter who is running the irs, it is done in a neutral and fair manner. obviously our tax laws need to be properly administered and enforced. but they need to be done in a way that does not suggest they are being politicized. host: ogden, utah. democratic line. prudence, good morning. caller: i am concerned about those people you mentioned, the high skilled people. our college graduates in the united states, many of them are

working in fast food places and they are trying to get ahead, trying to find a job that has benefits and a good salary. it is very, very difficult. they are bringing in people from other countries not to harvest crops but to take engineering jobs, whatever, all kinds of jobs that require high skilled, good learning, and good work in work ethic, all those good things. bringing them in, and they have the jobs that our college graduates need to have. is there anything you can do to give a little less protection to companies that are taking on their high skilled employees from other countries? host: got the point, prudence. thank you for calling in. guest: the caller makes a very good point. that is, as you write

immigration law, you have to first respect the rights and job opportunities of people who are already lawfully resident in the united states, particularly american citizens. when you do this, you have to weigh that against the fact that if companies can't get access to those workers from the u.s. workforce, then a couple of things happen. the companies don't grow, they don't create other jobs, or they move their work to other places around the world where there is places like india and china, an abundance of people who have a good quality education in science, technology, engineering, and math. that is the main focus of this high skilled area. and we want to have more u.s. graduates getting jobs in the sector. very, very important. but it is also important that we

recognize if you don't have the workers that are needed when a company needs them, they could actually cost us a lot of jobs by moving their work to someplace else in the world, or they simply don't grow. when you hire a high-tech worker that allows a company to produce a product in the united states, you are then, in most instances, creating more jobs for u.s. citizens around them. so, that has to be the balance that is found. we don't want to have an unlimited number of people in this area. we don't want to have employers paying below market wages so that the jobs are less attractive to u.s. workers. that we also want to make sure that we have an immigration system that has the necessary number of workers to meet u.s. companies need. host: would you like to see that caps on removed from the high- tech visas? guest: i would not remove the caps.

i think we need to have a limitation on it and we need to review where that h-1b wrote graham is used properly and where it is used improperly and fix the system. we make measures to do that in the legislation. we also want to make sure that once we do have an h-1b worker, a graduate of an american university who we want to keep your, we want to make sure that they are able to transition from that h-1b and we have sufficient numbers of immigrant visas. if you look at other countries that have a shortage of them -- stem workers, you will find in countries like canada, the united kingdom, australia, the percentage of overall immigrant visas issued that are issued related to education, job offers, job skills, is in the 60%-70% range depending on the country. in the united states, only 12%

of the 1.1 million green cards we issue each year and of the 12%, half of those are family members of that high skilled worker. so, only six percent of the 1.1 million green cards go to any workers of any kind. and we are just not -- not just talking about high skilled workers but workers who work in areas that may not be high skilled but a shortage of u.s. citizens to do the work. so, getting the right numbers here is important, but also recognizing that other countries are beating us out, if you will, in recognizing the immigration system, when used correctly, can grow our economy and create jobs for u.s. citizens is something we think can be improved with immigration reform. host: bob goodlatte, currently in his 11th term, and part of his district includes roanoke, lynchburg, and serves as co- chair of congressional internet caucus, chairman of the house republican high-tech working

group. he served a term or two as chair of agriculture committee. if i remember correctly. and chair of the judiciary committee. akron, ohio. independent line. caller: how're you doing? thanks for c-span. i wanted to piggyback on the one caller about immigration. it is a topic that democrats, republicans, we all are concerned about it. i don't agree that much with republicans on most of their policy, but i hope they hold firm on this. one thing, too. was it the 14th or 15th amendment? the whole idea of just becoming an american citizen because you stumbled over the border and were born in the united states. i know it is part of the constitution. we can't do anything about it. but, my god, can they look into that? one more question for you, representative. benghazi, now that the fact that came out, should there be an

apology made to susan rice and why wasn't general petraeus called to testify? i will hang up and listen to you. guest: i don't know whether there are plans to call general petraeus. that investigation is being primarily led by the oversight and government reform committee. but we also have an interest in that issue in the house judiciary committee because of the fact that the federal bureau of investigation, part of the justice department, is responsible for the investigation into what happened in benghazi and for the work to track down the terrorists who perpetrated these four murders. it is a terrible situation. there are still many questions to be asked and it is very apparent people in the administration were involved in

making decisions about how they character arise -- characterize these events after they took place. also very strong concerns about why the request for more security ahead of time in that matter were not honored. here we had a the ambassador based in the libyan capital tripoli but having to travel frequently to benghazi because that is whether rebels who had had been based before they overthrew the libyan government, and requests were made on a number of occasions for additional security and not provided. why that did not occur is important. and the secretary of state asking the question rhetorically in a hearing that she participated in not too long ago saying "why does it matter?" it matters a great deal because it is an invitation for more of these kinds of terrorist attacks. it is an invitation to people who are dedicated to our foreign

service to not want to serve in these places around the world, not even want to serve in our foreign service. and it is something that needs to be addressed, and forcefully, so we are assured a kind of security that was not provided there is being provided where it is needed and this sort of thing doesn't happen again. so, the investigation both before and after are, in my opinion, is very important. the whole issue i raised earlier, accountability. who is being held accountable for the mistakes that were made? now, the un ambassador had information that was not correct. what did she know about that information in terms of how it was prepared and how she presented it, we still do not know all the answers to that, so i think it is premature to say who was responsible and who was not responsible in the administration.

but more work needs to be done in this matter. and i have every confidence that the five committees that are involved in working cooperatively to pursue this investigation will indeed continue to pursue the truth of the matter. host: representative goodlatte, can you shed any light or the search for a new fbi director are? guest: i have heard probably the same rumors that you have. some members of congress have been mentioned. but i do not know what the thoughts are in the administration regarding that. i also would say i think director mueller has done a good job. he was recruited to stay on for a longer period of time once already. he has told me that he is ready to go on and do other things in life. it was not bother me at all if he were kept on a little bit longer to make sure, if willing to do that, to make sure we do

get somebody of the highest caliber to fulfill that very important role. it is very important from a law- enforcement sandpoint and very important from public trust in government standpoint. that you have somebody of great law-enforcement skills and unimpeachable integrity. host: will your committee have a say or is it authentic? guest: it is always senate confirmation. the judiciary committee is always interested and follows a closely. we do not have confirmation authorities. host: a viewer tweeted in -- guest: well, i do not agree that the use of a facility outside the united states to hold foreign enemy combatants is a waste of money. i do think that how this has all been administered and the uncertainty created around it has certainly caused problems.

and as you wind down the number of people being detained, at some point in time it would be appropriate to close the facility,, but the basic concept enemy combatants, if you had a war declared against the country and they were captured and in -- they would be held in a prisoner of war facility someplace, it is not an inappropriate thing to do for people who are captured as a part of the clear war on terror by extremist islamic organizations like al qaeda. so, that is appropriate. now, having said that, i also believe that if you are a united states citizen and you are arrested in the united states and accused of being a terrorist, that you should have available to you your full panoply of rights under the bill

of rights and be tried in article three courts. the administration has applied that to all of the terrorists that they have apprehended recently, including some that they have captured outside the united states and who are not united states in essence, and i do not agree that they need to be handled in the way as a united states citizen who is apprehended in the united states. to has happened on a couple of occasions. and both those instances, the individuals were indeed terrorist and ultimately they were treated properly, but they were detained without charges, without the various protections under the fourth and fifth amendments of our bill of rights, without those benefits, and i think that was wrong. we are slowly moving in the

direction of correcting that through the amendments made to the national defense authorization act, but i don't think we are there yet. because even with the changes made last year, the u.s. listens were charged with being a terrorist -- each means they can be held, comparable to holding a prisoner of war in a war with another country -- we held indefinitely, they are not being afforded their rights to be confronted by their accuser, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and so on. and if this occurs on a battlefield in afghanistan and they happen to be u.s. citizens, that is a different situation. but if they are arrested in the united states, they need to be charged under our laws and given the protections anyone has and would expect to have if they were charged with a crime, particularly those who are innocent and charged with a crime. host: just a few minutes left with our guests before the house of representatives comes into session. judy is a republican from hyattsville, maryland, in the suburbs. guest: nice and rainy -- caller: nice and rainy. if i were a diplomat right now, i would be attending my resignation to the presidency because quite obviously we are

not attacking our diplomats. i do not know what happened in benghazi, but i have been listening to the hearings. i listen to c-span all day long, right behind me at work. i am 69 years old and i have never, ever, ever heard the kind of rhetoric from both sides. no one is interested in getting to the truth or the constitutionality of the irs , or what happened in benghazi. we had four people killed and everyone acts like, no big deal. the irs is taking personal information from people and taking their rights. no big deal because we are turning it into politics. everything that i see from both sides. i hear harry reid and i hear mitch mcconnell and they both get up and point the finger at the other assigned -- at the other side.

in the meantime, i can guarantee you the people in sandy hook have not gotten support from the federal government or they have not done what they were supposed to do. and oklahoma is going to sit there for a long time. we could give 200 million dollars to egypt and fight endless wars and we cannot even take care of our own people, and we aren't no longer a nation -- we are no longer a nation that lives under the rule of law. host: representative goodlatte? guest: certainly it is very important that we recognize these issues are important, from several standpoint. number one, holding people accountable who do not follow the law. and secondly, making sure that people who are responsible for upholding the law understand and respect the united states constitution, the bill of rights, the first amendment, and organizations that organize in order to protest the government, in order to petition the government, in order to be outspoken about issues related to the issues before the

congress and the federal government as a whole. they have a right to know that they can do that and can have their first amendment freedoms protected. so, she is absolutely right some of the matter of the irs is of extreme importance and needs to be investigated, and have the people who have perpetrated that be held accountable. similarly, as i mentioned earlier, regarding benghazi, it is very important we send the right message to foreign governments, to terrorists, and more important -- most importantly, that we send the right assets to people who are in our service who are putting their lives on the line as is so readily apparent in benghazi, but in many countries in the world their security could be at risk for a variety of reasons and providing that security is vitally important. so there is a constructive good to holding the hearings and

getting to the bottom of this if we can shine the light of what needs to be done on this process and hold accountable the people who did not get it right the first time. host: i don't know if you got a chance to see editor mitch mcconnell's op-ed in "the post." "obama's culture of intimidation" is the headline. he says there is ample evidence to suggest the culture of intimidation and which of the iris tactics was allowed to flourish beyond one agency or a few rogue employees. and he goes on to talk about the so-called disclose act, that it could be reintroduced, there is a must. what do you think of the disclose act? guest: i would have to see more about what he is writing about and the legislation he is talking about. but i would say that he is absolutely right that it cannot be tolerated that the instrumentalities of government that are necessary to carry out the work of government that people expect not be done in a

way that people -- are used to intimidate people. of course, that issue rests with all of these issues that we talk about, not just the irs but also the associated press issue and others. we have a free society in this country, and when government starts using the instrumentalities of government to favor one person over another or to suppress someone, that is a major challenge to our freedoms, our liberties, and congress has a duty to step up and pursue the truth wherever it leads. host: we have been talking with representative bob goodlatte. >> on the next "washington journal" we speak with andrea u.s.w on president obama's counterterrorism policy speech. dubay on shifting

profits offshore and taxes. later, a look at some of the trends in rural america, including farming and immigration. like eachn journal" one as 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. each morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> house speaker john boehner targetingut the irs conservative group seeking tax- exempt status. he made remarks at a news briefing on thursday. we will also hear from house minority leader nancy pelosi. today is a new day. it means we are sure to get a new story from the white house on the irs scandal. oeste they told us the white

house learned of the news that the irs was can targeting -- was targeting conservative groups, but they said she did not know the details. we found that that was not true either. -- women there was not just then reload it was not just that, but but number of close advisers as well. despite being blindsided, you know that his deputy chief of staff was involved in the planning of the announcement. drip, drip vomit dripped. -- drip, drip. every day it is something new. what is most troubling is that the lights were on, but it does not seem to be anyone home. of irs violated the rights

americans for almost two years. the treasury department new about this last year was to the white house was made aware last month. yet no one, no one thought they should tell the president. is fairly inconceivable to me. we are going to continue to seek answers and we get to the truth. the ministration has not been up to what american people about benghazi. they have been treating reporters like criminals for doing their jobs. and now the irs. what we are seeing from this administration is an arrogance of power. we have got a big problem. since the irs happened on president obama's watch, how much of it or do you think democrats will take a hit on elections?the 2014

irs wasead of the appointed by president bush. it extended into president obama's state. -- stay. wise is a politicized issue? -- why is this a politicized issue? we are all concerned with the irs. .hat they did was wrong inspector general has said over and over it is not illegal. the committee wants to challenge the inspector general and its findings. that will unfold. is an independent agency. on his watch the way some other in the agency

government would. did was wrong. we will make sure will happen again. we do not like it on our site or their side. it has no sites. >> shouldn't he have known about ?his should mr. boehner have known because it was his neighboring district? i think obviously the public will make its decision about it. but that is it. happened under his leadership. it was wrong. let's make sure it doesn't

happen again. >> you can watch the briefings and all of our programs at c- span.org. you can click on the video library. mexico's cartels earned an estimated $23 billion a year drug trafficking revenues from the u.s. up next, house panel investigates how the u.s. and mexico are working together to reduce drug trafficking. and then president obama's nominee testified at a confirmation hearing. the most fundamental difference it seems to me between left and right is a both look at the economic ladder. those on the left seek to reach down and physically take people of moved them up the economic ladder. that is almost always driven by noble intention and yet it never works.

has everway anyone climbed the economic ladder is to pull himself or herself up one rung at a time. >> nearly all of you will experience failure. you will recover from it. you will learn from it. .ou will be better for it once you have a failure, doling option is to take something from it. very few of you will never recover from your failures. statistically speaking between two and five of you will spend some part of your life in prison. [laughter] >> every spring, c-span visits colleges and universities. it a clock,night at senator franken, senator cruise,

-- cruz, republican -- representative paul ryan, representative nancy pelosi, peter king, representative no floors, and senator elizabeth warren. >> suddenly gold is discovered. cantonese was among the first hear about it. new spread back to southern china. thousands of men began to board ships to head for the gold mountain. that is why california was known as then. there were tales in the first year of men walking through a field, looking for gold nuggets and filling their pockets with gold nuggets. it sounds extreme and fabulous. the reality is a system he was looking for it, nobody saw it. once he started looking for it, they found it in abundance.

that gold was taken up. what was to happen was we believe 120,000 people showed up in one year right here. 1849, this was the situation. take a look at this grainy photograph. you'll see from the shoreline looking out that the bay is completely filled with ships. there is a forest of ship masts. the passengers got off to look for gold and then the sailors got off to look for gold. they have abandoned ship. who has a right to mine the gold? california was an american territory. americans argued only they have the right to mine gold. they began to push out everyone else. the mexicans and the russians. anyone who was not an american. the chinese are amongst those being pushed out. two,om chinatown, part looking at the chinese

immigration experience. sunday at 7 p.m. eastern. part of american history's tv numeral the weekend had to spend 3. a look at a security agreement between the u.s., mexico, and central american countries to combat drug-related crime. this is one hour and 50 minutes. this committee is now called to order. good morning and welcome to the first of a two-part series on the security of u.s., mexico, and central america. violence at the hands of drug cartels along our southern border continues to affect our security as well as affect cross-border commerce. our communities are threatened by organized criminals who traffic drugs, money, and human beings across our border.

third largest trading partner, and we mexico's largest trading partner. mexico is arizona's number one trading partner. very clearly in both countries national interest to cooperate to defeat these destabilizing and ruthless drug cartels. since the 2007 signing of the initiative, mexico and the united states has been doing just that, working together to disrupt and dismantle the drug cartels working to improve mexican and regional justice systems, and to strengthen our shared border to include air and maritime control. as we approach the fifth anniversary of the signing of the initiative, i wanted to take this opportunity to take an honest look at our cooperation with mexico, evaluate the effectiveness of our counter narcotics efforts, and determine how we move forward to make better use of our taxpayer money.

pra back in power in mexico, under recently elected nieto, there will be some changes to our cooperation with mexico. we have our distinguished panel to provide us with details about what these changes are likely to be -- to be and how they are likely to affect our efforts. i understand a move towards more centralized control under the mexican interior industry, and to what extent will the centralization -- the possibility that it may derail working relationships formed over the last five years? private sector experts will give the subcommittee their unvarnished you of the initiative over the last five years. onhope to learn their views the changes the new mexican administration will have on

achieving the original goals of the initiative. i look forward to looking closely at pillar three of the framer, building a 21st-century border, and hearing views on how we can enhance border security without hampering our vibrant trade relationship with mexico. as chairman of the subcommittee, i have chosen to focus on opportunities for economic growth and energy independence. these opportunities around the united states and mexico could unfortunately the scourge of drug trafficking organizations will disrupt these opportunities if united states and mexico do not cooperate to take down the cartels and enforce our laws. i'm committed to doing all i can to make security cooperation between the u.s. and mexico as on solid footing as it can possibly be with our shared commitments. i also want to thank secretary brownfield of the state department's bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, mr. john feeley, the assistant secretary

for state in western hemisphere affairs, and ms. beth hogan, the senior deputy administrator for latin american usaid. i would also like to think the witnesses will testify in our second panel, ms. clark's field from the congressional research andice, mr. stephen dudley, professor of a docto latin american expertise. thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. thank you to our witnesses for being here today. today's discussion comes at a critical time for both the u.s. and mexico. comes off theit heels of president obama's recent visit -- visit to mexico and central america earlier this month. a time when the threat of drug in mexicog cartels has escalated.

at a time when the u.s. congress is reviewing its financial commitment and considering historic immigration reform, impacting over 11 million people. it comes nearly six months after -- on december 1, nietopinion? -- enrique vowed to focus on reducing violent crime in mexico than combating the drug trade. in particular, the president has aimed to refocus the nature of the u.s.-mexican relationship to center on economic and energy reform agendas, while calling for a review of the current u.s.- mexican security strategy. nieto has moved to centralize security policy. has moved todent

reform the structure of mexico's 30 structure by placing the federal police and intelligence service under the authority of the interior secretary read it could be a significance that back in our cooperation. efforts to centralize police commands and create a militarized police force to replace current military forces engaged in security could undermine law enforcement cooperation. nonetheless, maintaining strong cooperation between the u.s. and mexico is paramount for both of our nations economies and national securities. our nations share common democratic values and similar values of peace, and economic prosperity. as well as a common order extending nearly 2000 miles. the u.s. is mexico's largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. mexico, the 14th largest economy in the world, is the third-largest u.s. trading partner.

$460 billion. both countries have accepted a shared responsibility trade u.s. congress has appropriated more than $1.9 billion for fiscal year 2012 towards the initiative. for its part, mexico has invested nearly $10 for every one dollar of the u.s. -- every one dollar committed by the u.s.. x ago has invested over $10 -- mexico hase invested over $10 billion for the initiative. deaths are0,000 resulted from drug-related crime and violence in mexico between 2006-2012. although more impossible than that, indications of progress have been mixed. we have helped to train more and 19,000dmiral state justice sector personnel,

4000 of which are investigators, that did not exist before. yet those suspected of involved in organized crime -- many inmates await trials as opposed to serving out sentences. normally the u.s. agency of international development has concentrated most of its work in support of judicial reforms at the state level. in terms of human rights, there is concern that the mexican military has committed more human rights abuses since it has been tasked with carrying out of looks three. u.s. must continue to work with mexico to improve their institutions to investigate human rights abuses and humanthen protections for rights defenders in the landscape in mexico has changed politically, economically, and in terms of security, but the need to continue combating drug trafficking organizations and stemming violence from their activities or means of mutual concern. i look forward to hearing from

our panelists and their assessment of our individual and joint effort in regards to the initiative thus far and how both our nations can improve our efforts moving forward. >> would like to recognize the most distinguished gentlelady from florida. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. the ink you so, mr. ranking member, or holding this important hearing regarding one of the most critical partnerships our nation enjoys, that with mexico. in a speech in 1984, president ronald reagan said "closer to home to mother remains a struggle for survival for free latin american states, allies of ours. they struggle to prevent communist takeovers, you'll massively by the soviet union and cuba. our policy is simple -- we will not betray our friends, reward the enemies of freedom, or permit fear and retreat to become american policies,

especially in this hemisphere." many years later, we are still looking for a coherent strategy how to dance u.s. interest in the region, how to promote democracy, how do better hold accountable those regimes that oppress their own people. that is why i would like to thank my friend from new jersey from -- for joining me in in -- and introducing our new bipartisan legislation which urges the president to sanction those persons who are officials acting on behalf of governments who are responsible for or complicit in the commission of serious human rights abuses against citizens. i hope we can move that bill forward. thank you for this hearing. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. , forank you, mr. chairman

convening this hearing today to discuss the current status of the initiative. i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today, all of whom are very involved and knowledgeable on the subject of the merida initiative and all of latin america. i believe the merida initiative is an essential policy tool to facilitate cooperation between united states united states and mexico. the initiative allows united states and mexico to maximize our respective resources by coming together with a common goal to fight transborder crime, organized crime, and corruption. open the capacity for rule of law and providing assistance and law enforcement training are important access -- aspects of this agreement. i was pleased to see the agreement grow into a larger regional strategy. u.s.-mexico relations do not exist in a vacuum. it is vital that this agreement

continues to complement a broader u.s. regional engagement. addressing the security concerns of mexico does not stop at a simple bilateral relationship. the united states must address the region as a whole, the , the central american regional security initiative, and the colombian strategic development initiative, along with the merida initiative could altogether -- initiative. they altogether create an approach that addresses complex cross-border threats throughout the hemisphere. i look forward to hearing particularly from a good friend and pastor brownfield who could possibly speak about the possibility of regional partnerships, particularly when discussing columbia as a regional partner for many come -- countries. through my recent travels to the region, i heard firsthand the impact of u.s. assistance in a variety of sectors. aspects of u.s. security and assistance agreements that

address the needs of vulnerable populations are particularly important. these populations are routinely exploited by criminal networks in complex. they are all too often the unheard victims of the lack of rule of law and diminish civil society and by building a u.s. engagement strategy that accounts for the integration of minorities and disenfranchised persons, united states can work with partner nations to lay the foundations for a safe and secure region. i look forward to hearing again from our witnesses on how we can further advance the needs of vulnerable populations through these critical partnerships. the people of mexico, the caribbean, central and south america and benefit greatly from continued u.s. support and assistance that is based on a broad regional vision for shared security and prosperity between the united states and our southern neighbors. recognizes the gentleman from american samoa.

.> thank you, mr. chairman i want to thank you and our ranking member for convening this meeting. , it goes without saying that the u.s. does have a significant interest in the security of our neighbor to the south. statistics have shown that when mexico is safe, our own communities in the u.s. are also safe. i applaud the efforts of the current administration in supporting exit those endeavors to reduce its elevated rate of crime, violence, and drug trafficking. i also want to note and associate myself with the comments made earlier by my good friend and colleague from new york, and i associate myself particularly with the interests we have taken to find out what mexico has done in its treatment of the indigenous populations there in mexico. is that weironies celebrate the cinco de mayo

recently -- one of the things that one of our fellow americans are not aware of -- benito arez was appear indigenous indian, was often raised by monks, and came through the ranks in theming the president -- lincoln and george washington of mexico, when they try to get rid of french colonialism, and that is the reason why cinco de mayo -- it is a reference to the leadership. he is revered and honored throughout mexico. my question is, have the indigenous people in mexico been provided proper treatment by the central government for all these years? i will be asking more questions concerning this matter. with that, i yield back. >> now i would like to turn to our witnesses. first, i would like to welcome investor brownfield --

ambassador brownfield. it is a wonderful opportunity to have you again. thank you, mr. chairman. normally i would he for to my regional colleagues to speak first and give us some basic orientation, but i will take advantage of this opportunity and then step out of the line of fire before he speaks. ,hairman, ranking member members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. i do have a written statement which i will, with your permission, enter into the record and provide this brief oral summary. we do not start our discussion pointrit that today at .

zero since our two governments agreed that we share responsibility for the security threats affecting mexico and cooperate in solving them. united states has delivered 1.2 billion billion dollars in support and assistance to professionalize mexico's law enforcement and build capacity under the rule of law. the mexican government for its part has invested more than an dollars for every one dollar contributed by united states to these shared challenges. we have had an impact. more than 85 hundred justice sector officials and more than 19,000 federal, state, and local police have received trend -- training under merida. secure federal prisons have shifted up to 14, and their quality has increased even more. u.s. government has provided $111 million worth of inspection equipment that has resulted in more than $3 billion in illicit

goods seized in mexico. more than 50 senior members of drug trafficking organizations have been removed from the streets of mexico, and more than 700,000 mexican students have received civic education and epics training under the initiative -- ethics training under the initiative. this committee should take great pride in what the initiative has created for the mexican and american peoples. a new president of mexico was inaugurated last december. as with all new governments, this government came to office determined to formulate its own national security strategy and place its own stamp on the u.s.- mexico bilateral relationship. the new government has sent clear signals on the direction it wishes to go. point ofa single

contact in the mexican government to coordinate merida initiative programs and operations and greater focus on crime prevention and economic and social development. it wants greater engagement by mexican state and local governments and a sharper focus on human rights. it wants to strengthen the mexican attorney general's office, professionalize the a new group told lift some of the burden from police forces. i have no problem with these signals. they are logical. they are coherent. they're good ideas. detailse a number of that have yet to be defined, but what we have now is fully consistent with our strategic approach to the merida initiative where we support the four pillars, shift focus from equipment to training, and tonsition from federal

state and local institutions. as the president said mexico city, it is the people of mexico who decide how we will cooperate in mexico. we have made an unprecedented and historic start to meridation under the initiative under two different administrations in both mexico and the united states. i expect to report even more progress to the subcommittee in the months ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> mr. fili? >> thank you very much. i hope i do not look too ferocious this morning. i also thank you for the opportunity to testify along with my colleagues on the u.s.- mexico security relationship. it has been my privilege to serve at our embassy in mexico on two occasions. ernest and the days and months after 9/11 when we were forced to re-examine how neighbors

must confront them -- the horrors of terrorism, and most recently as i welcomed some of you to mexico from 2009-2012 as dcm when our mexican partners and we truly transformed our security and commercial relationships and service of the american and mexican people. i must thank as well the u.s. congress for the consistent bipartisan support of the u.s.- mexico relationship in general .nd the merida initiative it is a success story. this committee's stewardship of this new paradigm in bilateral cooperation has been a cornerstone of that success. i would just note that between 2007 when we began this and the current date, there have been over 25 congressional delegations to mexico. i looked behind you and i see .ome of our staff or colleagues

i also recall john mackey in another era with whom we work closely. the cornerstone of our success has been our cooperation. begun under the bush-calderon administrations and now nietoirmed in the obama- administrations, we have vouchsafed our security in ways that were unimaginable when i reported in duty over a decade ago. this commitment to our shared security transcends political parties and it extends across both governments. it has enriched and broadened our relationship. may 2, president obama traveled to mexico to meet with the new president. the president's reaffirmed their commitment to improving the lives of all citizens and working with mutual respect and responsibility across a broad range of issues. president obama emphasized our co-responsibility for the violence associated with the illicit flows of drugs, guns, and cash.

basedrida initiative is on the recognition that our countries share responsibility for combating the transnational criminal networks and protecting our citizens from the crime, corruption, and violence they generate. the four pillars that the united states and mexico agreed to in 2010 and president obama and nieto remain our flexible construct. we are accelerating our efforts to support please, just as institutions and civil society organizations, to expand our border some -- focus beyond security to support trade, and to cooperate in building strong communities was a stint to the influx of crime in mexico. our success is due in large part to the efforts of the mexican people and government. our assistance has provided crucial support to the mexican government and its efforts to promote human rights and advance justice sector reforms

while enhancing the bilateral cooperation between our two governments between the provision of training and technical assistance. as the secretary mentioned, the new mexican president and his team have made clear to us their interest in continuing our close collaboration on security, was recently during the visit. the new government has stated that it intends to give particular emphasis to crime prevention and the rule of law. the united states supports this refinement of our strategic partnership, and we continue our ongoing transitions are major equipment purchases towards training together. esther chairman, working together -- mr. chairman, we have truly transformed our bilateral relationship. we will reflect the views and priorities of both governments going forward. authorities agree that our

cooperation must continue and that the merida initiative provides a flexible framework for this partnership. mr. chairman, thank you and members of this committee again for your support of the merida initiative. your support as helped make this a catalyst for dramatically improved relationships the unjust security. i look forward to continuing to work with this congress, and i will be happy to answer your questions. >> we have a couple of votes we need to take. i would like to have you, ms. hogan, make your statements first, and then we will recess and come back after the two votes. i apologize for inconveniencing you. >> thank you very much. , ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, iq for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i'm grateful for the subcommittee's interest in u.s. meritntributions to the of initiative.

analysis and latin american countries indicates that high levels of crime and violence are a leading constraint to economic growth because it discourages international investment and drains domestic resources. since the inclusion of pillar four, we have worked alongside our mexican partners to prevent crime and violence in areas that have been most affected by narco trafficking. with a particular focus on at risk youth. we do so by helping to create safe urban spaces for youth, provide them life and job skills, increase their access to educational opportunities, improve the ability of government to keep citizens safe, strengthen the capacity of community to address the root causes of crime. because communities along the u.s.-mexico border are especially vulnerable, we are developing and testing models to reduce crime and violence in nine communities in the cities

of monterey and tijuana. as we identify successful approaches, the mexican government is poised to bring them to scale and other parts of the country facing similar challenges. we are tapping into the expertise of countries and cities that have successfully addressed gang violence and reduced crime. for instance, there was an agreement signed last year with is angeles, and usaid sharing that cities successful gang reduction efforts with our partners in mexico. we also shared other experiences therime prevention such as cease-fire models employed in chicago and boston. jan also partnering with the private sector to make our effort sustainable. we're working with intel and prudential in the cities of monterey and tijuana to train at risk youth from tough neighborhoods for productive employment in the technology and construction fields. our effort to reach at-risk youth is already bearing fruit. juarez, approximately

88% of the youth who took advantage of our program reenrolled in middle school. in tijuana, 70 of our enrollees are back in school or employed, six months after program completion. because insecurity thrives in environments where corruption is rampant and impunity emboldens criminals, we are continuing our long-standing efforts through the merida initiative to strengthen the charge with ensuring the rule of law and protection of human rights. we work closely with mexican justice institutions as they transition from a closed inquisitorial criminal justice system to a more open and transparent accusatory one. a 2012 impact study conducted in five states implementing justice reforms indicated that they were already having the desired effect. states reported a marked decrease in pretrial detentions

and case backlog, in large part due to an increased use of alternative dispute mechanisms. the dem assistance units have been strengthened. serious crimes are receiving longer sentences. mexico is scheduled to enact reforms nationwide by 2016. we are poised to help them in that effort. through the initiative, we are supporting the government's efforts to protect an advocate for human rights. in 2012, we trained more than 150 journalists and human rights defenders on practices and technologies that can help protect them and their work. you're also supporting human rights training for federal federal and state police officers and the governments new the dems assistance unit. -- victims assistance unit. we are partnering with local organizations on campaigns to prevent torture and support the implementation of human rights reforms. to stretch them in, the government of mexico has been a

partner in our shared endeavor to reduce crime, support youth, strengthen the judicial sector, and advance human rights. our partners have expressed interest in not only continuing but expanding our close working relationship. we look forward to continuing to partner with them as they press ahead with their ambitious reform agenda. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> this committee will be in recess until we commence our voting. thank you.

>> the subcommittee is reconvened. i would like to thank the distinguished panel for their testimonies and the time that you have allocated to be with us here today. brownfield,cretary as of march 13, march 13, on .1 billion of the 1.9 billion in the merida initiative funding appropriated has been delivered. i understand at least $95 million in 2012 remains on hold. 600e appears to be between and 700 million in funds yet to be delivered. what is the current status of the pipeline thomas and should we be concerned that deliveries have remained largely unchanged since fall 2012? to those funds reprogrammed align with the shift in priorities expressed by the new government?

if so, what should we expect this reprogramming to look like? finally, i will centralization of security cooperation in the interior ministry affect the underground efforts and relationships formed in the information and intelligence sharing that is necessary to get ahead of the cartels? thank you. excellent questions. let me try to knock off all of them in some sort of order. our own calculation is that we ofe delivered $1.2 billion merida initiative assistance sinceg and appropriations fiscal year 2008. since congress has appropriated $1.9 billion, since -- simple math will tell you how much is

left to be delivered. that will include about $200 million of fy 13 which has not come to us because of the process. i'm looking at about $500 million that is in play right now. you correctly point to an issue, not the only issue, that we are still working through the priorities of the vision of the new government of anrique pena nieto. we identified some of the areas they have identified as prioritized. we are comfortable with those aiorities we do not yet have defined strategy that we can say .e can program and implement we are continuing to work programs we have had in place for the past several years. you crack we note that a chunk

of this money, $95 million, is currently on hold due to the other house here in the united states congress. we are working to resolve those issues together with the government of mexico. finally you mentioned one specific issue that we are working through, the desire of the government of mexico to have what they call the single window or single point of contact for coordination of merida initiative material through the government ministries. we are working through those issues. i have no objection to the concept in principle, nor does anyone. it is very logical to have a simple point of contact, the go to person, or decisions, but how to implement that on a multi- hundred million dollar program that involves dozens of different agencies and thousands of different people is what we are still working through.

we owe you greater clarity on that. we are working with the government of mexico. i would hope by the time you call us here again for another hearing we will have a definitive answer. >> thank you. i would like to point out that for every one dollar we spend, it is my understanding mexico spends in dollars. that is pretty good bang for the buck. to a next loaded question. i know how important this funding is, but i would like to ask this question for any member of the panel -- given the current u.s. budget constraints, the status of the merida initiative funding pipeline and the fact that mexico is a middle income country, is continued aid to mexico through this initiative justifiable, and if you had to pare down, what areas would you argue for maintaining and why? i apologize, my time has run out, so if there is anything you want to supplement in writing afterwards, that is great. i would love a short response.

mr. chairman, i will start. the funding for the merit of on aative has indeed been downward slope. the reason for that is that when we began this, he began with some big-ticket items that mexico desperately needed to improve air mobility to get nonintrusive inspected equipment to its ports, to get i.t. platforms. as we have provided that leverage assistance, mexico has spent its own money. that is right and just and that is the way it should be. where have begun to evolve, even , isre president pena nieto a greater focus on training, capacity building. this is the added value that we have by providing fbi agents, and the a agents, our justice sector people. i will let my colleagues speak more specifically to the sectors, but i would say in general, it is still necessary. the partnership that this has --

not bought a -- has engendered has had a very positive effect across the rest of the bilateral relationship, not just in the security sector. you will know that the initiative is very much a whole of government effort. the unintended secondary consequences of our five years, it has engendered on the mexican side a genuine interagency process, something that a decade ago did not exist. >> mr. chairman, if i could offer from our perspective, a set of numbers to indicate not only do we agree with you, but we are moving in that direction -- as we learned in colombia, when your program is successful, part of the price of success is the numbers, the funding made available to you will go down. may i offer you three sets of numbers? i do not speak for beth from the usaid side.

fiscal yearin 2012, we received from congress $248 million for merida. 2013, we year received $199 million. thousand 14,ar two we have requested $148 million. ,he number is going down precisely as you suggested it should. from my perspective, it is going down in a predictable and systematic way that i can plan against as opposed to having a surprise out there. 's standpoint, we are transitioning out of several sectors in order to be able to focus and concentrate on merida and global climate change. we are getting out of health. we have gotten out of the health sector in mexico. we are transitioning out of higher education and private sector competitiveness.

thisunding requests on development assistance account have gone down steadily from $34 million in fy 12 down to $23 million in fy 13. we see ourselves going down to $12 million in fy 14. we are in sync with your observation about the mexican government being able to fill in that space and lead their own development path. >> you know, it is nice to see programs in government that actually go down over time. that is a good thing. i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me follow that for a second, because i am a strong supporter of the merida initiative. i think it is good. let me ask this question, because sometimes you're convincing your colleagues that it is the right thing to do, etc. -- what metrics does the state department and usaid

utilize to show that the program is successful? many say, you just spend money, and what good is it?\ you just throw money at it. can you tell us what your metrics are? that is a very important question to be able to track progress as it takes place. i would say that we are very come a very focused on monitoring evaluations of our programs and mexico, as we are globally. just to give you a couple of the justicem sector, the study i referenced looks at the time in which it takes a prosecutor to resolve the case. in the states that are implementing reforms, we have been able to see that it is taking them to us than half time to prosecute a case than it does in states that have not yet had the reform go forward. we are also tracking the amount of pretrial detention, and we

have seen a very sparing use of pretrial detention in states that are doing reforms, and mexico has had a history of having too many people in pretrial detentions. now they are focusing on those that are at the greatest risk of fleeing. those are the interim indicators we're looking at on the just a side. there are many more. i'm to give you examples of those. , when we're side talking about, how do we know we are effective in our programs with at-risk youth, youth, as i mentioned in my testimony, we see the numbers reagan rolling in schools, the numbers that are going on to but at the end of the day, we want to show in communities where we are working you will see a reduced level of crime and violence. that is the ultimate goal. we have done a baseline study in the nine communities where we are working. we have that. by february 2014, we will be

able to just -- be able to say definitively whether or not those programs have indeed achieved the goal of reducing crime and violence. >> i want to stay with this real ,uick -- the concern is always as we drive crime down, especially in big cities and wirral areas and other areas where there is not a lot of commerce, that is where the cartels and others seem to emanate crude those are primarily places -- to emanate. those are primarily the places they emanate and live, etc.. could you tell us the effect of the initiative having in regard to the plight of minorities in that region or in mexico? >> i would be happy to take that. i think you very much for your consistent -- thank you very much for your consistent

attention to indigenous populations in the merit a initiative. initiative.a in -- on april 16, president pena nieto laid out the strategy for what we hope will be the emergency pretty strategy. he laid out six lines of action. importantly, one of those was monitoring and evaluation. we take that as a positive sign. we will continue to encourage that. as regards to mexico and the protection of indigenous people and populations, it is important to note that early in february this year the new government created the commission for dialogue with indigenous communities. it is our encouragement that the indigenous communities will have their human rights effective for government attention to their needs, preservation of the right to autonomy, and this will be important for continuing that. additionally, since 2003, long

before the initiative started, the mexican government has a semi autonomous institution created in the secretary of social development -- support we supporty -- very strongly through our public affairs working with indigenous communities to empower them and mexico. is called the study of u.s. institute for scholars -- we have brought up 60 grantees. we continue to sponsor this. theave something called seed program, which provides scholarships to young people and educators. when i was in mexico, i resided over several ceremonies with these people, probably the most effective thing i have ever seen is to send an educator from the communities to the united states for a community college

degree, for training in english, and see that person return. we have created an alumni network with a special focus on indigenous communities in mexico. it remains a high priority for us. >> i beg your indulgence -- let me correct myself so i do not the scorn of mr. brownfield -- i said ambassador. assistante is now an secretary. mr. secretary, let me ask you really quick, could you speak about the importance of regional partnerships, particularly when discussing the work of columbia and others in the area, working together to make sure -- they talk about the target effect -- that we are not pushing drugs one way because of that works -- networks. could you tell us that quickly? >> you can call me ambassador whenever you wish, i promise not to be offended. you know where i am on this. that is we must address the drug

issue and the transnational organized crime issue in a ,egional and hemispheric way and otherwise, as we have been saying, we squeeze the balloon in one place, and it is going to expand in some other place. how are we doing it? we have a four-part strategy that involves columbia in the south, heavily focused on the regional plan in columbia, mexico at the northern end through the merida initiative, central america, and eventually, ladies and gentlemen, we will have to pay greater attention to the caribbean because the logic is as we begin to bite them take hold in central america, the caribbean is going to become an issue. we have some good news here. columbia clearly is by everybody's account a success story. mexico, bill brownfield would argue that we have reached the turning point, and we are in fact seeing on the ground real

life results of the joint effort under the merida initiative. central america, we are now ramping up. the logic i saw in columbia for three years and for a number of years before is that that will begin to bite. we have a partner that we have to make greater use of, although i knowledge they have been acknowledge they have been enormously helpful so far -- they have received $8 billion in funding by this since the congress year 2000. they are doing more police training in central america than we are. they are doing as much monitoring and is much surveillance of drug trafficking drugs craft -- aircraft in the caribbean that we are. we are getting a return on our investment of the last n years. -- 10 years.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and ranking member, for this excellent hearing. thank you to our panelists as well. although other regions often dominate the headlines, latin america remain central to our country security and our own austerity. mexico is a vital ally in this region. it is instrumental to the economic and security outlook of our country. given the strong ties and interest that bind our two nations together, it is important to re-examine the merida initiative to ensure it is living up to its promise of bringing a greater measure of human rights and the rule of law and mexico as mexico struggles to address these challenges. according to reports, the new mexican government has called for an end to direct access by u.s. law enforcement officials with their mexican counterparts on security matters. i am concerned that this shift

could impact our national security during it security.r -- it could hinder efforts on narco trafficking and counterterrorism. i'm also concerned that mexico is not doing enough to protect its southern border, just like colombians are training law enforcement and military personnel in the region. mexican authorities should be doing the same. with that in mind, we've got to re-examine our own approach to the violent crisis in central america. , joint operations with our allies were crucial in disrupting networks, eliminating drug smuggling cells. i am concerned about the growing centralizing throughout america, however, these programs have been frozen for more than a year due to a hold on the senate side. this undermines our national security, and leaves our friends

hanging out there to dry. can you give us a status update on the hold? ofo, what is the strategy the administration regarding this money, given the fact that the reprogramming deadline for hundreds funds -- honduras funds is in just a few days? , i wouldr brownfield like to turn our attention to bolivia for a moment -- in the u.s.ivia expelled ambassador, and in 2011, i urged secretary clinton to oppose a framework agreement between the u.s. and bolivia, citing that morales does not want to be a partner. just this month, he violated the constitution again by seeking a third term, expelling usaid officials from bolivia. despite all of these expulsions,

the state department continues to fund counter narcotics operations in bolivia. $15request for bolivia was million in fy 11. 4, $5 million. when will the administration realize that our tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere, and is there a plan to change our current footprint? mr. brownfield? i will address the bolivia question, and in turn, all the and then turn all the others over to john. i will not talk to the larger issue, but the specific issue, that you have asked. what is our plan in terms of the inl operations and

bolivia? i have reached, the same conclusion. i will tell you that i am proud inl hasthe accomplished in bolivia over the past 30 years great i think i have delivered great value for the american people, and for that matter, for the bolivian people. that said, the time has come for us to go. my intention to close down our section in a reasonable and orderly fashion -- i would be stunned were you to see a request for fy 15 for additional funding to support inl activities. >> thank you so much. amen and hallelujah. a few seconds, but this strategy about honduras and the hold on

the senate side? >> you are absolutely right. we have looked to honduras as one of the places we are most concerned about, where institutions are weak, where we have willing partners, but quite frankly, capacity that needs to be bolstered. you are correct that there is a hold and the other chamber of the u.s. congress. we have worked with the staff members to explain what we have done in terms of improving the human rights performance of honduran military and police. what we have done with our own in terms ofners developing standard operating procedures to be able to provide support to the hunt door and police -- the honduran police. we have also walked through a significant amount of internal review, aced on what happened during higher operations, and we

have not just lessons observed, but also lessons learned. we have taken that process very seriously. it is a high priority for us to be able to continue to support the government in honduras because it is one of the most critical places. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. oas released a report on drug policy in the americas. -- thepposed the nation notion of legalizing the sale and production of marijuana and urged flexibility amongst the hemispheric nations to deal with the drug problem. that it is me counter to what we are trying to do. oasnot shocked that the came up with something like this, but can you talk little bit about this? >> let me start.

i will turn over the details to build. that just say that the united states government, as you know, advocates of holistic approach to drug policy. the report that came out last week was commissioned by the in ars last year discussion that president obama participated in. -- we believed that we need a baseline. we recognize that our policy, our holistic policy, that looks at the drug problem as a whole problem, not just as a criminal justice problem, one that may have -- we have dedicated term in this amounts of money here, almost $10.7 billion is the request this year -- for greater prevention and education, alternate routes to be able to deal with drug

problems in the united states, and the request for this report, we welcome. we are looking at the report. i would note that the report does not make a recommendation. it simply lays out several scenarios that could occur if countries were to follow certain routes. with that, i will let build a little deeper. deeper.a little >> it is a very long document. it is over 200 pages. my simple summary would be, the first part of it, the so-called analytical part, is not bad. professionally done. the so-called scenario section, thatmight happen, i found less satisfactory. at the end of the day, the report was not actually the resounding call for legalization that the media has suggested. i must admit, i went online trade i entered in -- online.

i entered in oas drug study. said "oas calls for legalization of marijuana." that is not what it called for. i have saved you a vast amount of searching. we have gone at this. we have made three or four basic fundamental points. -- alll governments countries of this hemisphere have signed on to three un international drug conventions. we all must abide by those because we have ratified them. second, legalization, the so- called legalization issue is a matter of national policy. one international body is not going to dictate legalization, certainly not to the united states of america, and i doubt to any other nation. third, as john mentioned, the

approach to drugs has to be comprehensive and holistic. we have to address all the issues. you do not just take one and say, we solved that. past.tried that in the it does not work. fourth and finally, united thees government, through office of national drug control policy, put out a new national drug strategy about six weeks ago. it is a good strategy. it is different. i recommend that you take a look at it when you have a moment because it does attempt to address many of the issues that oas identified. public health, looking at alternatives to the criminal justice system, earning down demand -- these are good ideas. these are the things we wish we could have a discussion about in the oas context, as opposed to a simplistic argument a step on a false premise. >> moving on to the merida iitiative and our efforts,

know that some people think that it hasn't really reach the crew being yet. -- the carribean yet. i would disagree with you. i think the real drug movement comes from the caribbean. i think they have moved on. i think a lot of the drugs that come into this country and into europe go through the caribbean. i was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about that because as we make this effort with mexico and the rest of the countries, i think the bloom has popped already in the cribbing. -- the balloon has popped already in the caribbean. >> i would never disagree with you. of course, i acknowledge and agree that the caribbean is a current problem, and more to the point, a growing problem, in terms of drug movement through the region. that is my operating assumption.

we might differ as to how precisely much is moving through it right now. we do not differ on the fact that one, it is growing, more is moving today than a year ago, and second, many of the caribbean states are vulnerable and vulnerable to penetration by large, multi-billion-dollar criminal enterprises, and third, we, the united states of america, do not have the resources and assets in the region that we had back in the 1980s and 1990s, the last time that the caribbean was overwhelmingly the preferred point of entry for illicit product into the united states of america. , we had better think about this today when we have some flexibility in terms of how to prepare for the situation then waiting for two years when we will be confronting a crisis. i think you and i agree on that. weown guess is eventually

owe you a clearer vision as to what our thinking is to strengthen the ability and capabilities of the caribbean ,tates to be able to resist combat, and eventually defeat this effort in the years ahead.

ççyçñ

>> and one that if i am confirmed, i will look forward to working with an encouraging their growth. and their continued out reached, with not just small and medium-sized businesses but all american businesses. >> some of my colleagues asked about manufacturing. i just had a hearing on women in manufacturing. three women as witnesses. as a recent book has pointed out, there is a lot of room for women to grow in business. across manufacturing, women hold 17% of board seats and are just 6%'of%s. ceo's.f

and so these are two things i am getting out. we have job openings in manufacturing in states like mine that have a 5.4% unemployment rate. manufacturers are trying to get women to go into this. this is no longer your grandpa's manufacturing floor. overall in business, you're someone has been successful. how do we get more women into the boardroom and running companies? >> two things i would like to comment, senator. one is i have spent significant time focused on the skills issue and the mismatch in our country. making sure that americans are well trained for the jobs that are open in terms of making sure we have more women in manufacturing, it starts with encouraging more women to get a stetm education.

that is something i have been involved with on the board of stanford and harvard, i have been a proponent of that. and you see much greater mentorship occurring which is a significant part of how i think we can end up with more women in leadership and manufacturing is mentorship and education. >> i look forward to working with you on that. one last question. the commerce department and the economics and statistics administration provide updated information about the social and economic needs of communities. that sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook, but most people are not aware that business leaders heavily rely on this for demographic data so they can do business. it is a tool for market evaluation. i want to get your commitment, because i know these kinds of surveys can be under attack at times. but your understanding they go to good use to help the

american economy and people in business. >> senator, i am well aware of the importance of the data collected because some of the business is i found it, for example, our senior living business totally relies upon the kind of demographic and income data that is collected in those surveys. where we locate our properties said that they can be successful, because no one -- you do not want to build a property and not have it be successful -- depends upon that critical data. so i have enormous appreciation for that work and will continue if i am confirmed to make sure that that is effective data collection. >> thank you. thank you for the commitment which senator warner to continue the strong patent office. we have one company that has so many patents, they have a patent for every employee. so it is very important for our state and we want to continue that, as well as look at some of the issues with the decoration. look at some of

the issues with litigation. so thank you. >> thank you. secretary-designate pritzker, congratulations on your nomination. thank you and your family for your willingness to serve. obviously, i and the committee as a whole are confident that the breadth and depth of your experience private and public will be an added bonus to the commerce department at this important time in our nation's history. he will be taking over the department at a critical time and i hope that as secretary you will use all of your experience to create jobs and expand economic opportunity in the nation. from our conversation the other day, and your oppressive résume ag, i know you are well prepared to lead the department, which is encouraging. it is important to us in massachusetts because we have challenges, one of which we have spent an extensive amount of time talking about.

it will surprise no one in this committee that i want to engage you on the fishing industry. as you know, the fishing industry of massachusetts is 300 year strong. it's not just the boats, but the seaside businesses that are important and that are also struggling. because of changes in the fishing economy. right now, fishermen and the northeast are living under a 77% cut in the number of fish they can catch ended imperils the existence of the industry. you and i discussed this last week. as i mentioned to you, there are challenges, some of which are man-made, and that the fishing industry and my neck of the woods believe they have not had a good partner in the commerce department in recent years. i and i talked to about the need for commerce and noaa to have a much more comprehensive and thoughtful and includes a plan

with our fishing industry to help save this industry and bridge the gap towards a brighter future. so i want to ask if this time you are willing to make a commitment to work with those of us who represent the great and proud fishing industry in the northeast to plan for a brighter future and to address the realities we are facing right now and help us find a way for a collaborative lee, because we believe that has been missing. >> senator, i have great respect for the fishermen all over our country and particularly those in the northeast. andermen are entrepreneurs, i have an affinity for or to entrepreneurship. and i come out of the family business organization. so i appreciate the challenges

fishermen are facing in the northeast. and if i am confirmed as secretary of commerce, noaa needs to improve its relationship with the fishermen and with the citizens in the northeast so that there is more understanding, better communication, a greater transparency and more trust that needs to exist so that if decisions are being made, there is an understanding of what exactly is the data. so, senator, i look forward to working with you. we discussed that when we were together. is something that is very important to me. >> thank you. i would invite you to hit come up to gloucester to meet with our fishing community and the leaders who are supportive of that industry. >> thank you, senator, for the offer. >> if i can go back to a topic that has been raised by the chairman of the issue of cyber security. yourselfness leader

and you mentioned the cyber hits theour current business, in billions. no the importance of this issue. one of the issues, we grapple with this in congress, is what is the best way to move forward constructively, particularly around the issue of information sharing between the private and public sector? it seems to be a particular sticking point. what is your view. on that particular issue, both as a business owner and someone who will be charged with leading the commerce department? >> senator, i think it is very important first to begin the dialogue with the business community and explain to them really what is at stake. each business understands what is at stake for them individually, but i think what is at stake in terms of critical infrastructure, things that businesses may be take for granted, and talk about how we need to come together.

it is important have a seat at the table. the framework and structure that, the dialogues around creating a framework, invite the private sector to be involved. they need to take advantage of that. that would be something i will promote and advocate for. >> great. i would encourage you again during your visit to massachusetts, you might want to visit with some of our elite institutions and the folks at mit in northeastern where you will find a wealth of experts. i am sure they would be willing to work with you. yield the, i will ree remainder of my time. >> some of us are feeling a little hurt because he declined to invite any of your colleagues. to look at your fishing. yesterday and today, you're clear, but we are ready to be

helpful. >> i am pending hand writteni speak to each of you to the great commonwealth of massachusetts. >> i am ready to go. i am not sure they want us up there, but i am ready to go. ms. pritzker, welcome. there are many pluses that comes to bringing private sector experience to the public sector realm. but also you have to face the challenge of being accountable for some of the things that happened in the private sector and people bring up all sorts of things. my first question is, our state, afl-cio and many have a boycott of the alaskan national uphill hyat-- they are concerned about the subcontracting of minimum-wage jobs as a way to keep the work force get a lower rate. concerns about safety in workload issues. one of the things that you will face as secretary is how to

maintain and get a high wage job into our economy. do you want to comment on the former or how we do the latter? for have been in business 27 years, and the cornerstone of success in business is you have to have a good relationship and a good balance between management and labor. there is no success in business without a good relationship between management and labor, and i support the right of workers to organize if that is what they want to do. it is extremely important that, that, as i said, management and labor work closely together on issues of good jobs, and creating sustainable jobs. notion of subcontracting to keep minimum-wage jobs is not something you support?

>> no, senator. >> as far as high standards for safety and workload issues? >> senator, the high standards for safety -- absolutely. the work force is part of one's business family. have a business that operates in a way that works for everyone. all thent, labor, stakeholders. to become a safety and security in one's labor force and management is absolutely a number one priority. >> one issue i would love to see you take a leadership role on within the department and one that you and i get a chance to talk about and one in which i think you could bring a huge private sector focus to that would be very helpful is this issue that the chairman brought up in his opening statement nation.ready

to think that noaa was getting information from europe because they were further ahead, four days ahead of what sandy was going to be. that is because they instituted new technology and use a model which basically analyzes the storm and information data in a new way and present said. presents it. what do you think you can do to bring this to a weather-ready nation? i know that there will be more supercomputing time. this is an issue where we have to keep competitive. and the last couple of days showed us the difference between knowing 15 minutes ahead of time and an hour ahead of time is a huge difference. so what you think you can do to help us modernize that? >> senator, we are reminded over the net last several months

the importance of having -- the last several months, the importance of having a top- quality weather service. between hurricane sandy and hurricanes in oklahoma, the flooding in the midwest, we have all seen how our weather can threaten lives, as well as property, but lives. if i am confirmed as secretary of commerce, making sure that our weather service is best in class is something i would find a high priority. >> and so do you think that could include working with the department of defense? part of the issue is that they have great satellite technology information but it is secure. what i am looking for is your leadership ability bringing agencies together as well and figuring out how to -- get the best information in to public officials hands so we can do a better job of helping people

prepare. because the technology is there to know the power of the storms. >> senator, one of the things i prided myself and my business career is working in partnership with others. of the weather or many other aspects of what the department is engaged and, if i am confirmed, that would be something i would take seriously and work hard to achieve -- could parsons with other agencies and particularly on the issue of the weather service -- good partnerships with other agencies. 1 saidlate ron brown that he was secretary of commerce but at the number of congress was calling him, he guaranteed it was about fish. i have the same concerns and want to know what your thoughts are on the bristol bay pebble that hash is in alaska basically, it is at the head of one of the largest fisheries

which is basically the headwaters for puget sound s almon. we want to be sure that you are adamant about good signs leading the way to protecting against undue development that might impact those fisheries. >> senator, i know the importance of salmon. you and i talked about that earlier -- to your state into our country into my dinner plate at times. and finding a balance of nature that we get, we protect the salmon is very important. to me, i do not know the specifics of the mine situation, but if i am confirmed that will be something of a look into. >> i am interested in whether you have a good science engaged in the process. >> absolutely, senator. the importance of science and

technology used throughout the agency is important in that area. >> thank you. to be followed by senator mccaskill. >> thank you very much, ms. pritzker for being here. thank you for taking the time to meet with me two days ago. i appreciate your willingness to be subjected to all of these processes and to be a public servant. i know that takes sometimes. i want to follow-up on fish, because as you know alaska produces the wildcot american fish products, 50% of fish. we have a huge interest economically and otherwise. i agree with my colleague that talkfish.ill the -- the calls you get will be about fish. you'll think there will be about

agreements and trade and tourism, but they will be about fish. we will go through the rewrites. that is something we will be engaged with you on. let me ask you and we're going to -- you are going to lose some of your national marine fisheries service is, eric schwab who is now stepping down. there in has been a lot of issues to make sure that we have leadership there and in noaa. i guess our commitment to you will make this a priority as quickly as possible, because of the work that we have to do on bill and thezation fisheries issues that are in front of us right now. >> senator, one thing i know from my 27 years of business is it is important to have good expertise around me. and so what if i am confirmed, i will want to make sure that the agency has the best in class

folks in those positions, because i know how important the fishing industry is and to you and to many of your colleagues here, and something that i will commit to, i will make sure we have the right people in place to work with you on this. >> and the key to me is as quickly as possible. >> absolutely. >> it is getting as nervous as we move through the reauthorization. let me also -- we talked about satellites. you are learning quite a bit about your role. he would manage satellites. there is a group of independent review from the aerospace executives the call the program dysfunctional. i just want to make sure that you are committed to looking at this program. it is a multibillion-dollar program. timing is critical. makes a difference on our weather forecast. so we do not have to depend on

other people. will you commit to make sure that we do not spend -- he will spend the appropriate time to dive into how to make the system better than it is today? ares around allocations getting the resources for them and helping us understand what we should be doing to help make that better. >> senator, i thoroughly appreciate the critical mission of our satellites. we've seen how important they are to protecting life as well as property over just the last week, let alone with the horrible tragedy in oklahoma, let alone with hurricane sandy and with the floods in the midwest. making sure that we had best in class technology and that we can understand what is going on with the weather and be able to get that voice out and get the information out as quickly as possible as well as accurately as possible is very important.

if i am confirmed as secretary of commerce, it is something that we will make sure to focus on. >> one area, also, on satellites -- the weather. since 2010, the national weather service has lost 300 positions. in the present fiscal year 2014 budget, he eliminates another 103 positions, an 8% reduction. there is a hiring freeze in place. in alaska, this is creating problems. we are in flood season. we are about to hit fire season in many parts of the country. in alaska, we have been missing entire shifts with the people. now they are bringing people in on overtime. you know that running a business when you start doing overtime there are costs -- fatigue and other costs that are hard to measure until something bad happens. then you realize they were working too many hours or the fatigue occurred.

can i get a commitment from you that you will be examined the decision of the hiring freeze and how they are handling furloughs and the weather service? to me, i have run businesses. i ran the city. this is not the best way to do it. it is going to have a negative impact on the product we need for situations like oklahoma or sandy. >> senator, i share with you your concern to make sure that we have the appropriate staffing. and i am aware that noaa is working to mitigate the impact of the staffing challenges and budget issues on its critical mission. if i am confirmed as secretary of commerce, making sure that our weather service is appropriately set up and operational is a high priority. >> let me go to another issue -- this is a selection.

this is one, we talked about this on the arctic oil and gas a thes, that noa supplemental draft out right now. it is, it was issued a few weeks ago. the definition, when you look at it, it defines it as if the drilling program is to limit each company to only one drill well at a time in the theatre, meaning two areas of theatre, one rig, one well total. that is not going to work based on the 600 leases we have. by that action, you can determine the outcome which is nothing will happen. i know we talked about this -- i am not asking for your position because you need to be confirmed first -- but would you give some assurances at least here did you will work to ensure that the people that have lease is up there can fully utilize those under the environmental

conditions -- but not the -- collapsingg it by their ability to move forward. i need them to look at that entire air shed at one time. would you commit to look at the broader picture in making sure that we do not do something vely impact going forward? >> i know how important oil and stateploration is to your and the country. it is something i would need to look into. i am not familiar. i will look into it and look forward to working with you on that. >> fantastic. on that note, i will say that when you start to talk about a mine in alaska, we would encourage you to talk to us also.

i appreciate my colleagues' interest in this issue. there is only one state that has the strongest interest -- us. >> i will try to make sure that all stakeholders have a voice. >> very good. as the chairman knows, we invite you to alaska. >> appreciate that. >> senator mccaskill? >> thank you, ms. pritzker for being here today. i am aware that for a lot of good reasons, a lot of americans have a cynical view of the federal work force. and us. they looked at people who work for the federal government writ large and make assumptions that many times are unfair, that they are federal employees -- there are federal employees that their bureaucratic bozos and not working very hard and making way

too much money. i have got to tell you i find it refreshing to find someone who is stepping up like you are in this position. i think it is pretty obvious the were not coming to this job for a paycheck. i think it is pretty obvious you are not coming to relax and soak off the taxpayers. you're not coming because you see this as an easy challenge. i think you are really coming because you have a desire to serve this country. and your business background is one i can think conserve this country very well. the president has proposed to do away with the commerce department and combine the commerce department with small business administration, ustr and other agencies that have various intersections with business in this country. proposing to do away with part of the federal government is

difficult. and i would ask you, do you have some ideas on how your service in this job could help prove that cold forward in terms of identifying some strong, bipartisan arguments that could be made? one of the problems is we have a lot of committees that deal with various agencies that are not excited about the idea of us trying to avoid some of the duplication and overlap. i am wondering if you had given that any thought. and based on your business background, when sometimes streamlining and selling and merging are essential, because you have the discipline of the bottom line. unfortunately, we do not have the bottom line discipline in washington. i wonder if you have ideas about that. >> senator, i appreciate your inquiring. i support the president's desire for reorganization authority if. i know his objective is to try

and make the government more streamlined and more effective and efficient. i am not exactly sure how , i personally if i was confirmed as secretary of commerce, could assist in that effort. give thess were to president that authority, i would work to support and try to give him my best advice which is what he has asked me to do in this job. in the meantime, as the commerce department is set up, if i was concerned, i would look to try and figure out how we can streamline and be more efficient with the current set up. >> i would look forward to working with you on an ongoing basis, particularly when you find issues of duplication and overlap. my colleague, senator coburn,

has worked hard on this duplication issue and it is a real. some people on my side of the aisle to not want to confront it. but there is duplication. just look at the broadband issue. in agriculture and in commerce. two programs and with the same goals, but two different sets of snow and rules dealing with the pots of money in both places. i would love to work with you is how we is you identified can back away a little bit. >> i look forward to working with you on that. >> the other thing i want to mention to you is i have discovered there was an idea a while ago about creating a federal work force called senior executive service. and senior executive service was created ostensibly to develop a great talent in the federal

government to compete with the private sector. the idea is these would be highly qualified employees with a broad background and knowledge, that they would move around the government basically with a lot of excellence helping us to do a better job performing the services we must. i do not think that has actually come to pass. i think that most of the senior executive service in the federal government is not moving much. i think many of them are burrowed in in agencies. it has come to my attention that they continue to get very, very large bonuses, even in this economic climate. i have put in a piece of legislation to stop the bonuses for the senior executive services employees. the average bonus is 5 figures. they are healthy bonuses for the government. i think the average bonus is $16,000. the salary for this people ranges between $119,000 and

$180,000 a year. these are the crown democrats on. creme.creme de la what i found troubling is that in some agencies. agencies,-- in some everyone got the bonus. was pro forma. you got the bonus. i would ask you to take a look at ses in the commerce department and the legislation i have introduced would prohibit those bonuses from being given in the environment sequestration, because we have. line employees that have to take days off without pay. and then we have this upper crust of federal employees that are still getting five figure bonuses. and that does not make sense from a business perspective. so i would love you to take a look at the ses'es in the commerce department and look at

the bonus procedures and get back to my office as to what you think. gsa reform did on their own. they have quit doing it when we discovered this. and i would love to see the commerce department follow suit. >> bank, senator. i am not familiar with ses, but i look forward to learning about it. i know from my private sector days that bonuses should be earned if one has performed and not if otherwise, and certainly at a time of the thai government budget we need to watch every penny and make sure it is appropriately spent -- at this time of tight government. >> welcome to the pit. thank you. >> senator luce? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ms. pritzker for coming by my office this week and a visiting. i enjoyed the chance to visit. >> me, too, thank you.

>> i would say at the outset in a bipartisan note i want to echo the comments that senator mccaskill raised about looking at the bonuses. thatnk that is an area additional close scrutiny is certainly warranted. talkinglike to begin by about a topic you and i talked about in my office, which was free trade. and in the course of that conversation, as i understood what he said, you said you were enthusiastic, unapologetic he advocate of free trade. is that a fair character it station? would you elaborate? >> i am a believer that trade agreements can be advantageous for american business. concerned, i will look

for to working with our u.s. trade rep to expand our trade agreements, so that our businesses and our -- can grow and grow their employment population. i think -- and create jobs for people in this country, good jobs. so i am hopeful that the european trade negotiation and somethingasia can be that if we could get a good agreement can be good for american business and good for american job creation. >> thank you, ms. pritzker. as i shared with you, i have been disappointed that the current administration has been less than a vigorous in pursuing free trade. if you are confirmed, i hope you will be an effective voice for making the administration far more vigorous going forward.

a second area that we talked about that i would like to discuss is the area of regulation. as you know, my top priority in office is restoring economic growth in this country. i think that is the most critical elements to ensuring our long-term strength and to also expanding the opportunity in this country for the least well-off among us, to climb the economic ladder and achieve the american dream. and we talked quite a bit about the impact of overly burdensome regulation and how that can harm businesses and especially small businesses that they're just starting and struggling and generate 2/3 of new jobs. yesterday in confirmation hearings in this room, the nominee to be secretary of transportation, i had a similar conversation with him and asked him at the time, if he would

tomit in his first 100 days working to identify at least three regulations that are overly burdensome and to working with me and with this committee to modify or repeal bills. indeed, his response, i liked very much. in that he suggested that three might not be enough and he suggested instead -- tan, which i accepted that as a friendly amendment. as a, was accepted friendly commitment. i would ask you if you would make the same commitment. >> un die had this conversation and agree, as does the president that is extremely important that we look at our regulatory environment which has become where we put regulation on top of regulation and see how can we streamlined so that is effective and also so that businesses can grow and be innovative and can

create jobs and economic growth. enthusiastic and would look at the commerce department. i am not sure the regulations in the commerce department are as vast as the regulations of transportation, but i would enthusiastically work with the organization to find opportunities to streamline regulation. >> terrific. i appreciate that. you also suggested in our conversation and that the concept off zero-based regulation, rather than piling one regulation and another and continue to grow unwieldy, that we ought to start from zero and ask what regulation is needed here and sensible. i very much agree with that notion. he so i would welcome, if would perhaps elaborate on the concept as he shared when we

visited. often isiness one required to start again, if you will, or look at the situation and tame zero-based budgeting and say, let's take a fresh look at the situation. i think that is what the president was getting at with the executive order, to try to look at the cost benefit of what we have got and streamline our regulatory structure. idea is to start from scratch and say, what we try to accomplish with the regulation and how do we do that most effectively? precisely, how one accomplishes that is not something i an expert at, but i look forward to learning and tried to help with that effort. >> a very good. i look forward to working with you on that and hope if you are confirmed that you can provide a voice in this administration for

pulling back the regulations that i think are so damaging economic growth and killing jobs and really impacting in a negative way a great many americans who are struggling. the last topic i want to discuss briefly is the topic of spectrum. right now the vast majority of usable spectrum is owned or shared by the government, 60% to 70%. last year's spectrum act requires the ntia to promote the best possible and most efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum resources across the federal government. in my view, the federal government ownership of assets, be they spectrum or land or anything else, should be the minimum necessary to protect our critical national interest. and spectrum, in particular, i would like to see as much of it as possible placed in the private sector to allow entrep

productiveput into use it to generate jobs. do you agree with that approach? and would you agree to work together to try to assess just how much spectrum the federal government needs and how much of that can be sold at a significant profit to the government to the private sector to be put to productive use? >> well, senator, i support the president's goal of having -- he the agencies to look for 500 megahertz of spectrum. megahertzas found 100 of spectrum for commercial use. i support the effort a finding as much spectrum as is possible to be used for commercial use, balancing of course, our national security and other

needs. and that is something that if i am concerned, i would work closely with the head ofnita to make sure that we find that spectrum. >> very good. thank you. >> i look forward to it. >> thank you, sir, very very much. ms. pritzker i have two questions to ask. a year ago,hs to all over washington, by which i mean at the white house in here and a couple other places, we were celebrating something called firstnet. there were virtual cheering sessions at the white house. everybody was so pleased. they loved the idea because it involved the voluntary option, it would not cost the taxpayers a dime. we finally got the house to

agree to push them up to $7 billion. is about $11 billion it would cost. none of it comes from the taxpayers. it is the perfect storm. course the -- and of reason for this is, as you know, the firefighters. it goes back to the kuwait. nobodyded in kuwait, could communicate with each other. i served on the intelligence committee. ofive in tha situationt stovepipes will people will not share. the first thing we passed after 9/11 in this country, the first law was embarrassing. allowedd a law which the fbi in the cia to talk to each other. not that they would do anything, but they have to be allowed to talk to each other.

the world has changed. rapid response, real time. so we came up with the idea of firstnet as a public safety spectrum. firefighters, police, law enforcement, fbi, emt, if youare firefighter you can see with the technology that would be a hand-held devices by first responders all over the country the same hand-held device. not yet completely done, but they could see how many bodies were in the burning building. be seriousppear to injuries so they could then send photographs on to the hospital, where the person was being taken said they would be prepared. it is such a common sense idea. it is desperately needed. people so wants it. this room when we had the hearing. it was nothing but first

responders. they are just totally -- they want it. we are not getting it. required,tax money is but obviously it has some problems. and we created this firstnet. gin. named sam he runs it. 15 people on the board. but we have not been able to see enough movement. now, maybe that is in the nature of things. something that vast, that the engineers and the architecture of the whole approach takes time. i do not know, but i do not want to accept that. i want to hear feelings of improvement, of moving forward. at best, to spread this out across the nation i would think would take maybe a decade.

i mean, all of the towers. it is an enormous project. but it is what our country needs because, as i believe the climate is changing, and you know -- one of our problems in oklahoma, i think they passed a role -- i am not sure if i am right -- in their state legislature that you did not have to build a basement. that is not right. and firstnet would not change that you understand the concept, the urgency of public safety with so much tragedy and disruption. as well as the possibility or probability of attacks by americans on our own country. they can do with computers with the chinese can do with computers. not everybody is affable that way. so a lot want to know is that if

you are confirmed, that you will set mind, body and soul to firstnet, to working with them, to understanding the problem, understanding why more is not happening and there may be a good reason for that. maybe i am just a patient because i am not an engineer, structural or otherwise. if i knew that you are confirmed as the secretary of commerce, we are watching this very closely. i would feel quite good. will you do that? >> senator, i share your commitment to firstnet. it is a good, practical, great idea that will benefit the first responders as well as people who are in distress. so if i am confirmed as secretary of commerce, something i will make sure that the board of firstnet, which is in charge of the implementation, that we work with them so they understand the urgency and the need to implement this as

effectively and efficiently and as quickly as possible. >> good. thank you very much. senator? >> all right, mr. chairman, just you and me. we have to wrap this up. the unpleasantness is about over four ms. pritzker. for a minute here, i will channel senator grassley. some have criticized the fact you are a beneficiary of offshore tax avoidance schemes, and that it is hypocritical for the president to nominate a cabinet member who benefited from offshore tax havens when he has criticized that practice. how do you respond to that criticism? >> senator, i am the beneficiary of a family trust that was set up when i was a little girl. i did not create them up or control them. i have asked the trustee to appoint and remove themselves and to appoint the u.s. trustee.

but i have complied with all of the disclosure obligations, etc., that have been required of me in this process. >> let me ask you one other quick question if i might. one of the areas under your purview is going to be the administration enforcement of anti--dumping laws. and the laws intended for it to prevent domestic industries from being destroyed by imports sold here at low prices. the commerce department determines the precise amount of duties and the price of dumped imports. million ind hit $500 anti-dumping duties and build an agricultural imports from china have remained uncollected. and even though their payment is secured by specialized single entry customs bonds that were issued by well-known u.s.

insurance companies, the question is -- we commit to provide congress with a full accounting of all shipper bonds debt secured the imports from china? not familiar am with exactly what you're discussing. i know what anti-dumping is, but i will look into it and i will commit to working with you on this issue. >> there are a number of honey producers in south dakota that would be happy to hear about that. from trans shipped honey china. the enforcements available do not effectively utilized, so we would welcome your help with that issue. >> making sure that not just honey producers and that our american companies are on a level playing field and our laws are not being skirted is an important objective. if i am confirmed, i will work on that. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to thank you, ms. pritzker, for this hearing. i think you have one of the three toughest jobs in washington. i know you do. i put the president and dod ahead, but i cannot think of anybody else. and i also want to thank you and thank free family members. i went to centre has been for helping me to stand up in the other room while we're -- i want to think your husband for helping me to stand up. the big and strong guy. was not hard for him. and i also want to thank our audience. we did something we have never done before and that was just because of the importance of this nomination. we opened up a whole other room, a defense arm services room.

and they are sitting there watching television of this. and i think that is very, very important. i very much appreciate our audience. i'd very much appreciate our colleagues. and i very much appreciate you. i wish you well on this. you will certainly have my vote. and so that's that. >> thank you, senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

conversations]

accounts.o ffshore >> we have probed those issues pretty well with her already and she has submitted a number of answers for the record. i do not know that there is anything there that happened there that has not been answered effectively today. but we will clean up a few loose ends and tried to get those questions on the record. obviously, those are things that have been reported done pretty heavily. we want to get her response to them in a way that i think

hopefully will for most people -- will satisfy their curiosity. i mean, i do not want to make any predictions. i thought she did well today. like i said, she brings a great business background which i think is essential and needed in the current administration and expertise that i think will be very helpful. and we have not seen anything in there that would be -- in her record or background. i will leave it at that for now. wind this thing up probably. >> thank you. president obama outlined his counter-terrorism priorities in his speech yesterday. and talked about al qaeda end drone strikes. and we will get your feedback on the president's remarks on this morning's "washington journal" that starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern

what has happened in the senate, most notably for three consecutive -- we did not consider a budget resolution. i served on the budget committee. enter up the budget history since 1974, there have been years in which the budget resolution has not passed -- but three consecutive years? this is the fourth. they finally pass when and the senate, but the house and senate have not reconcile their differences. this was supposed to be done by april 15. so statutory, congress is required to pass the budget and complete that by april 15. and here we are languishing. they do not think they have to bother with it. it is no wonder everything has gotten so distorted about sequestration, the automatic cuts. we have major debt. debt.trillion national we're in uncharted territory

without question. >> former republican senator olympia snowe on fixing the current state of congressional gridlock sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on afterwards, part of the three day holiday weekend this weekend on c-span's "book tv." outlines his obama counterterrorism strategy at the national defense university. he defended u.s. drone strikes overseas as legal and >> it is a great honor to return to the national defense university. here, at fort mcnair, americans have served in uniform since 1791, standing guard in the early days of the republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century. for over two centuries, the united states has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as americans, and served as our compass through every type of change.

matters of war and peace are no different. americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. from the civil war, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the cold war, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. but our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end. with the collapse of the berlin wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. then, on september 11, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. thousands were taken from us, as

clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. this was a different kind of war. no armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could. and so our nation went to war. we have now been at war for well over a decade. i won't review the full history. what's clear is that we quickly drove al qaeda out of afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in iraq. this carried grave consequences for our fight against al qaeda, our standing in the world, and to this day -- our interests in a vital region. meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror.

most of these changes were sound. some caused inconvenience. but some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. and in some cases, i believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. after i took office, we stepped up the war against al qaeda, but also sought to change its course. we relentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership. we ended the war in iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan, and increased our training of afghan forces.