carolina on attorney general eric holder's future. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. here are the morning headlines. from the "wall street journal" from. 22 workers at the washington investigators that agency officials in d.c. helped erect tea party reviews. the news comes at the house oversight government and reform committee hold a hearing on excessive spending by the agency. 3ive coverage at 9:30 on c-span and these zen radio. "usa today" -- senator marco rubio met with the conservative re--- wing of the house republican party to try to sell immigration reform. one conservative says it is unlikely any pathway to citizenship can get through the house. also up on capitol hill today,

attorney general eric holder will be back up there testifying about the agency's 2014 budget. live coverage on c-span.org at 10:45. meanwhile, president obama reshuffled his national security team. tapping susan rice to replace outgoing national security advisor tom donilon. we will get your thoughts next. republicans, (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. and independent, all others, (202) 585-3882. what you think think about president obama reshuffling the national security team? tweet us -- twitter.com @cspanwj. poster comment on facebook.com/ c-span. also send us an e-mail -- journal@c-span.org john hudson is with us on the

phone and here are two different headlines about president obama announcing his picks - guest: i think part of that is contingent with the fact that the president has brought in some confidence insiders who have been close to them throughout his political career, at least to terms of when he became president. 2007 rice endorsed him in with much political rest -- risk and was his u.n. ambassador. amanda power has also been with the president throughout his bid

for the white house. what could change about this and signal a change is the fact that both of them are strong, liberal, interventionists who have advocated for intervention for humanitarian reasons. that is in contrast intopm donelin, the current national security adviser and has now stepped down he is described more as a cautious to realist who is more skeptical about intervening in using military force. this amountbout of powers and her post to the united nations. schock about her background on this interventionist front. andt: she was a journalist, she has covered genocide and

written about it provocatively and has a long paper trail. where she is most famous in terms of works she has written for her book about rwanda and genocide in 1994 which is very critical of the clinton administration. interestingly enough, despite the fact that she has been critical of america and u.s. efforts or lack there of to intervene in a humanitarian situation, she is getting broad support from neo-conservatives, as a road yesterday and that is mostly due to her belief that sovereign borders can be violated for humanitarian purposes. something that can serve -- neo-conservatives find

appealing. host: what does that mean for the situation in syria? guest: that is the million- dollar question son. have speculated this is a signal that the united states could be moving toward intervention. moree humanitarian side, than 80,000 people being killed, it is the most severe humanitarian catastrophe happening right now in the world. with this choice by the president who have been all about intervention -- intervention, he will have advisers who may be pushing him in that direction. as opposed to tom donelin has been a cautious or less. ultimately, the president makes those decisions and there are reasons that are legitimate to

be cautious about intervening in syria. if he continues to find that persuasive, there should not be any confidence that will change. host: what has been the reaction to tapping susan rice for this national security post? guest: it has been interesting. susan rice has taken a groundswell of political pressure ever since -- especially in the run-up to her withdrawing her name as secretary of state in november. she was the one who recited the administration's talking point that turned out to be incorrect. she had a bevy of conservatives attacking her and saying she was part of the cover-up related to the terrorist attack in benghazi. for that, many saw her as damaged goods.

that's why her appointment as national security adviser is such a significant career turn around. she was going to be inside the white house, very close to the president, advising him on everything from cyber-hacking on whether to intervene more significantly and with i ran and -- with iran and india boss nuclear program. there's a statement issued that certain republicans are willing to work with her. that is a positive sign. it is yet to be seen how much of a push back there will be. the important thing is being national security adviser does not require senate confirmation

. this is her new job. some that the powers job does require confirmation. power is a job does require confirmation. host: what is it looking like right n for her prospects? question that a is difficult to foresee. things are likely to come up. infamous 2002 interview in which she says it might be necessary to use extra to help inside israel broker peace between the palestinians and israelis. she has also said that my comment cost of a wealthy domestic constituency in the united states which most believe refers to a jewish-americans.

she has distance herself from those comments cents. i spoke with alan dershowitz yester day who is a serious watchdog of comments seemed -- that seem to be anti-israel and he has said that she is a friend not clearand it is how much a remark like that will hurt her. anything can happen during confirmation and she has a very long paper trail of saying things that many could find controversial. webber, it is important to remember -- however, she has been on the front lines about genocide and human rights issues since she was in her early 20's. thatould not be surprising

there is a trail of controversial comments dealing with the controversial subject matter. host: why is tom donelin leaving? guest: you would have to ask him but is an extremely demanding job to be national security adviser. washington aren not quick to accept the excuse or rationale that someone wants to spend more time with their family. i think people should be open to all the idea that is the case. host: will be his legacy? my colleague wrote an incredible profile of tom donilon last week. it says a few things about him.

he is known to be a very demanding national security adviser who could, at times, undercut an elbow aside challenges to his power. the administration made a full court press to say he is someone who was very well respected. he is also the person who has advised the president on some of the most important national security issues he has had to deal with and he has briefed the president on a daily basis and made that a part of his legacy. you brought up that is tough to be the national security adviser. what do they do? from: it depends administration to administration. sometimes it means you are making sure the interagency process in foreign policy

matters is streamlined. we are talking about state department, the pentagon, the cia, using the entire national security apparatus and scheduling meetings, making sure that it is flowing seamlessly. is the cores, that job of the national security adviser. gone above and beyond and briefed the president on a daily basis of all important matters regarding national security. host: mediator/manager -- is that how you would describe it? guest: s. host: how will susan rice the different? guest: first and foremost, she is extremely loyal to the president. she will be looking out for his interests.

that is important to remember is that she's got the same amount of political savvy as ton donilon,. she grew up in washington and lives and breathes washington. ana sense, that will be important characteristic. she will carry on some of those same skills sets. ist people point to and it worth looking at, she is much less of a cautious realists. she does not believe issues of sovereignty are absolute when it comes to wanting to intervene and crossed a nation's borders. especially when it is opposed to u.s. interests. host: thank you for your time. we turn to all of you and get

your thoughts on president obama reshuffling his national security team. the phone numbers are on your screen. here are a couple of tweets - linda mississippi, democratic caller -- caller: i think he has made a great choice in choosing the team he is choosing now. the first term, i think he was to do due diligence and get along with everybody but now he has decided to put his own team, doing his own foreign

policy. whatever he does will always be criticized by republicans. susan rice is loyal, capable, and can do this job. she says she had nothing to do with the benghazi issue. get on the economy, jobs, jobs, jobs. host: this is from " the new york times."

you concerned that this could jeopardize his second term agenda? caller: if he does not stand up to him, they will walk over him. if he tries to work with them,

he wants to do it his way now. let them follow along. let's listen to president obama in his own words just today in the rose garden when he made the announcement of these picks. [video clip] >> today i am wistful to announce that after more than four years of extraordinary service, tom has decided to step aside at the beginning of july. i am extraordinarily proud to announce my new national security adviser, are extending ambassador to the united nations, susan rice [applause] as well as my to replace susan in new york, samantha powers. host: president obama announcing

the new packs for his national security team. inside " the new york times," they take a look at the changes in president obama's foreign policy team.

ed, in lawrenceville, ga., republican caller. caller: i am upset with his choices. the policy chooses palestinians

over the jews. also, i am worried that iran is getting the nuclear missile, i mean a nuclear bomb. i doubt very seriously of obama will do anything to stop them. he claims he is doing something but i don't hear anything or see anything. all i know is they continue to move on with getting a nuclear bomb. an outspoken critic of susan rice had this to say -- george in eastview, kentucky, democratic caller. how loud?

what host: are your thoughts about reebok -- obama reshuffling the foreign policy team? caller: i'm not going to cry about it. there is no cooperation between republicans at all. there is absolutely nothing and there never will be. ill., independent caller. caller: i am baffled by his decision because he chose someone who obviously would say know whathen they they said was not true. i feel uncomfortable of for being our security adviser. i don't think you can trust her, has no integrity. host: from twitter --

what are your thoughts? that is a serious position to begin. you want somebody who was an independent thinker, who will advise the president. you want them to advise, not someone who is going to be a lap dog and go along with whatever. i don't know if she is capable for that position. host: don't think she will give her opinion? caller: exactly, i don't think she strong enough to do that. she knows the right thing to do -- she has proven --

she seems to be that she has proven that she will not stand up. host: let me read from david ignatius in "the washington post" -

caller: it goes to my point in some aspects that she is going to speak his mind. she is going to put forth what he wants or what ever he thinks. we needorld we live in, people that can be objective and take this serious. lies at here many that he is responsible for for some they not to challenge him. host: have you been following the situation in syria? do you have any thoughts on that? what do you think?

perhaps saying that having susan rice closer to him in this role, that he will have sharper thinking on what to do in syria. i think the situation has gotten out of control. they made a statement that there was a line to cross and they are not sure if the line was crossed. thought the idea was not to be at war forever. last week, he said he is worried about terrorist but these are not terrorists. it is a country in turmoil. they are not the only ones -- the only country that is having a civil war.

i don't know if she knows what to do. i don't think any of them know what to do at this point. host: carnegie, pa., republican caller, what are your thoughts? this susan rice -- i am a world war two veteran and the want to say there is a lot of things that susan rice has not brought up like family. when he says she is a leader, she is a follower, not a leader. if she was a leader, she would definitely take the lead from obama and say she is not going to accept that i will go on the radio and i am not going to accept that i lied people and we don't know that. we cannot condemn her. didn't he name the other

person as the security adviser and put susan rice in her place where she could be nominated by the congress? host: that is the job she already holds as u.n. ambassador. your point is that you would like to see a public hearing with susan rice and were questioned as to her? presidentsolutely, obama lied to us. he said it would be an open conversation between myself and the people. out in thewould come open and tell everything how it happens. hillary clinton met with the woman's son to kill the benghazi and she said nine months ago that we are going to get those people who made that movie. we have heard nothing anymore. nothing, nothing, nothing anymore. host: here is a suite -- --tweet -

derick randallstown, maryland, democratic caller -- caller: you are only as good as the information you are given. you don't have to go any further than the iraq situation with bush and cheney. it's funny because all of the republicans are starting up this mess. they cannot get any minorities to vote for them, they will get the women -- forget that. susan rice is an extremely intelligent woman with a ph.d. from oxford and a rhodes scholar. she is no dummy. she gave out the information given her. as far as i'm concerned, keep playing hard ball with these republicans, mr. president, you are doing a great job.

don't let them intimidate you, thank you host: here is another tweet - we will keep getting your thoughts on president obama reshuffling his national security team but in other news -- there is the headline on the front page of "the wall street journal" - there were two reporters that the transcripts on capitol hill on the irs targeting of the conservative groups. "the washington times"reports that senator mark rubio is part of the so-called gang of eight emigration and he told reporters yesterday that he is flexible on

the immigration bill and willing to do a piece mail approach, something they are thinking about doing on the house side. this comes as the gang of eight has come together in a final deal. however, they lost one of the conservative republicans who dropped out saying he could not support the final legislation. "the washington times" - the invest -- mentioned investigation on capitol hill. they will be hearing testimony today irs spending on conferences.

we will have live coverage of that on c-span 3 at 9:30 this morning and cspan radio as well also, this story on the front page of "the washington times" - that is in many of the papers this morning. you are also hearing about this headline this morning --

from "the washington times" this morning -- also, we told you about this yesterday -- chrysler refuses to recall its jeeps. the story is in "usa today" --

back to your phone calls about president obama mixing up his national security team. we will go to troy, alabama, independent college. my question is -- the president's cabinet. they did not fill at the last four years and why don't they work on filling it now? i'm wondering why the newspapers will not talk about it. what about the opinion of the writers? host: what do you mean?

do you mean the senate has not confirmed? caller: yes, you have sitting -- some sitting and waiting from last time. that is the problem with everything getting out of whack. -- republicans are acting and the democrats, too -- as if they do not have a job to do. when it comes to john mccain and those three judges they were appointed, they will go through a necessary trials and they are filling it in the cabinet. they keep throwing irrelevant stuff at us. jersey,tterson, new republican caller -- caller: i am calling about susan rice and the foreign policy

team. i find it a. iffy. it was a slap in the face to republicans. i did not get her for secretary of state but now i've got her as the national security adviser without your oversight. to me, that is a slap in the face. host: ok. caller: i don't know much about toantha power so i will have research her a little bit and get more in-depth but from that point, it is like a slap in the face to republicans. and to america like what is going on with benghazi and many things. you pulled out the article about the nsa acquiring found records, there is no accountability and

supposedly susan rice, when she was a u.n. ambassador, it was like throwing the benghazi thing. we will hold her accountable? here is a tweet - let me show you the front page of the "burlington county times" on the funeral of the late frank lautenberg -- we covered that but if you missed it, a lot of commentary about vice president joe biden's eulogy today, that he had everyone laughing at your interested, go to our website, c-span.org, you can watch it on

our lunch -- on your lunch break. this is from "usa today" - also, speaking of congress coming here is "the national journal" from yesterday --

there are stories in "the new york times" about john dingell and his serving her the years in congress. also, here is "the washington times" editorial -- a couple of more phone calls, frank in memphis, tenn., democratic column. caller: good morning. we arefind very strange, a country with a whole lot of different races. why are they trying to put this sarah lee and power to the president? -- why are they trying to put this power to the president? anyone can rule the country.

about thetalk credentials of susan rise. we just talk about the garbage. don't we have black people in congress and the house? how come they are never on your show? all i see is white folks on tv. folks, tv andk talk about the issues? let them be mad at their own people. have a nice day. host: married in fort washington, maryland, democratic column. caller: i think the president made a wonderful choice. he cousin -- he could get susan rice in the first time but he got hurt in the second time and he was persistent. i would like to say that someone called up and talked about her integrity. they need to get the facts

straight. put up her credentials. she is overqualified. for some reason, the republican party still wants to play that 2014 and you of crazy people running for office that will be gone and they will follow michelle bachmann and the people without integrity are john boehner, mitch mcconnell, and the man has no intention of doing anything instead of trying except to try to keep the president as a one-term president. if they go to the bathroom, they try to block him and we will not tolerate it. we will work together and get a congress and office that is going to do something for the people. the old boy network is gone. we cannot wait for all of them to die. we just want to kill their ignorance ideas. we want to make sure -- don't cut me off -- i want to make sure we do this in 2014 when the people will let their racist republican party now.

va.,.abington, caller: i have not been able to get through in a number of years. i was enjoying hearing the conversation. host: we are listening to you, what are your thoughts? had hoped to get through and talk to representative maloney. host: is coming up next but got through to quickly. caller: am so proud that our president is taking a stand and has appointed susan rice and not just been bullied any more by the republican party. said, shevious caller is more than qualified. our national of

security. i hope he continues to stand up to bullies. nbc: is is a story from news.com - you can go to our website for more, c-span.org. we want to turn our attention to the senate race to fill secretary of state john kerry's seats that he left for the top post at the state department. has thiston globe"

headline -- we are joined on the pawn by a political reporter. we covered this debate on c- span. what was the take away? guest: it is that there was not any game changing moment in this debate. markey.nt hard after something did not shift the dynamic. ed markey has led and it is difficult for a republican to win statewide in massachusetts and gomez was feisty and markey adept in fending off the attacks. was this the chance for

gabriel gomez to make a first impression in this race? guest: it is the first debate between the two so it is the first time that many voters got a look at gabriel gomez. he is a political newcomer and a former navy seal and now investors so there is a good chance for him to get onstage. markey after 37 years in needs to be moved out of washington is the sentiment. numerous times during the debate, he returned to the idea that markey been down there too long and is part of the d.c. dysfunction and votes in lockstep with the republican party to often. the electric and massachusetts is inclined to go with a democrat. it was different in 2010 when scott brown came up with us -- an upset. voters tend to vote in the more

progressive candidates of gomez -- xcel gomez needs to have an gomez need toso have an upset and draw in more host: democrats is he getting help outside massachusetts like from washington? guest: just recently he started to get some help. john mccain was in a few weeks ago as well as mitch mcconnell. the other day, he had marco rubio at a fund raiser. nrsc is supported but that is a double-edged sword in massachusetts. scott brown told them to stay out of massachusetts. is a poison pill in massachusetts. some of the more conservative in the party who are more popular nationally are deeply not popular in massachusetts.

tough balance to walk for a republican in massachusetts, not just april gomez but any republican. he was able to get help from tea party members? was a the tea party different stages and republican candidates did not have their arms wrapped around it. that movement has evolved. in a direction that is not necessarily favorable for a republican running in massachusetts. and the tea party assistance he gets, ed markey last night said when gomez told him he was in washington too long, he said uickly that he does not quote tea party republicans.

a moment that scott brown capitalized on and that is not such an asset for a candidate here in 2013. host: here is "the wall street journal"{- different in massachusetts because we have had a loss in 2006 that extended and was signed by governor ronald that expanded universal health care on the state level. -- was signed by governor mitt romney that expanded universal health care on the state level. the proposed bill that president obama had was something that helped create the browen insurgency. the backlash is not the same here as it is across the country. thank you so much for being with us.

we covered glass buys debates to go to our website, c-span.org, if your interested. we will be talking to two members of congress and we'll start with -- start with carolyn maloney and then south carolina congressman trey goudy will join us. we will be right back. ♪ on a uniform for a job that is a maintenance job , and this is true if you are a building janitor for a sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the role to the point where it is almost like you are just a part of the background. i will say like a machine. are a human being wearing that uniform. the general world gets to

overlook a few and not really see you. romulan lled it cloaking device -- star trek fans will recognize the reference. it is frustrating and an interesting privilege. when i am wearing the sanitation worker uniform, i can serve people in ways they don't realize i am observing them. nagle, aofessor robin day at 8:00 on cspan's "q &a." >> first lady id mccanna les severed from epilepsy and because of that, her husband william mckinley would sit next to her at state dinners so if she had a seizure, he would shield her face with a large handkerchief until the episode past. despite her health problems, she traveled as first lady and

attended the 1901 pan-american exposition where her husband was assassinated. we will look at the life of ida seriesy we conclude our on first ladies at 9:00 on monday night. host: we want to welcome back congresswoman carolyn maloney, a democrat from new york -- new york, who sits on the oversight reform committee. the headline in "the wall street journal" - about the irs -- it seems that higher ups in washington were well aware of the workers and cincinnati targeting conservative groups, tea party groups. what do you make of this story? presidentoined the and the republican leadership and being totally outraged as i believe every american is at the abuse at the irs.

the reaction has been strong. everyone should be held accountable and those that are responsible should be appropriately punished. many have been fired or put on executive leave and the new acting director who will testify today before the committee has put in new procedures and guidelines ander they are moving forward. the change has been dramatic and swift. the root cause has not been addressed which is the standing ($).e 501 (c) whether you are liberal or conservative or moderate, what are they able to keep private their contributors? i believe that loophole should be changed or if you are a helpingelfare agency or serve the social justice and the social needs and welfare needs of housing for the poor and helping society of ours, you are absolutely entitled to a tax deduction but if you are conducting a political campaign

and spending a large proportion of money on political activity, in my opinion, they should not have a tax deduction. laws that we have put in place to put out in the open those who are trying to influence or by elections is hidden under this process. i don't believe you should be able to have a tax deduction in any way, shape, or form for political activity. host: given this headline, it is a detailed peace with the transcript of these two workers who told the house oversight and government reform committee and the ways and means committee about what happened -- the people in washington knew werewas going on and they micromanaging to death what was happening in cincinnati. does that mean these investigations should continue by the house oversight and government reform committee? absolutely guest:, we need to get to the bottom of this but

everyone who has testified said the influence or planning or implementation has been in the irs. this is disgraceful. this should be an agency above reproach. it is a disgusting scandal. right now, we have roughly six different efforts in place. we have many hearings in the house and the senate. just this week, there is one in the house appropriations. we have had two and oversight and one in ways and means and the senate is likewise conducting numerous investigations. we now know that the department justice has initiated a criminal investigation. the ig testified he has not completed his investigation. we have roughly six different investigations taking place now and we are getting more information. by the end of the day, i'm sure we will know more about how this happened. but i think it is not too soon to try to fix it and make sure it does not happen in the future. there is obviously a tremendous

grey area, to say the least, or loophole, that the so-called social welfare agencies that are conducting political activities are getting a tax deduction. i don't believe anyone to get a tax deduction to participate in a campaign. if you want to change that policy, if you contribute to a presidential candidate, used to be able to deduct it but why should you be able to give to a social"agency" that spends millions in television advertising supporting are trying to to be one candidate or another? they should not get a tax deduction. those contributions should be made public host: 6 investigations and analysis piece in " the new york times "says -- it says president obama is taking a confrontational tone. that his agenda

will be put on the sideline in his second term? guest: the most important issue for all americans is the economy. there is not enough focus on the economy and jobs. we have a bridge literally collapsed in washington state with cars and people falling into the river. thank goodness no one was killed but we need to invest in infrastructure and consumer confidence is at a five-year high and the jobless claims are at a five-year lows of the economy is moving in the right direction but most people would like us to be putting more time in that direction. i believe the president has bent over backwards to try to work across the aisle. it is hard to dance with someone if they don't want to dance with you. most of his efforts have not been met in a bipartisan or positive way. i believe he is probably beginning to feel that no matter

what he does, they will not work with him so he might as well stand for his principles and what he believes in. i believe he is working hard today to improve trade and relations between the two largest economic powers in the world. that is certainly a worthy goal. there are many other goals that he has, the economy is improving under his leadership. we have had 38 months of job growth and this comes after several months, many months of losing well over 73,000 jobs per month under the prior president. we are moving in the right direction but we are not moving fast enough. the president would like to see it policies -- his policies enacted but what can you do with the other side of the aisle refuses to work with you? i have never seen this in my life. i've worked in politics either as a volunteer or civic leader or an elected official my entire life and there was always public debates that i believe made our democracy stronger.

these were honest disagreements where we aired our views and then came together with a solution that moved the country forward. now we see a divide and we are not coming together. that is widely polling for congress is the lowest in my lifetime at 12%. you cannot get lower than that. in some categories, we are at zero i think the american public would like to see us work together on the challenges in front of our country. immigration, gun safety -- that preserves the second amendment, the environment, education is certainly an issue and new discoveries and in ovation. we seem to just be gridlock in disagreement which is unfortunate for our country. i believe the president has bent over backwards and don somersaults and stood on his head to extent hit a hand of cooperation to work with the other side of the aisle.

host: this is a tweet - guest: that is true. they can claim it but if the irs does not approve it, they can come in at any point and denied that tax deduction. because the irs became overwhelmed with applications after the citizens united case that allow corporations to spend unlimited money, many people tarted climbing these 501 (c) (4)'s. at any time, the irs can say you don't deserve the most of these tax-exempt statuses lost approval. people can deduct it, they are more likely to give and sometimes people want to keep their donations confidential.

he is correct that you can start operating but that does not mean that you get the tax deduction. host: mas you about today's hearing where the committee will look at the spending by the irs and conferences. $4 million on a california judge did. what is going on here and what questions will you be asking? guest: it is absolutely all of riches beyond belief. the american people are hurting. they have just gone through the worst economic downturn since the great depression and when you hear about these junkets and these very stupid videos they made it -- it is a disgrace to dance stepnd every that ever existed. i can't believe they participated in funding best. since 2010, the president sent out a directive that no more of this -- these conventions.

if you're having a meeting, it should be on government property. we have a lot of buildings around washington and every major city and smaller cities across the country where people canthey don't have to spend a lt of money or higher even landers. and the graphs that have been compiled show that the spending has gone down dramatically, 84% it has been cut since 2010. so these adjustments are taking place him and a lot of the training now being done on theuters or through really offices themselves, which is appropriate, there is no question this was a waste of money. an absolute disgrace, and i think a total embarrassment. believe me, i could have acted better. it was really stupid. i cannot believe that they did such a thing, and it destroys

your confidence in their judgment. and if there was ever an agency that you put judgment in an honesty, it is the irs. irs spending on employee conferences. that is at 9:30 on c-span3 and c-span radio. nick is an independent caller. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i want to congratulate the congress lady. turning our constitutional republic into a social democracy -- a social bash a social theocracy. is reallyon, if she sincere, is to put forth a flat tax or something like that, they be term limits.

the united states government, since 1900, has gotten nothing but bigger and bigger and bigger, and washington is smothering the states. the first amendment has become an impediment. is ancond amendment impediment. the 14th of memo, a judge had to rule that a little girl of a 10 years old, should be treated like a normal american. and hypocrisy -- the stop rule was repealed because of an outcry because congress could --insider trading and do and be immune from any kind of prosecution. so that they would not be accountable. so you people are the ones that are the problem, not the irs. you can correct the irs by abolishing it. host: ok, why don't we leave it there. most of our leaders are

elected, elected by the people. we do have a term limit. in congress, every two years we have to run. we go back to our constituency and ask for their support on our record, and they can vote for us or vote us out of office. that is a term limit. , assame without president well as our senate. we get very much the democracy and government that we deserved the cousin it is a government by our people. because itdeserve is a government by our people. we do not have revolution, we shoot at the ballot box. ,he international development the first peaceful transfer of power for pakistan just took place this a last -- this last election, so that shows you how valuable and important an elective democracy is, that we have had a transit -- a peaceful transmission of power -- a peaceful transition of power.

many countries do not have that. that is a very important right, and all americans should vote. that is a sacred right. we go to chicago, a republican caller. hi, bruce. caller: good morning. i always listen to this partisanship and it seems to only come into play when people don't get their way. anyway, when representative maloney said that we get the government we deserve -- and we do -- it always amazes me that people in washington complain. when they make laws, people work under the laws, and then they complain about the results. they are the people that created these situations. when people abide by them, everybody gets up in arms. guest: i would say that we are correcting policies now in government.

you see it with the irs scandal. there have been policies put in place, a direct result of the scandal. they have put a limit on conferences, on spending. they have fired people, held people accountable, and put new guidelines in. the president has demanded or directed treasury to implement every single recommendation that the inspector general office has put forward and they are in the process of correcting that. , it is problems arise government's responsibility to react to them and to correct them. a tweet -- "the government's function is to look at -- the irs's function is to look at all returns and determine if consistent with laws will stop is it a crime to do their job thoroughly and properly?" they were singling out

one group, and that is wrong. they are not supposed to single out any one group. as i said, the easiest way to correct this challenge is to make it illegal for any group -- i don't care what you call yourself -- an elected official, a president, or a social welfare agency -- to deduct political activity or attempt to influence elections from tax returns. host: democratic caller, darlene, welcome to the conversation. guest: hello, darlene. caller: hello? are targeting the irs and stuff, too, but congress and the senate and the democrats and all of them need to quit acting like babies and get in there and do some reforming and stuff on social security and quit targeting the older ones and get after the young ones that

have never worked in their life, and they are keeping them, and the older ones are losing their medical cards and stuff because of all of this stuff going on. and i think that the congressmen and senators, the irs, whoever, should pay more taxes than our poor people should. guest: well, we are constantly .rying to improve our economy when you improve our economy, we improve the social network that you mentioned such as medicare and social security. some of the reports that have come out recently have extended the time frame, which is good news. the economy is improving, and the safety nets are becoming stronger. there is always a lot to do, and you did point out some important areas. thank you. host: the front page of "the washington times."

"issa's tough oversight part of a long tradition." the story points out that this has happened under democratically controlled house as well. henry waxman, for example, subpoenaed the bush much asration, not as dan burton did of the clinton administration, but it is a long tradition. hostguest: that is true. the role of the oversight committee is to see if there is any misuse of funds or corruption or any wrongdoing, any mismanagement, and to look at it and to try to reform it. host: do you think all these investigations being done by chairman issa are appropriate? guest: it is absolutely appropriate for him to investigate and for the republicans to investigate any area they feel is appropriate.

it is appropriate for democrats to have investigations. the criticism has come when the facts have been not accurate. for example, with fast and furious, there were allegations that this was initiated by eric holder, and all of the facts show it was initiated by the prior administration, that the decisions were made in arizona on the border and not out of his office. so when you have the facts and you don't have anyone saying anything differently, it is appropriate to say you can say whatever you want, but the facts do not support what you are saying. no one is criticizing his right to investigate. the criticism comes when there are allegations that are not factually accurate. host: what do you make of the chairman's remarks about jay carney, calling him a paid liar? guest: very inappropriate and disrespectful. host: should he apologize? guest: he will never apologize,

but it is just very inappropriate. it is his style. host: what do you mean by that? me a: well, he called liar. i even went to the floor of congress with a point of personal privilege, saying that i was not a liar. a hearingen we had on a program that affected the health care of millions of particularly women across america, that if you are discussing something as important as women's healthcare and their future, a woman's voice, and no one was denying our selection as a witness was inappropriate -- a very well- informed student. who is he to say that our witness was -- i thought she was better qualified than any man on the panel. so he said i lied. i said if anyone can see a woman on this panel, then i will

apologize immediately and withdraw my point of privilege. but seeing no woman on the panel, i think it is appropriate to say i was not when i said there was no woman on the panel. host: have you talked to him since then? guest: all the time, about .ssues sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. from my personal experience, he called me a liar and he was totally inaccurate. he could not point to any woman on that panel, so calling me a liar was not a truthful statement on his part. host: james, from mississippi, independent caller. caller: good morning. yes, ma'am, i am so glad to hear from you about the oversight committee. i want you to know, all states have this oversight committee,

because i am seeing you are from new york. another thing is we have several issues with investigations going family housing, and during these investigations, we found that when we spoke out about the conditions of these complexes and things like that, hud told us that they could not investigate themselves because we felt a lot of the issues that were going on with us, with the complex and the way the money was being used and the way we they more harassed, hid their inspections because of the problems they were having. they did not find the complexes, they did not do anything. host: what is your question for the congresswoman?

caller: what is the difference between the irs and a lot of where you have double standards with the federal government overseeing them and they look at us like we are just nothing. guest: he raised concerns he has with hud. every single agency, james, has an inspector general, and it is their job to look at the policies and process and the way in runs. in the hearing we are having, the government reform oversight committee, a report has come out from russell george, the i.g., he has issued a report that cited wrongdoing and he has come out with the conditions. he has also asked if i'd several times that in no way is president obama or anyone who

works with him implicated or involved in any way, shape, or form, in terms of his investigation. we have some concerns with hud -- you have some concerns with hud, you should write your concerns and send them to the inspector general of hud, and it is his job to review your concerns. if he feels it appropriate, he would issue a report down to the agency on what has been alleged and the corrective action if he feels their need to be corrective action that takes -- if he feels there needs to be corrective action that takes place. host: our next call is tom. caller: good morning. why does congress not realize or prioritize the greater issues? we have seen these heavy-handed investigations of the president or one department where they look for corruption or crime or wrongdoing.

this is a much smaller issue than offshore tax corruption. congressional in hearings. ,hat about the trillions literally trillions of dollars spent by the military, hundreds and hundreds of billions they cannot account for? hundreds of thousands of contracts that continue to be paid out? we have a congress that guts oversight within the irs, that allows at best legal corruption. congress oversight for the military or the epa. you have so many programs that make all this. i have not seen anyone in congress stand up and point figures. oris this, that, this person that person without naming names. who sits on these committees? guest: well, there has been an

effort by the republican majority to defund oversight, particularly in the financial oversight area. sec,have underfunded the the cftc, and a lot of the oversight areas, and the gentleman is totally correct. there is german this abuse -- there is tremendous abuse of contracts in the oversight area. at the way ours works, the majority is able to select the agenda of the committees because they have the majority of votes. so they are selecting these investigation areas. in benghazi, we have had numerous hearings on benghazi, .ow irs, now ap we have had a whole year of investigations on fast and furious, yet the main problem was gun violence on the border, and the bill that i wrote to attack that, which was to make

illegal guns and selling them a felony. it is not a felony to sell and market illegal guns to felons. that is an outrage. that would do more to clean up the border than anything else. another bill that came out of those who go out and buy multiple guns for bad people, the gang leaders. for hoodlums, for the violence on the border. we did not pass that. every law enforcement agency in america came out in support of it, and yet we were not able to pass it. those are examples of reforms we should have passed that don't in any way infringe on the nra, the right for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. that is just cracking down on the criminals. that wee many areas should be looking at. the person who gets to make those decisions is the chairman

of the committee, mr. issa. ohio, betty, democratic caller. one last caller, you're on the air with congresswoman carolyn maloney. go ahead. , i am talking about the 501 groups and the ira, and from lawrence o'donnell, what he is talking about, it was supposed to be exclusively for the betterment of the government. it when they change the word to , forarily," you know political purposes, i was wondering about that. really hitink you the crux of the problem. we would not be talking about targeting if they were not able to deduct for political activity. so my point is i don't believe

that a social welfare agency to deduct the contributions to them and keep them secret if they are involved in trying to influence an election. i think that you are absolutely correct. we need social welfare agencies. in a verywork poverty-stricken area of new york, in harlem, and some of the privately funded welfare agencies are doing a brilliant job, an absolute brilliant job in helping people and working with government and others to help people. but these groups that are focusing on trying to influence campaigns and spending millions should not be getting a tax reduction, and they should not be able to withhold information on who is trying to influence elections. we passed all of these laws to make public who is contributing

to campaigns so that the american public can know who is trying to influence an election or a particular candidate's election or defeat. 501(c)4 is now a loophole that allows them not to be reported, to have a tax deduction in influencing campaigns. i think that is wrong. that should be corrected. i think you're absolutely right. were in new york yesterday for the funeral of outnumbered.tor the late senator frank lautenberg. --st: on his 89th birthday he should have lived forever. he consulted him, should he run

for another six-year term? he was ready to run, which shows great confidence and optimism, which he always had in his career. my favorite, he was talking about amtrak, and he was late for a train and running real fast and thought he was going to miss it, and the conductor, the official said don't worry, we are holding the train for frank lautenberg. vice president biden said it ask toccurred to him to hold a train for me, never thought that they would, but they held a train for frank lautenberg. it was a beautiful ceremony. his children and grandchildren spoke beautifully, as did his wife, bonnie. it was very moving. i wish he could have lived forever. host: we covered yesterday, so i wanted to give our viewers a oure of it and then go to website and view that.

his body will lie in repose in the senate. carolyn maloney, thank you. coming up next, we will continue this conversation about the irs with south carolina republican trey gowdy. at first, news updates from c- span radio. >> today the senate is expected to make an effort to pass legislation to keep interest rates on subsidized student loans from dublin. interest rates would be key it -- from doubling. interest rates would be capped at 3.4% for now. at 9:00 this morning live on c- hd three.c-span radio pressing forward with legislation stunned that -- stemming assaults in the military. setting the stage for the full house vote next week. it would take away the power of

the military commanders to overturn convictions and rate -- overturn convictions in rape and assault cases. punishment would include dismissal from military service or a dishonorable discharge. finally, the battle over the availability of the over-the- counter morning-after pill has taken a new turn. a federal appeals court in new york city has decided to let girls of any age by generic versions of the emergency contraception, while the federal government appeals a judges ruling allowing the sales. purchase of the brand name drug will still be restricted. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. but we have no more urgent task.

some say it is useless to speak ,f peace or world disarmament and that it will be useless until the leaders of the soviet union adopt a more enlightened attitude. i hope they do. i believe we can help them do it. but i also believe we must re- examine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a nation. that our attitude is as essential as theirs, and every graduate of the school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward. s tomteran journalist brokaw and nick clooney reflect on jfk's speech. sunday on "the presidency" on c-

span3. host: we are back with south carolina, richmond trey gowdy, who serves on the government oversight committee. staff site washington link, yoko -- those coworkers. oh there was direct targeting washington of tea party groups. my judgment, all the more reason for special prosecutor because some of this activity does become criminal in nature. hummers is ok investigating certain things, but we are not at all -- congress is ok in this eating certain things. i don't know that i am in the majority, but i am calling for a special prosecutor at least to look at those allegations that are criminal in nature. when you target people based on a lyrical or disclose confidential information, those

are all crimes. i am a former prosecutor but a current cumbersome, and i am not equipped to investigate crime right now. host: "the wall street journal" story says both democrats and republicans from the committees were allowed to sit in on these interviews. guest: i would love to have been at ambassador pickering's deposition and i would love to have been at these interviews, but the committee chairman frowns on it when i am absent. i was not present. host: what evidence do you have that crimes were committed when it comes to the irs targeting tea party groups? guest: look at the four statutes and see if any elements of that -- it is a crime for me to target you. if i am a government employee and i target you aced on your political beliefs -- based on your political beliefs, that is

a crime. if i have the responsibly of keeping your financial and iation private disclose it, that is a crime. is there circumstantial evidence? what other motivation could there have been to target conservative groups other than political? the ig, russell george, has said that, was it inappropriate or illegal? every time the inspector general answered, " inappropriate turco guest: with all -- "inappropriate." that is what the bureau and other law enforcement agencies do. others are more numbers and statistics driven. -- audits are more numbers and

statistics driven. i would respectfully disagree with mr. george that he does not see the potential for criminal conduct. host: he said he was continuing his investigation as well. how would the special prosecutor work? guest: we don't have an infinite counsel statute anymore, that expired. appointsney general himself or herself a special prosecutor. that is the law. that is where we are. , acrosswhere we are jurisdictional investigations. there are allegations of misconduct in ohio, in washington. you could let the u.s. attorney in ohio or in the district of columbia do it, or you could have a prosecutor who has cross state jurisdiction. you need a grand jury, you need subpoena power, you need access to law enforcement. by the way, none of which

congress has. however, i want to correct some of my colleagues. it is not either/or. it is not either congress or a special prosecutor, we should do both. we should not be investigating or interviewing people that have criminal exposure. we cannot give immunity, we cannot offer deals. if we could, we are not well- equipped to do it. you need professional women and men who are law enforcement officers and prosecutors to do that. government reform committee hold another hearing today, this one about excessive spending that went on in 2010. what questions will you be asking? tost: what i was talking jason chaffetz from utah and jimmy jordan last night, i do something i do not normally do. laying off law enforcement officials at the same time this conference was going on,

furloughing secretaries that make $20,000 a year in south carolina. i had secretaries coming to me at my da's office, asking if we could have a fund so they could buy a birthday present for their kids. and exactly the same month, in exactly the same year, other government employees are blowing money on trinkets and handbags and $3500 presidential suites. want these witnesses to have a sense of the outrage and the disconnect between government this fiscallyare irresponsible and government employees and law enforcement and da's offices who are struggling to make ends meet because of budget shortfalls. the irs has been around more than 100 years. if they are just now figuring out that you don't blow money when people are losing their jobs and their houses and their health insurance, we know the way to collect revenue in this country. ,ost: nooks ville, virginia

republican caller, you're on the air with cumbersome and trey gowdy. caller: back to your last guest, i find it interesting that the are doingand the left exactly with the irs did, which is they are now trying to lump all these groups into this one. while you are involved in ,olitical rhetoric, politics mcdermott's comments the other day were very poignant for this. "you are involved in the hottest thecs, abortion rights, rights of gays to marry." but those are not political issues. they may be argued in washington, but they are not political issues. being outside an abortion clinic does not make you involved in politics. last areahe democrats'

to justify. they did not have a problem with those using them extensively for years before tea parties and their right started to use them. i thought congressman ryan had a really good response that. that came up in the ways and means committee, and i watched a tape of that hearing. here is my position. why is having an opinion on abortion or the death penalty or the tax rate a taxable event? you think of the things we tax in our culture. why is expressing your first amendment right to express yourself with respect to political belief a taxable event? why does the government need to collect revenue based on your exercise of a constitutional right? don't like duplicity. i don't like it when my side does it. i certainly don't like it when the other side does it.

but fundamentally, we also have to ask, why does everything have to be a taxable event, particularly if you are expressing a constitutional right? host: "mr. gowdy, doesn't the irs have an obligation to determine if these tea party groups were operating a social welfare or at political organization? regulations require you cannot spend time advocating on the half of political groups or candidates. what you cannot do is disparagingly target one ideology over the other. russell george, the inspector general, was crystal clear that policy positions dictated the amount of scrutiny you got. that is partisan. that is political. that is a government employee singling a group out aced on political ideology. so i am a big rule follower. i spent 16 years making other people following the rules. if we don't like the rules, we should change it.

public -- but if police stopped romney/ryan stickers for wouldn't that be outrageous? host: adam, a democratic caller. are you there? caller: yes, i wanted to comment about the 501(c)4 organization. first of all, there was previous discussion that these organizations were applying for 501(c)4 status because they wanted tax breaks. there is no tax deduction for 501(c)4 organizations. i have to disagree with the current representative. while it is not really as possible -- really possible to defend the irs for delaying

these applications, it certainly -- the understandable explanation as to why this was not partisan is simply that it is a tiny bureau of irs that deals with processing attacks of these applications. collecteau does not taxes, so traditionally it has been underfunded over the years. host: we will take those comments, adam. guest: i think where he was headed is that they were doing their jobs, and that is great if that is your job to do. when you show a disproportionate amount of time toward certain ideologies, and of such a list insidious titles as "patriot," ," that is --

host: other investigations happening on the senate side, the ig also doing an investigation. trey gowdy is our guest, sitting on the committee, which will be holding a hearing in about an hour on the spending side of irs on its conferences. that is at 9:30 a.m. eastern time and c-span radio. dan, next, rochester, new york. hi, dan. caller: good morning. from mrs. maloney, the representative on last time, the bridge that fell down on a paid toll highway. minnesota had a bridge fall down, so did washington. they are all democratic states. the other camera and -- the other comment i had, if the 501(c)4 problem is such a problem, why wouldn't the unions 5 be ander the 501(c)

problem? guest: i am not sure i and mr. the last question 501(c)4. because certain groups were targeted under 501(c)4, -- because certain groups were targeted under 501(c)4, why were (c)5?ot targeted under i was responding to infrastructure. you and the break, congresswoman carolyn maloney were talking about how to come together on this issue dealing with 501(c)4's. she was trying to prove her point little bit. ground, doere common you think? guest: i think there is common ground -- and by the way, i like the congresswoman very much personally.

we do not vote off alike, but she has wonderful -- but she has been wonderful to me since i have been here. there is a lot of money in politics. oath sides spent over $1 billion over the last election cycle. i have colleagues that have to spend $5 billion to be reelected to a job that does not quite pay that much. you still have the first amendment. you still have to get around the supreme court decision. disclosure is an area where there would be some common ground. i listened to your interview with representative maloney, and my sense is that she would be like-minded with me when it comes to increasing penalties for certain firearms violations more so than campaign finance reform. in freedonia, kentucky, republican caller. yes, i would like to ask mr. gowdy if he would

continue the investigation, and on a criminal standpoint to pursue that with all means -- by all means with every fiber of his being. theuld also like to see wasilding of the -- that made known on the tea party and republican party. i would like to see some of the and seeion made public what type of questionnaires and acorn had to submit to receive tax-exempt status. guest: if disclosure is wrong for them to do to us, it is also wrong for us to do to them. despite the temptation to want to have a quid pro quo in the clinical realm, disclosure is unlawful. i understand human nature to to want to say you did it to us, as do it to you. i would rather prosecute the people who did it improperly

and incorrectly and send the message you do not do it to anyone. this is the problem, not to get into the department of justice issues, but this is the problem when justice and politics kind of meat. -- kind of meet. -- i wantple to rep people to respect the law, to respect fairness and investigations. and you perceive something has been a little side, it undercuts your respect for that. host: we could speak with -- we could stick to justice issues. attorney general eric holder will be on the senate side today covering his agency. -- representing his agency. we will cover that later today. should all the headlines about the attorney general -- should he step down? should the president asked him to resign his post? guest: the president has never asked me his opinion -- my

opinion on any of his appointments, and i don't expect that will change. i used to work for the department of justice. a woman whoented by holds nothing but a set of scales. there is something beautiful about that. i lost confidence in this attorney general's ability to not politicize his office a long time ago. you i wish that there were -- and just to prove to you that this is not partisan with me, i was hired by a democrat u.s. attorney in south carolina. the u.s. attorney in south carolina right now politically is to the left of chairman mouse. he also happens to be a really good friend of mine, -- of .hairman mao zedong he also happens to be a really good friend of mine. the department of justice politicized. i don't want republicans or democrats to do it, and i

believe this attorney general has done that. that is a source of sadness to me. host: are you concerned that the investigations being done by your chairman, chairman issa, that house oversight and government reform committee, that the amount of investigation being done is leading to politics as well? guest: yes. not with respect to chairman issa. i will gladly defend chairman issa. i just think this town in general rarely misses an opportunity to politicize something. i think chairman goodlatte and chairman sensenbrenner have focused recently on the attorney general. x before ouro committee, we now know x is false. we are not assigning any mental intent, but we want you to explain what happened. he has not explained it, he misses a deadline, and these are

all unforced errors. the attorney general does not have to respond this way, so yes, i am not about to tell you that politics does not invade in infect almost everything this town. that was true before i got here and it will be true after i am gone, but it does not mean it has to invade and infect everything i do. i try to be fair. carolyn off-th camera. you don't have to personalize things, and i like to just, let's go where the facts take us. ,ost: on personalizing things chairman issa said jay carney was a paid liar. was that going too far? i think chairman issa will tell you he was. i had the benefit of knowing him. he has been wonderful to me. he is a decent, good human being. is he perfect?

no, ma'am, and neither am i, by the way. neither is anyone else we serve with. viewers probably think we take classes on how to handle television and answer questions. i have not had any, and almost every day i say the wrong thing or i phrase it incorrectly. issa had tohairman have it back, he would say that jay carney has reiterated things that were demonstrably false. that he has taken liberties with the truth. but i think he would phrase it differently, and frankly, to his credit, i think if darrell issa were sitting right here, he would tell you that. host: from louisiana, byron, democratic caller. .aller: hi thank you for allowing me to speak on c-span. i think the commerce ministry a little bit ingenious there. investigations, i

think 30 some odd pertaining to the tea party -- that is not a majority. they were doing their job. it isn'tam sure intentional intentional, but his statistics were wrong. there was no be on the lookout for an role america, the on the lookout for progressives. the facts are pretty daunting in and of themselves. when you send lists of questions who conservative groups that you do not send to so-called progressive groups, when it takes a long longer -- a lot longer for a conservative group to be approved than it does a progressive group, you could argue what the motive was, but you cannot argue the outcome was disparate treatment of conservative groups. ,ost: from pittsfield massachusetts, independent caller. just wanted to call

and make a comment. the people that call in, i cannot believe where their heads are. how obvious can anything be? these people have been targeted. every single one of them benefit president obama's campaign. we used to have a country that asked not what our government can do for us, but what we can do for the government. now people want, what does the government do for me? host: from north carolina, a republican caller. caller: i am a first-time caller. congressman, i want to compliment you. i have heard you on various forums, and i appreciate your values. i wish there were more people like you. i would like to tag onto the previous caller. i have never called in on a talk show. i am in my middle 70's. when i got to people my age,

values do not even come close to being in place anymore. i would like to direct my comments toward an article in " the wall street journal" today, and you may have addressed it earlier. , theron and ms. lerner irs. i think it was spot on. why question to you, congressman, his first of all i find it extremely annoying that she is on our dime, she had the arrogance to admit almost her own guilt by taking the fifth. i question is this -- how long is that going to proceed? why can she not be held in contempt of court? we certainly follow through in making people accountable at enron, but it never happens when it comes to the government. i am going to close with this, congressman. are soople my age disgusted with the political system. i listen to you, i applaud you, but at the same time i realize

it is almost like talking to the wind. i know there are many people in this country who are democrats, independents, who love this country, but, sir, we are headed down the wrong road, and i just don't know how it is going to change until there is some accountability. leave it there, running out of time with the cosman. gentleman from north carolina hit on the overarching issue. there is no longer trust. this town does not trust our motives, our investigations. i was there when ms. lerner invoked, and i could not help but note the targeting of groups who want to educate folks on the constitution and availing yourself of the constitution when you get in trouble. of all the challenges we face in this town, and they are very aided, i think the biggest one is what this colleges identify,@ he does not trust the people he puts in positions -- that he

does not trust the people he puts in positions of leadership. we have to get that fixed for the people you want to run for office will not run for office. host: a democratic caller is next. caller: if it were truly a partisan event, why go after the small fry? why not go after the big ones headed by karl rove? the head of the irs at the time was it president bush appointee. the way.s to go by washer thing, the irs giving some left-wing groups the same treatment. i really don't understand this. i don't think what they did was right, i really don't think it was right. but i lived in cincinnati for a number of years, and i was surrounded by conservatives. a group ofagine

federal employees doing this righte they were after wing groups, i really cannot imagine it. let's get a response from the congressman, then. guest: neither can we, which is why we believe the response came from washington. karl rove has access to entire law firms. most of your fellow citizens do not, so it is easy to pick on people who don't have the financial wherewithal to defend themselves. i am not going to get into 501(c)4 particulars, but you actually do not have to file a petition to 501(c)4. karl rove has one of the brightest minds in america. douglaspect to schulman, i could care less what republican puts him in office.

i wanted it investigating. i don't care if it is the republican party, the bull moose party, the whig party, the libertarian party -- i don't care. the facts, wherever they take us, that is where we need to go. "mr. goudy, what do you think about the recent supreme court decision on obtaining dna samples from people who are arrested?" guest: if it were blood, you could not do it. host: you want the court to decide it? guest: if you are arrested, they could take a swab of your cheek with a q-tip, and most of our crimes now are solved with forensic evidence. if you are hypothetically stopped for something, they would take a swab from you and run it through a database to see whether or not you were a suspect in a crime from 10

years ago. it is very effective in serving crime. it is also a concern whether it violates the fourth amendment. that amanda says you cannot have unreasonable searches. so the rule then becomes whether the surge is reasonable or unreasonable. here is my problem. if i were going to tweak this law, i would say that if you are arrested in the charges dismissed and you are found not guilty, your dna sample should be destroyed. it only takes probable cause to arrest someone. much higher ticket victim, but it is probable cause for me to get your bank records or for me to get your library records if i were investigating. i want to protect people who are falsely arrested, that in terms of who you want to invest -- do you want to investigate crime, the best way to do it is with dna. host: jeff from kentucky,

independent caller. caller: i would like to make the .tatement, representative gowdy you come as a republican, but what i am seeing on these committees is that both sides are linked, and constitutionally the checks and balances that we have in place for our investigations, that the congress is awake and the ,ransparency may be only that political sides one way or the other coming to the forefront. but the questions are pertinent and they are looking and they are making investigations based on checks and balances of these government agencies thomas and the influence of the people standing up and talking back to these congressmen, it amazes me that these people are so insolent in that they think they

cannot be touched. host: bill, you put your finger -- guest: bill, you put your finger on what a lot of people want to see, which is less partisanship, more bipartisanship. other representatives have been exerciseupportive -- and engaged as republicans. it would be great to see outrage on a bipartisan basis more often will stop sometimes we retreat to our talking points. i tend not to do that. i have democratic colleagues that try not to do that, but sometimes you see it. i appreciate you noting that from time to time congress can actually go about its job in a bipartisan fashion. host: another justice issue from bill beatty. of obtainingve phone records. 36% approve, 20% are unsure."

where do you come down? fort: i want you to assume the sake of argument that you wrote an article today disclosing national security secrets are my confidential source. you voted and we are just the head of the attorney general and and the fbi for not doing anything to investigate. where would you like eric holder or mueller to start. they have no idea where you got the information. where would you like them to start? they are going to have to start with you. is it tapping your phone? that is very invasive and requires a judge to improve it. -- tolltting told her records? there are lots of privileges in life. if you are, there's husband/wife privilege. there is no privilege at the top. the supreme court gives you a privilege, but congress never

has. balancing that with your rights to free media is always a challenge, particularly with national security. host: what about the constitution? guest: where does then that's what is the constitution say that the media can release national secrets? freedom of the press? guest: assume for the sake of argument, "i am holding an eight-year-old child." are you saying law enforcement cannot access your e-mails to find out who sent you that e- mail? i don't think you are. certain things are serious enough. every light you have has some limits to it. first not have a better amendment right. you cannot go into a theater and yell fire. you cannot access child pornography.

with national security, if you want to investigate it and all you know is the name of the reporter who did it, why would you investigate? verizon phone records ordered seized by the feds." guest: wow. a subpoena or -- host: it was a court order november by the fbi on 25. the order was signed by judge roger vinson according to documents posted online by "the guardian." guest: i don't want to appear defending that, but i want to give you a possible alternative. let's assume we are collecting large groups of phone records to see if patterns emerge with respect to contact with certain countries. not individual, not specific,

not greta oz poem records -- not greta's phone records. is that an unreasonable invasion of your privacy to take 100,000 phone records and see if there are pockets that are going toward what used to be somalia, or yemen. i don't know the facts or the probable cause, but the more individual and particularized it is, the more the invasion of your privacy. one: let me try to get in quick phone call. you have to make it real quick because the house is coming in early this morning for their morning session. go ahead. caller: thank you very much, greta. i really appreciate your show. mr. dowdy, i am so proud of you. -- mr. dowdy, i am so proud of you. gowdy, i am so proud of you. we need term limits for every

elected office, period. term: i need to be limited, but one of my buddies is paul ryan, and i cannot imagine he needs term limits. what i don't want our guys like paul ryan and others term limiting themselves while we continue to have folks on the other side with seniority. i do believe in term limits. i have a number in my own head beyond which i will not serve will stop the voters may have a shorter number in their head, but i have one in my own head respect to a flat tax -- i have one in my own head. with respect to a flat tax, i like that idea. one deduction for health savings accounts. a very simple, elegant, provocative plan. i hope we will debated when we debate tax reform. host: the hearing will take place this morning about a half- hour before the house government oversight committee. what is your first question?

guest: my first question is going to be, do you know what is happening in other states in 2010 when you were spending $3500 on a hotel room? i've -- are you aware of how many people were losing their jobs question mark the facts are so overwhelming in this case, you don't need to bring them out. i don't know that this entity can be reformed. "st: "the washington times," irs anaheim trim far from the costliest." the house is early for morning speeches. now live coverage. ur blessing of strength and perseverance as each member might best serve their constituents and our entire nation. may it be their purpose to see to the hopes of so many americans that they authenticate the grandeur and

glories of the principles and ideals of our democracy with the work that they do. grant that the men and women of the people's house find the courage and wisdom to work together, to forge solutions to the many needs of our nation and ease the anxieties of so many. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady .rom indiana, mrs. walorski mrs. walorski: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california --

ndiana rise? mrs. walorski: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. last night the house armed services committee approved its version of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. included was a provision i sponsored along with congresswoman sancheza to extend military protections of victims of re sexual assault. the pentagon recently reported that an estimated 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted last year, was just ver -- with over 3,000 cases reported. our military represents the bravest men and women in the nation. and growing reports of sexual assault and underreporting are

sadly tarnishing the reputation of our armed forces. this bill gets to the root of the problem by creating a safe reporting environment and demanding accountability from our military leaders. passage of this bill will be a step in the right direction to help victims and restore trust in our military. i am pleased this bipartisan provision is one step closer to becoming law, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. the federal government spends more than $6.5 billion on energy costs every year to heat, cool and power roughly 500,000 buildings and facilities. currently the administration is auditing federal agencies for cost savings and has found billions of dollars that are available in savings and here's how it works. energy saving performance contracts allows a

public-private partnership where the federal agency contracts with an energy service company to conduct energy audits and design and implement energy saving improvements. there's no cost to the taxpayer. the payment to the contractor comes from savings that are reaped down the line. it's a win-win-win. it leads to jobs. in fact, every $1 million of espc contracting results in the creation of 10 local jobs. espc's have proven themselves to drastically reduce carbon emissions. this is something we can and should do together. the money, improve environment and create jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask alaska to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is

recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, the united states military is the most capable and most professional fighting force in history. ut while our military is external threats, it's had a more difficult time of dealing with sexual assault and sexual misconduct in its ranks. earlier today the around services committee passed this year's defense bill. i am proud to have supported provisions to help us tackle the problem of sexual assault in the military by holding perpetrators accountable, protecting victims and maintaining good order and discipline. i am particularly pleased that representative speier and i were able to add whistleblower protection enhancements. our men and women in uniform must be able to depend on one another and trust their command will protect them from sexual predators. these crimes inflict lasting damage on individuals and

compromise the effectiveness of our military. i am committed to solving this terrible problem once and for all. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. beiro -- mr. barrow: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barrow: i rise to honor the life of a 4-year-old boy from my district in georgia who passed away on may 25 from cancer, just shy of his 5th birthday. during his illness, more than 50,000 people from as far away from australia paid tribute to silas on social media. he loved jesus, sea turtles and never let his illness get him down. at his age he inspired everyone with his positive community and one said he brought our community together. i extend my heart felt condolences to his family.

his memory will live on through the lives he touched, including this congressman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. nearly 4 1/2 million americans have been without a job for 27 weeks or longer. this number is equal to the entire population of the greater houston area. this should not happen in america. a job is fundamental. it gives individuals the chance to contribute to both their family and to their economy. america has always been a land of opportunity, growth and prosperity. sadly, washington's policies over the last four years are preventing job creators from growing their businesses and creating job opportunities for these 4 1/2 million americans out of work. mr. williams: the endless regulations, tax increases, the burdens of complying with obamacare have made the government too big and it's out of control. instead of continuing with its flawed policies that are

crippling america's future, i hope the president and his administration will work with the house republicans as we continue with our plan for economic growth and jobs and cut spending, balances the budget, lowers health care costs, eliminates red tape, takes important steps toward energy independence and encourages responsible oversight of out-of-control government agencies like the i.r.s. mr. speaker, america's about the american dream. it is not about the american scheme. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida -- ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to condemn the excessive force used by turkish police on demonstrators in istanbul. for the past few days, these individuals used their rights to assemble and express their displeasure with their government's policies. they called attention to what they view as increasing government curtailment of their rights, but they were met with aggressive violence. perhaps just as shocking, most

turkish news outlets did not even cover these events as they unfolded because they feared that they would anger the government and they would go to jail and because the government controls large parts of the media in turkey. this is not the response of a free and democratic society. we expect more from our allies, and i call on the prrm to condemn this -- prime minister to condemn this brutal police action and they exercise restraint. i ask both parties to resolve their differences swiftly and peacefully in a manner that respects all the rights of all turkish citizens. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear in the last few weeks that certain i.r.s. employees engaged in unfair practices,

targeting americans because of their religious or political beliefs. the scrutiny was improperly frequent and systemic. the asks -- the questions asked of certain groups was inappropriate. a well-functioning government must make sure those in position of influence are committed to serving with imparblet and fairness. revelations that the i.r.s. targeted groups based on their religious or political affiliation undermine the public trust. mr. speaker, i think we can all agree that regardless of one's political views equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right that cannot and should not be broken. we were sent to congress to ensure that these fundamental rights are upheld, and we must continue to work aggressively to root out the causes of this serious breach of trust by the i.r.s. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: madam speaker, i

ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for further consideration on h.r. 2217. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

dd

i

the speaker pro tempore: house resolution 243 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 217. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly esume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2217, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of

the whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 93, line 9. the clerk will read. page 93, line 10, this act may be cited as the department of homeland security ppropriations act, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i move the committee now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having under consideration 2217 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2217 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the chair: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 10:00 a.m. today.

live coverage of the house here on c-span when members return at 10:00 a.m. eastern today. for more on this, we spoke with a capitol hill reporter. >> tim starks joins us from capitol hill. what does it say about those who wrote the bill? >> homeland security is still one of the bigger priorities for the house republicans. it's a $39 billion bill. it is something that the administration has complained while they are basically comfortable with the funding level. they don't like that it comes at the expense of domestic programs. >> what are some of the

specific programs and agencies funded by the homeland security bill overall? >> the biggest ones are, say, that the border security and border toms protection and the coast guard is another one. because of disaster aid, federal emergency management agency is the biggest. from there you start seeing the transportation security administration. you start seeing secret service and it gets a little smaller as it goes down that way. >> you say the bill's $39 billion. how does it take into account ordeal with the automatic spending cuts, the sequestration cuts? >> it does take into cut in the way some of the other bills do so far. this bill would actually be bove the current level sequestration. it's a raise from last year based on what's going on with sequestration in some of the current year. >> what are the hot button

issues that's likely to come up during debate over the bill? >> grant funding is always a pretty popular topic. i think we'll see something on that a few different ways, actually. there are some programs that are controversial that we might see efforts to end funding, say, track illegal immigrants or detect behavior in airports because those are programs that democrats have saying it's making use of racial profiling. the bill also bans funding for visa immigration applications from brazil. there might be an effort to end that. those are some of the bigger issues in terms of things that we might see fights on. the other issues have kind of been resolved from the hot button issues are things that the administration proposed that the republicans said no to, things like an airport security fee increase or deeper

cuts to the coast guard than republicans were comfortable with. >> what about democrats? broadly, what are some of their overall priorities in this spending bill? >> you know, they've been reasonably happy with this bill because, you know, it gets in the ballpark of what they would like the top line to be even though, like the president, they share concerns that it will come at the expense of some other programs. you know, like i mentioned, the grant programs are particularly popular with democrats, you know, the homeland security grant programs, things like fire grant, firefighter grants, public -- any kind of public safety agencies and grants they need for homeland security. some of those programs that have been a little controversial with democrats as they pertain to civil liberties kind of concerns. >> you mentioned white house displeasure over some elements in this house bill, this republican bill. they've issued a veto threat. what does the white house want to see out of the senate bill? what do they want to see come out of congress? >> you know, there are some

specific things that were put in the bill pretty regularly. things like efforts to make it rder for them to close the guantanamo bill facility. they want to see the brazil language come out. they're upset that the republicans keep putting back in language requiring a certain mandatory minimum number of detention beds for immigrants, illegal immigrants that have been captured. and, i think what -- they'll probably get some of what they want from the senate, but there's some senate democrats who feel similar about some of those programs that the house republicans do. i think in terms of what the senate might do that would be different, you know, there might be less funding for the facility in kansas that would study agricultural diseases. there might be more funding -- more funding still for the coast guard than even the republicans put in to counteract what the president was proposing reducing.

>> tim starks writes for "roll call." you can read more at rollcall .com. thank you for the update, tim starks. >> thank you. >> and you can see live coverage of the house when members return at 10:00 a.m. eastern this morning when they debate the homeland security spending bill for f.y. 2014. again, live coverage here on c-span. vice president joe biden called for routine mental health screenings at the white house conference on mental illness monday. he closed out the day-long event reiterating president obama's call to remove the stigma associated with mental health disorders. it brought together health care officials to increase the awareness of mental illness. actor bradley cooper who played a person with mental health illness in "silver lining playbook," introduced the vice president.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the secretary of veterans affairs, general shinseki. >> thank you very much. good morning, everyone. it's good to see all of you. what a good day this has been. this summit has enabled a crucial, much-needed national level of discussion on mental health. at v.a., at the department of veterans affairs, we know that when we are able to diagnosis and treat people get better and the president knows that too.

so between 2009 and 2014 he's requested funding increases for v.a. mental health totaling almost 57%. thanks to the president's strong and at the seesive leadership, v.a. has expanded its services as the number of veterans needing mental health care has increased and he announced some of those accomplishments just this morning. 24 pilot projects with federally qualified community clinics in nine states, increasing our mental health capacity through partnering at the local level. local mental health summits to be conducted at each of our 152 v.a. medical centers. broadening the dialogue between clinicians and stakeholders. and then finally, over 1,600 additional mental health clinical professionals hired as a result of the executive order he signed last august. with his leadership and the

leadership of vice president biden and the support of the congress, v.a. will continue to improve access to mental health services and reduce the stigma of seeking help. now, one of our most effective efforts to improve access has been our veterans crisis line which provides immediate help to veterans and service members in distress. in the past six years, the veterans crisis line has answered over 800,000 phone calls and over 100,000 other online chats, chats and text messages. in the most serious of those phone calls 29,000 veterans have been rescued from a suicide in progress because we were there for them. [applause] partnering with local communities and other federal agencies can help make the most of our resources, like the veterans crisis line, and the

additional 1,600 clinical professionals and by working together we can reduce the stigma for all americans. everyone can help and everyone must if we are to make the difference as the president emphasized this morning. now, we're indebted to all of you for the great work you do, and now special thanks to our next speaker, bradley cooper, whose authentic portrayal of the character pat in "silver lining playbook" helped shine the spotlight on both the challenges and the triumphs of those who are dealing with issues of mental health. so with that, bradley. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much, secretary shinseki, for that introduction and for all that you're doing to address mental health issues to our veterans. it is -- wow, what a privilege for me to be here today, have a

chance to participate in this conference. it's been a fascinating day. it's obviously an important day, and i'm very thankful to be part of it. the truth is i'm sort of here by accident. it's not that i didn't know about mental illness. i think it's that i didn't see it as part of my own life. i didn't really think that it affected me. it was just sort of abstract idea that i was removed from. and then i did this movie called "silver lining playbook" and it was really as if a veil had been lifted. i realize people that i knew, people that i loved and care about, they were coping with this in silence. one of my closest friends was bipolar. i really had no idea. people i was working with on the film, they had children and they had parents who were struggling with this. and it really just never occurred to me. i had the good fortune of playing a character who caused it to change my mind in the sense people would come up to me and share their struggles. telling me how they connected

with this character that i played, and i think that's what helped me to see that i think all of us are touched in a real meaningful way with this illness and i think it is up to all of us to help. i want to help. i want to do something about it. i want to be part of the solution. [applause] and as it turns out, as i learned and has been reiterated today, that the way we can do that is to talk about it, to bring awareness to it. it's about helping people understand that they're not alone, that the thing that they're feeling, it probably has a name. it certainly has a treatment and that treatment works and it's effective and it can change the way they live their lives in ways they probably didn't think was possible. in a lot of ways it's helping people find the courage within themselves to take that step to seek treatment and that's partly by raising awareness about the availability and the quality of that treatment, and

today's conference has been such an important part of that effort. but i think we also have to make some fundamental changes to our culture. you know, it's always going to take courage for people dealing with mental illness to seek treatment, but it shouldn't take that much courage as it does today. it shouldn't. it's less about the people who are dealing with the illness and more people who aren't. it's about the rest of us who can work together to destigmatize these issues, to feel a genuine empathy and to take meaningful action. your final speaker today understands that very well. i had the honor of spending some time with vice president biden in february and we talked about mental health issues, about the importance of reversing negative stigmas, negative attitudes, and about the actions that this administration has been taking to make sure mental health care is affordable and available to all americans. he's been a very strong advocate for mental health

parity, a great friend of the mental health community and a kind of leader that this community requires. ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause] >> please, please sit down. well, good afternoon. my name is joe biden, i'm a friend of bradley cooper's. [laughter] how many of you saw "silver linings playbook"? [applause] now, let me tell you, after i saw it i called and asked whether or not he'd come in and see me and the director as well. i just think, you know, art imes art, many times has a more profound impact -- how you doing, buddy? come here. come here.

this guy's got a program going on to deal with the only unchartered part of the world, the human brain, and it is a gigantic initiative and he with his cuz over there are -- >> give timmy shriver a hand, please. >> and the reason he says that, if he doesn't say that about his cousin, he'll never hear the end of it. not from his cousin but from all those shrivers. anyway, thank you. good to see you, pat. >> you see general corelli, four-star general, led our efforts in iraq and also leading the efforts for one mind research. thank you, mr. vice president. [applause] >> anyway, before i so rudely interrupted myself -- i apologize. and by the way, this is a

general who one of my first of 20-some trips to iraq, he headed the first cav and he was in -- gave me the single best advice about iraq of anyone i met with. we met in the middle of what was not a very friendly time in downtown baghdad. it's great to see you. this is a man who came home, realized -- and i mean this sincerely -- realized in his role back at the pentagon how many tens of thousands potentially of our young women and men coming back from multiple deployments needed the help and devoted his life to this now. and so this guy's a warrior, a physical warrior, and a warrior for making sure that his warriors are taken care of. [applause] well, look, folks, back to

bradley cooper -- [laughter] o i went home and i said to my daughter, married lady, to my four granddaughters, i said, look, bradley cooper came in to see me today. i mentioned the guy that directed the film. they didn't want to hear about that. bradley cooper. so it made me sort of a hero. i just want you to know he caused me great pain recently. i've been asked by the president to sort of lead a new western , in the hemisphere, in latin america, to change the way we interact with the rest of the hemisphere, and went down to meet with the new brazilian president. i was in my hotel room and as i check in my youngest granddaughter -- i had two granddaughters with me who were traveling with my wife, going to the slum areas of brazil.

and bradley knows about that. he visited that as well. and my youngest granddaughter said, pop, bradley cooper's in this hotel. and i said, you're kidding me? i said, that's nice. she said, pop, you're his friend, right? swear to god. swear to god. this is my 12-year-old. i said, well, yeah, we're kind of friends. pop, you ought to call him. and i said, what do you want me to do? pop, we have this very big suite. you should have him down like you do other people. like you have presidents and things come and see you. and i said -- swear to god, true story. honey, i got to go meet the president of brazil and shortly that's , pop -- and all. pop. i said, honey, i got to go to the meeting. ok, pop. i'll see you.

well, bradley, somehow we're going to have to make up for this. you owe me. but my standing with my granddaughter has plummeted even though my standing with the president of brazil has gone up. given the choice, i'm not sure. it's kind of a tough -- kind of a tough deal. look, speaking of warriors, eric shinseki, general shinseki is a guy who has always spoken truth to power. he did it in the afghan war -- excuse me -- in the iraqi war. he accurately stated what the facts were, and he had the courage to do it. and he got a lot of heat for it. and one of the best decisions the president made was asking him to head up the veterans administration. and i -- [applause] and we all know, no one knows better than eric that there's

real problems. we have real backlogs because we reached out so far as we should have been doing the last 25 years for people who were suffering from ptsd, people with traumatic brain injury. and it's created a serious backlog. but the thing i know about the general is he and i agree we only have truly sacred obligation -- we will a lot of obligations but only one, that is to equip those we send to for and care for them when they come back to their families and we have a lot to do, as he would tell you. is ron barber still here or is he out voting? ron, wherever you are, thank you, man. thank you very much. [applause] being such a champion of mental health. ladies and gentlemen, i just want to say a few words to close the conference. it's been long, and i hope very fruitful endeavor for you all. you all know the most

vulnerable age for mental health problems in young women and men is between the ages of 16 and 25. i have a son-in-law who is a reconstructive plastic surgeon working mostly on cancer patients, but he also has his ph.d. in neuro science which he said was a lot harder to get than his medical degree. and i asked him what he did his thesis on. he said, i did my thesis on, the development of neuro pathways for adolescents. he called me pop. you know, pop, what we found out is, what we know is that those neuro pathways really aren't stamped until you get between the ages of 18 and 25. that is the most difficult period. as i know all of you know. and it's also -- we have a large number of that generation , the 9/11 generation as well, coming back from very, very

difficult circumstances and work with a lot of invisible injuries. we count every single day i get a -- i have a card, as the defense department knows -- i ask my staff to list for me every single day on my schedule the number of troops who died in iraq and afghanistan by the day. by the day, every morning. and the number of wounded in afghanistan. 6,582 dead as of this morning at 7:00. wounded, 50,832. but they're all the visible wounds. doesn't count all of the invisible wounds. and so the need for what you're all about is going to increase as time goes on. both these groups represent

folks that are the most in need of help and both are among the least likely to seek out that help. and even if they seek it out, sometimes as you know, it's difficult to find. as we all know, they are not only -- they are not the only americans living with mental illness who need help, but what's most encouraging is that there are also many living with mental illness who recognize it and they've gone and goten help. and as bradley's pointed out, and it works. it's worked. they are the best living testament to the need for and the efficacy of seeking this help. but the most important thing is they recognized they needed help and they went out and sought it. and that's what everyone, everyone needs to understand it's ok to seek help. and general corelli will tell you, i had a son in iraq for a year and came back and his mom

was so anxious to see him and he'd been gone for a year. when he got back he was at fort diction and my wife was willing to climb the chain linked fence to see him. they have a program now, and this is 2 1/2 years ago now, to try to condition all of his unit to come back and say, are you having any problems? you having nightmares, do you have concerns, are you having troubling remembering things? because these guys are trained to be warriors. these women are trind to be warriors. they are not trained, because to seek help is to acknowledge weakness, sort of completely contrary to the ethic that they all possess. well, young people also are in invulnerable, invisible, but when they have help it's awfully hard to have them ask for it. so what we are all doing today

matters a great deal. and it's my hope that this conference begins to make clear to all americans that there's no distinction. let me emphasize. no distinction between a mental health problem and a physical problem. that there should be -- there is but there should be no stigma to a family or individual to seek help for mental health any more than they would have for a broken arm or a diagnosis of cancer. and in the process, in the process it's our goal to improve not only the access to mental health care at an affordable rate but in the process, which is not talked about much today, i think, is improving the already positive, positive help that's out there. it begins by making sure shushes companies provide coverage -- insurance companies provide coverage to mental health services so that it's available and affordable and that's what we've done through the affordable care act. that's the mental parody act that your dad, your dad

championed for so long with pete domenici, established a while ago but now only, only coming to fruition. it's going to ensure the affordable care act is going to ensure 62 million americans get quality mental health care and substance abuse coverage now. we're working to implement the mental health parody law so we can make mental illness as treatable as all other illnesses. and now we have to season the opportunity to provide it by the expanded care to make sure that people in need of help know it's available and have faith in its efficacy. you know, there's mothers, as i speak right now, and fathers in this country with a 17-year-old son or daughter who they know, they know needs help, they know needs help, not physical. they know there's something wrong. it's intuitive. they know it. but they don't know where to

go. and they're almost afraid to say something because if they do they're afraid it ends up on the kid's record, that somewhere it's in writing and that's going to mean maybe they won't get into georgetown. dr. dejoy my friend, is here. they are afraid they won't get that job. they're afraid they won't be able to join the military. they're afraid by getting the help they're somehow going to stigmatize their child. we need to change all that. i know you all know this is preaching to the choir. we need to expand the availability of the personnel. psychiatric nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, because we know there is an enormous gap between the number of trained personnel we have and the number we need. according to h.h.s., we need about 8,000 more mental health professionals.

it would be a shame. think of the irony here. if through your great efforts we encourage people to come forward and they find out there's no one there to help them or they have to wait a long time. last august the president directed the v.a. to hire 1,600 mental health professionals by june of 2013. today, v.a. announced that it met that goal. but we're also proposing -- [applause] we're also proposing to provide funding for schools that train more than 5,000 mental health professionals. we need more than that. we need more than that to serve young people in their schools and communities. those of you who are mental health providers know there's a reason why more people haven't gone into mental health fields. doctors, psychiatric nurses.

because not many people asked. people go where the need is. almost every doctor or nurse i've ever known, if there's any ngels in heaven, by the way, there are nurses. doctors allow you to live. nurses make you want to live. no, no. male nurses and female nurses -- [laughter] i love my -- my neurosurgeon would come in the i.c.u. which i was there for 60 days, two months, we have to do, this, this. and my nurses would say, yes, sir. then they'd do exactly what i needed. you think i'm joking. those who had significant medical help know that. here's the point. it's not just about getting more experts in the field. it's about developing new and embolden strategies for mental health screening, make it more routine. there's more than one way -- my

grandma used to say -- to skin a cat. one way to get someone to get mental health is to eliminate the stigma, which we know will take some time. another way is to give them cover. i found a general, colleague of yours, general, and yours, retired major general -- brigadier general in the united states army and a psychiatrist, serving for 28 years in the united states army. i am no expert in this, but i met with him, and along with the general and others who are devoting their lives to making sure we get more help and more awareness. he suggested that integrating mental health screening in ordinary examinations is the way to lessen the stigma and recognize the need. it's a hell of a lot easier for that soldier or that 9-year-old kid to while he's

getting his physical at the same time getting mental health screening. to be aware of it. he went to get a physical. medical groups such as the a.m.a., the american psychiatric association, have made commitments to help train all doctors and nurses to recognize the signs of mental illness which is consistent with providing, which doctors are supposed to do and nurses, and they do, the health of their patients. so, folks, we have to become more imaginative. it just can't be a straight line. we've proposed a new $130 million initiative. admittedly it came out of the whole tragedy in newtown. but all the psychiatrists i mae meth with, i met with many. i met with the association as well. they say there are certain signs, it's like roman candles that go off when you're 6, 7, 8, 10 years old, that anyone recognizing that particular action would know that child

needs help. not able to provide it but that child needs help. so many, so many people could be saved if we recognize. just like cancer. the earlier you recognize it, the greater the possibility. teach, we se, we state and local governments teach -- my wife's a full-time professor. she gets classes in c.p.r., she gets classes in first aid. we should be teaching, educating our educators to be able to recognize, not all forms of mental illness, but those things are like the roman candles that go off that are totally inconsistent with any behavior that is considered to be appropriate. the earlier we get this help the better we'll all be and the better, most importantly, the patient will be.

and we know that we can learn a great deal more. as i said introducing patrick, the only unchartered person, totally unchartered portion of the universe is the brain. you know, i had, as we used to say in the senate, excuse a point of personal privilege here. i had two cranial an risms and they literally had to take the top of my head off. they take a saw and cut your head and go in and find the artery. one was leaking. the other that hadn't, before it burst. ose of you who are docs know every profession has their sick jokes. the joke among docs is, how do you know someone's an cranial aneurysm, on the autopsy table. only 20% that have it get to the table. one, one of the fascinating

things is, the second operation, after the first one, was a bleed and they gave me a relatively low chance of surviving. i remember going down and the doc going down and asking the doc, you're counting the ceiling tables, you heading to the operating room, a lot of you have been there and i said, doc, what are my chances? i had two great neurosurgeons. i will not forget, i will not mention his name, he's one of the leading neurosurgeons in the world. he said, senator, for mortality or moshedity -- morbidities and i'm thinking son of a bitch. swear to god. geez. i said, let me put it to you this way, it was a long road to the operating room. this is absolutely a true story. i said, what are my chances of getting off this table and being completely normal? i said, your chances of living are a lot better.

[laughter] and i said, ok. what are they? they're in the 35% to 50% range. i thought, seriously, born optimist, i said, hell, that means 35 out of 100, 50 out of 100 make it. i might as well be the one. what's the most likely thing that will happen if i live? he said, well, the side of the brain that the first art -- the first an uerism was on controls your -- aneurysm was on controls your ability to speak. i said, why the hell didn't they tell me this before the 1988 campaign? could have saved us all a lot of trouble, you know what i mean? [laughter] now i'm going down the second operation, four months later, and -- on the other side of my head. and this is not about me but it's about the truth. they put together the same crew. as you know they always want

the same anesthesiologist, same team if they've done an operation on you. and so there's a great guy named dr. hart, military. he had been transferred from reid down to texas, and they brought him back and he's the anesthesiologist and i'm going down. now, this operation had a 98% chance because it hadn't bled at all. and so trying to make me feel better, the doc kidding the neurosurgeon, looked at me and said -- looked down at me and said, senator, do you know why neurosurgeons have the biggest egos in medicine? i said no, i don't know. he said, who in the hell else will go in the brain with such confidence knowing as little as they know about it? and i thought about that for a second. and decided to stop thinking about it. but all kidding aside, there is so much we don't know, so much

we don't know. and patrick kennedy and i believe the same way. the possibilities are immense. we don't know what they are. they're immense. and that's why the president has asked for $100 million to launch a new initiative to map the human brain. truly the last frontier. and the prospects are overwhelming to the very thing we're most concerned about. about mental health. look, we can't do any of this alone, and it's not -- it's not in the province of government alone. that's why we need you. i want to thank valerie and my staff for reaching out to all of you, putting this together. you're the ones that are able to reach millions of americans through all forms of the media. it's not just glenn close and bradley. it's you all have significant

reach. >> thank you, mr. vice president. >> well, you teach our children, you treat our patients, you minister to the faithful. and i want to take this opportunity to thank all of you in this home, individuals and organizations like for the commitments you've made and those who have been ahead of the curve, as most of you have been ahead of the curve. to my friend, and he really is my friend, john, i hope you needed more kids that needed to get into georgetown. they might have a shot. i told him, at least name a sidewalk after me or something. but i want to thank you, john, for the -- jack, for the efforts you made to integrate the conversations about mental health and wellness into the as culum and students undergraduates. i hope