been around for a long time. 1976 is a long time. , fact, i recall correctly 76 was in the midst of the administration between carter or just after -- just as carter as coming in and after president ford had served. . so he has seen both republican and democratic administrations. nd he has passed muster by his superiors. he's climbed up the ladder. he served in private business and private practice. he's note a new kid on the block. --he's not a new kid on the block. i had a chance to be with his wife, dr. sharon malone, one of the premiere physicians in this

community who has her own legacy. the legacy of her sister who was one of those who integrated the universities in alabama during the segregated south. but the interesting thing about eric is that he does not come with a sense of entitlement, which i don't like even using that word because if you fix something that is broken, if you try to integrate because it is segregated, that is not entitlement. if you're trying to ensure someone has an opportunity, that is not negative when you say affirmatively you want to make sure that there is diversity. but eric takes life as he sees it. and so it baffles me when we were proceeding through this process. somebody said bad things come in threes. i don't want to start that because i'm hopeful we don't have any threes coming along. i've got to get on an airplane

in a couple minutes. but i would say to you that i would like to answer some of the questions. we have had, obviously, benghazi and the state department. we certainly had the misfortunes of the i.r.s. i want to clarify that i.r.s. falls independently. the commissioners are appointed on a six-year term. so they do not have the political influence of the presidential appointment. but their ultimate oversight is through the secretary of the treasury under the u.s. department of treasury. certainly that investigation is going forward at this time. but it seems like all of that was piling on someone who was not directly involved. benghazi, i.r.s. let's get to the one that has drawn the most ire, rightly so. let me temper that because i

know that the i.r.s. has drawn a great deal of ire. i have come to the floor and indicated there are a lot of good hardworking employees, maybe you know some of them, our colleagues see these people in our district who are working every day to ensure that the american people who pay them, who own all of this in the united states government, are treated fairly. i know there are people like that. but certainly we are absolutely outraged of any prosecuting in a biased way for political belief. that is an absolute unpardonable sin, if you will, under the first amendment. we all agreed to that. we want a full investigation. i can assure you general holder, if any part of the department of justice are involved in a criminal investigation, if it is discovered, we have an inspector general under the i.r.s., you can be assured the department of

justice will be involved in determining whether any criminal activity has gone on as relates to the i.r.s. but what has drawn the most ire, d it should, is the precious prep, the right to be told what's going on. again with a little bit of humor i will tell you that those of us in the public eye really like that press story that says we are cutting a ribbon for something that has been given from the federal government. or making the grand speech that someone will quote that was most air diet -- erudite and astute, but the press should be unfettered because it is the right of the american people to know what is going on in their government no matter what level it is from the school board, county clerk, to the statehouse, to the city government, and to your federal government.

maybe to the chagrin of many who found out in the press, we understand. so when it is suggested that the department of justice would violate that sacred trust of blocking information to the american public, then, obviously, there is an enormous amount of concern. and i understand that. i think it is enormously important to lay out this whole , estion of the fox reporter gentleman who has been working on a number of projects, the of the ea of the emails associated press, release of them or targeting of them, targeting of one particular individual, mr. rosen, of fox news, and the may 15 hearing of

which i was present in the house judiciary committee. i wanted to speak of what i know. one of the questions i raised was just to get a yes or no answer whether or not mr. holder had a been a supporter of what we call the heels act in his professional career. a bill that had been supported by many of us in the last session or before, that is to block or protect reporters and their proprietary information under the first amendment. for some reason my good friends on the other side of the aisle, republicans, did not see fit tore that legislation to pass. so here we are. in a set of circumstances that speaks ill of anyone that would target a reporter, or this enormous league out of email --

leak out of email, all of this is being reviewed, but i want to focus on general holder's frame and the very exleapt attorney in charge.t he had he did not participate in the ultimate investigation and the determination for the ultimate subpoenas regarding it. it was done after some 15,000 pages, 15,000 pages of documents were issued and they still could not determine how the leak, where the leak or who would be the culprit of the leak. this is pertaining to issues that would have a detrimental impact on the security of the american people. let me be very clear. it was not the reporters, it was

to fiend out who was, for lack of a better term, the leaker. and yes, those are sources. that's the act -- angst of the people, lawyers, entrusted with your protection in the department of justice. there is no doubt congress has a right to restrain it in. you elect us in the people's house to make sure that you are protected from that kind of intrusion, but let it be very clear that the intrusion was not to entrap the reporters. it was to ensure us that we were protecting the american people. all of a sudden the general is in the hot seat. he recused himself from further investigation, and the question -- number of questions were osed in that may 15 hearing. a number of questions were

posed. and one of the questions posed were seeking a clarification about different laws, but asking question about allowing for reporters to be prosecuted. and a paraphrasing, but a fair handle on the answer of the general. in fact, if you can pay attention to newspaper accounts, precisely if this is correct, with regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure material that is not something i have ever been involved in, heard of, or think would be a wise policy. the active word is, potential rosecution, prosecution. prosecution. yes, there was an f.b.i.

affidavit used to obtain a warrant for the eements and there was probable cause and this was in 2010, to determine whether any law had been broken. yes, that was done. and the affidavit did describe this reporter by way of reports. as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator. but the justice department did not prosecute will rosen, did not -- mr. rosen, did not even file charges against him. while he was listed as a co-conspirator, no charges were ever raised against him. no charges were pulled back. no acquittal, no prosecution. so the answer of the attorney general was accurate. to the extent that anyone would himselfthat he perjured

is absolutely without context, without substance, without basis , without intent, without proof, and it serves no purpose. it serves no purpose. rom all of that, from all of that, and of course sometime back a tragedy of fast and furious, whenever i come to the like to be specific for the law ---over my sympathy for a family that lost great and wonderful son. there is nothing that one can say to bring back their son.

and i have no karl with getting -- quarrel with getting to the facts. again, fast and furious, none of it pointed back by independent arbitors, this had to to with the misdirected probably with good intentions, but misdirected and cruel results of putting guns in the hands of thieves and crooks to be able to track guns and gun trafficking between the united states and mexico. i will not defend it. i am not here to defend that. i was appalled, but i think we must have a reasonable discussion of truth. and the reasonable discussion of truth is, did mr. holder have anything to do, anything to do with the mishaps of fast and furious?

i can assure you that they have yet to point to him on that basis. eric holder came to the the tment and he took up challenge, and these are words of his initiative. that his challenge would be protecting the security, rights, and interest of the american people. more than four years later, together with the extraordinary men and women who serve in the department of justice, that promise has been fulfilled for many of the accomplishments that this department has achieved. my good friend was on the floor, my good friend, he is mr. smith of new jersey, he has a passion for preventing, among other things, the prevention of human trafficking. we work together on these

issues. eric holder has been a crusader to fight against the viciousness of human trafficking. he has set up a task force in my own city of houston, which, to our dismay, has been known as the epy sent her of human trafficking -- epicenter of human trafficking. young people, prostitution, individuals coming up through the southern border, one of the most debasing part of an existence to be taken hostage, bondage, by someone else, to be abused and mistreated. so he has been enormously committed, passionately mmitted to the idea of preventing human trafficking. and we look forward to working with him. he wanted to save you money. and they have had a very successful reach on financial

fraud. setting up a consumer protection working group consisting of federal law enforcement, regulatory agency. making sure that those who attack the vulnerable with payday loans and elderly know that the justice department is standing on their side, and the very one that is go after active duty military, how sad young people coming home from far away places and all of a sudden they are victimized. the resources that they have, that are limited. the lawsuit against mortgage fraud that tipped this country down, took homes away from those that deserved them. $1 billion lawsuit against countrywide, led by this department of justice. banking houses. various inappropriate behavior by some on wall street.

general holder was not afraid on behalf of the american people. and countless banking officers as some of ey, such hose whose names include perreault and grimm, all executives of general electric, were sentenced, related to bidding for contracts of bond proceeds and other admirable contracts which would undermine the public trust. remember, that's why it started. ut also diminish the assets. it is this justice department that continues the prosecution of the madoff brothers, peter madoff on june 29, 2012, one of the most -- oh, my god -- i'd use the word sad but that's

certainly not a strong enough word, but i did use the word tsunami. one of the most catastrophic attacks on people who innocently invested with someone who they thought would maximize their savings for the good old days of their sunset years. he continued to secure justice for victims of mortgage fraud. he worked on a number of issues regarding service members. and what i think was particularly important, what you wanted him to do is he went after international cartels, domestic conlution conspiracies, -- conclusion, conspiracies, bid rigging. he was, along with his team, committed to serving the american people.

i see my colleague is here, and i just want to mention a few others before i yield to her. because as i mentioned, his passion for people's lives are so moving that i'd need to get this on the record. the department has charged a record number of human trafficking cases. i gave you the story but i didn't give you the facts. over the past four years the department has increased the number of human trafficking rosecutions by more than 30% in forced labor and adult trafficking sex cases while also getting a number of convictions in innocence lost national initiative dealing with our children. and so the department has dismantled trafficking with ukrainian victims held in philadelphia in forced labor,

central american women, convicting the traffickers who violently abuse them to compel them into forced labor and forced prostitutes in restaurants or bars on long sland and eastern european victims, convicting the trafficker of brutally exploiting them in massage parlors in chicago. sex trafficking of seven minor victims in a house in fort lauderdale and a life sense in a gang member for sex trafficking victims as young as 12 years old. eric holder has not been sitting around. trying to construct when he would come to congress and purger himself, that has not been his tasked and his challenge. -- his task and his challenge. let me just say this, because

there's a lot that i want to engage in. i'll just throw this out before i yield. our violent crime rates have yielded maybe because we see someone like the hold movies about the f.b.i. g men, maybe we see the h men coming in eric holder for he has prosecuted thousands of criminals with llegal gun possession. that does you harm. that does your children harm. and yes, i want to just say this to my distinguished colleague as i yield to congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, when the american people needed to have an unfeted voting system, yes, many disagree. but eric holder and his team in the civil rights division have not been overturned. they were following the law.

we do expect a supreme court decision in a matter of days on section 5. i cannot pretend what that decision will be. but there were a number of decisions that had to do with ensuring that there was one person, one vote. remember i started by saying whether we agree or disagree, there should be something called trust. many people would say to me, one person's trust is another person's poison, but it's all about the law. this justice department has been following the law, and it is crucial that when we use a litmus test to be able to determine whether someone should resign -- and by the way, general holder, do not resign. america needs a top law enforcement officer of integrity. then the standards should be

the law. the standards should be the constitution. the shuds -- the standards should be the facts. the standards should be the case law. the voting rights law and redistricting and election law, the majority of the cases, the infrastructure of the cases have been upheld, been led by eric holder, the attorney general of the united states of america. would be -- is the gentlelady desiring to join and i'd be privileged to yield some time to the distinguished scholar and she happens to be congressperson of the great district of columbia, thank you for your leadership and scholarship on constitutional issues, eleanor holmes norton. ms. norton: well, i thank the gentlelady, first, for yielding and for her kind words. but i thank her even mr. moran: -- but i thank her more for what she's done this afternoon. she's come to the floor, my good friend from texas, and has

rendered one of the most informative highlighted -- rendered one of the most informative highlights of the career of this attorney general since he has been attorney general. i would like only a few minutes to say a few words about the attorney general because he began when -- in the clinton administration, i got the courtesy of that's normally given to senators. we have no senators so i got the courtesy of recommending to him u.s. attorney and district court judges. although the district of columbia today as long had a large african-american population for most of its 200 years, there's been no -- no american african-american united states

attorney. and though they handle not only what they do for, for example, my good friend in texas, federal matters, but because there's some limits on our home rule, also handles all of the criminal, local criminal matters. using a 17-member distinguished committee of citizens who vetted a great number of candidates, gave to me the three top -- i chose the man who is now attorney general as the first african-american u.s. attorney general for the district of columbia. he acquitted himself so well that he became an assistant attorney general and finally attorney general of the united states. we are accustomed to seeing attorneys general get in

trouble. last two attorney generals was virtually chased out of office because of the mistakes they had made. i think that's because the attorney general is close to the most controversial business of the president of the united states. so i'm not surprised that the attorney general would be a target. i am surprised that he would be accused so recklessly of, for example, perjury. i believe that he will be vindicated as shortly because it's so clear on the face of it even a e has been not tilla to -- sen mislead the congress or anybody else. i think of susan rice who was yesterday appointed to be the national security advisor, the closest advisor to the

president on foreign affairs and what she went through. she's been thoroughly vindicated and yet she was chased out of the possibility of being secretary of state on the allegation so she had somehow misled the congress on reporting on benghazi now. of course the truth is out. now all those emails is out. she wasn't a part of any of the emails. e was the one who read the statements from the c.i.a. we now know that the statement as written by the c.i.a., that the state department participated in it. that the state department would be blamed for what was really a cover. benghazi was essentially a cover for a c.i.a. operation,

and so the c.i.a. got into it. the state department got into it. and all of the intelligence officials got into it and they issued a statement which now has been found not to have misled the congress, and if the statement didn't mislead the congress, imagine the vindication now of susan rice who only read a statement that he had no part in developing and no reason to believe since it came from the c.i.a. that it was anything but the fact as they knew it and indeed it turns out they were the facts as they knew it. well, i mention susan rice only because of her recent appointment and because she was accused in the same way that the attorney general does. now, the gentlelady from texas, my good friend, representative lee, and i sit on two committees who spent a lot of time investigating the attorney general, do know that this is a congress that has no agenda.

if it had not been for the so-called scandals i am not sure there would be anything to do. they tend to go home early, to come late. there's nothing of much consequence on the floor. and indeed i'm so grateful for the appropriation period because at least there's something of substance to come to the floor. if you don't come here to legislate, if you come here to beline, if you come here to keep the president from legislating, then you do run out of ideas. we're now at the lowest deficit in 50 years. so you can't continue to talk about that the way you did before. won't come to the table, as the american people have said they ant for a balanced deal. when people went home today, i think the last vote was around noon, there's nothing happening here. well, the vacuum has been

filled by the committees who have each of them. there were five committees looking into these various matters. there was a committee of oversight and government reform looking into ve the misuse of this money by the i.r.s., except it turns out that was before the executive order. the worst of it happened on the last administration. much worse on that administration and, by the way, prior administrations. it's all over. but after all, it's another way to go at the i.r.s. all of us have been very critical of the i.r.s. we still don't know what really happened there. but without knowing it, there are some in our committee that are tracing it back to the president of the united states without evidence. you see, that in 50 years ago would have been called what it is, mccarthyism. so when the gentlelady comes to defend the attorney general who's been attacked i come

simply to join her and to thank her. in our committee, for example, we spend perhaps most of last so-called gunwalking where there was the tragedy of a border security who was killed. our committee over and over asked again for the full slate of witnesses. if we had those then we would have the last attorney general in the bush administration as well as his lieutenant because that's who started the gunwalking, and this attorney general of course stopped it. over and over again we had the same charges of perjury, unable to prove them. trying to sofar as

subpoena documents that the -should not ieved- become a part of the public record, so he invoked executive privilege. why did he do that? once he invoked executive privilege he, too, was accused of being part of a cover-up. yet it is in fact the case, and here i'm going to quote, that the supreme court has said, human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with concern for appearances, thus presidents have repeatedly asserted executive privilege to protect confidential executive branch deliberative materials

for congressional subpoena. otherwise subpoena the president of the united states cannot expect to get the truth from his attorney general or others who report to him. then they said the president had asserted executive privilege too late when they ran out of other excuses. except the reason that he asserted it when he did is he was hoping they would negotiate the matter. you don't come up with executive privilege when you think reasonable men and women will come to the reasonable conclusion. the failure to look at the root causes of the tragedy involving two administrations, to call no official from the administration that was thinking of the idea of gun running, carrying it on for some time does demonstrate that this is not a congress known for its fairness. and it is not known for its fairness as a general matter. i'm not sure why perhaps we should expect that the high profile attorney general, which

has become as some of the print has reported, something of a proxy of the president of the united states himself. e, then, would incur fairness. the gentlelady mentioned the co-conspirator matter. she and i both attorneys. we are accustomed to indictments where the prosecutor named and calls it a co-conspirator never attempted to prosecute that person, but because the information as -- has to allege precisely what happens he will name a person, no press person in the press has ever been and there was never an attempt to prosecute anyone in the press. everybody's at a disadvantage because we cannot be told what they were going after. and -- because it is an intelligence and secure matter. that leaves everyone here who is

out for the attorney general free to allege whatever they want to unless they have some sense of responsibility. ms. jackson lee: would the gentlelady i yield to on that because i'm so glad you raised that point because we do not want to suggest that a layman's ears are different from lawyers' ears, but that is a very important point which you have made. the frustration is that on your committee there are many lawyers. you have lawyers who investigated, thrick on the majority side. they understand what that concept is that when you have an indictment, you list names. and those names may be listed as a co-conspirator. to take that and then translate it into layman's interpretation, oh, this person is going to be prosecuted, and to then suggest that the attorney general perjured himself in front of the

judiciary committee where he said, outright, i have no thought of prosecuting a reporter. that wouldn't even come to mind. and to take the f.b.i. affidavit , which listed -- in 2010, by the way, i think this is 2013, listed the gentleman, mr. rosen, as a co-conspirator. nothing has happened since then. it is almost, i believe, an unfair treatment, an unfair misrepresentation, an unfair mischaracterization for the american people. and the general made it clear in his testimony before our committee, i have no interest, no desire, no knowledge of prosecuting reporters. i just want to add in addition, we have just introduced the house bill that is similar to the senate bill that has

judicial intervention now, sort of ramped up shield act, that indicates that you would have to go to the courts in certain circumstances to secure some of the emails that are prior information for the press. but the distortion of something at was being questioned, may 13, 2013, and three years mr. rosen has never been indicted. he has never been prosecuted. i yield back to the gentlewoman. ms. norton: i must say i thank the gentlelady from texas for that clarification. not only that, they have issued -- the justice department has issued a statement to the effect it has no intent, never has had any intent of prosecuting the co-conspirator as is the case and has been for 100 years of listing of co-conspirators. just a moment more on this important matter. you mentioned that my committee has a lot of lawyers, like you and me.

your committee, the judiciary committee, i sure would have expected more than the way they have gone at the attorney general. on this matter of the a.p. reporters, the a.p. rosen matter, the attorney general recused himself. i'm not sure why he recused himself, but i imagine it is because if you're looking for a leak, and you're doing a thorough investigation, you look from the top to the bottom. once he had been questioned, then of course he did the right thing. if that's the reason by recusing himself. but when it came to the rosen matter, which is simply signing off on the prosecutorial information, a routine ceremonial matter, there was nothing contradictory about that

, and his statement that he had no knowledge of the prosecution. he had recused himself. had recused himself. he better not have any knowledge of it. but if -- the fine points we are making i'm afraid for the public, they are fine points because as the gentlelady says most people are not lawyers, and if they are they don't want to hear lawyer talk. these are really important questions if you want to accuse somebody of something. perjury. something as serious as perjury and a lawyer at that. i thank the gentlelady for coming to the floor so that these accusations, these wild and reckless accusations against the attorney general have not gone unanswered. and i yield the rest of the time to the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: i am so grateful for your leadership.

before you yield i want to pose a question to you, congresswoman, because if nothing else we can both agree i'm going to conclude, i have further comments, but i wanted us to at least together, so we would look like one person was saying it. for a officer of the court, for the highest ranking law officer of the united states, the american people need to understand that perjury, the charge of perjury is one of the most devastating charges. forget about your career. because all of us who are barred, who are members of the ar, are officers of the court. all courts. some are able to practice in the supreme court. and as an officer of the court, even in representation of your client, perjury is the ultimate

charge. that's why i'm so baffled and felt compelled to come to the floor to raise the question why lawyers on the oversight committee, lawyers on the judiciary committee would even offer a charge of perjury under the circumstances of what i have just defined. let me just say this. in a letter to the judiciary committee, attorney general said, the attorney general takes the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those committed to protecting it very seriously, especially as such disclosures can cause great damage to our national security, attorney general also has the utmost respect for the vital role of the media. it goes on to talk about his commitment to protecting these vital sources. then it goes on to, again, restate this whole question of investigate versus prosecution, and it says at the outset it is important to note the difference between an investigation and a prosecution. and it goes on to lay out

probable cause. again, lawyer talk. ut it is very clear that the general wants to lay out for the members of congress in an open way. by the way, i don't know if we could both stand up here and count how many side meetings and one-on-one meetings -- not one-on-one, but staff meetings that they have with the attorney general on the gunwalking. we call fast and furious, now the meetings and letters that are going back, the ongoing contempt charge, issue that is going on. this attorney general has made himself available. but the real question i wanted to pose to you as i yield for your answer, is what it means to be charged with perjury. as an officer of the court. and what general, what lawyer would take it lightly, though some have gone to jail, some have gone to jail for purgery, but that has been proven in a

court of law. ms. norton: and charged an the basis of some evidence. ms. jackson lee: in this instance we have one line that was stated that no, i will not prosecute, versus the fact that the signing of an affidavit that did not result in a prosecution. congresswoman. ms. norton: your point about, and also the court, is something that most americans may be unaware of. every piece of paper that a lawyer files before a court of any kind, it may be seen perfunctory, it is subject to perjury precisely because when you are admitted to the bar, you become an officer of the court. so you risk your life because you could be disbarred, not only for committing perjury, but even for misat the same time in an

offering before a court. that's the high standard to which we who are members of the bar are held and for that reason it would be unseemly for any lawyer, much less the highest lawyer in the land, to risk perjury. and i submit that not only has perjury not committed -- been committed, perjury should never -- the words perjury should never have entered into this conversation without the slightest bit of evidence. that's what reckless means. and i thank the gentlelady for the question. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady for her knowledge. i thank the gentlelady for laying out something, that as you said, nonlawyers would say were going too much. i think they understand when you have a role as give to you by the bar license and a role that you would not play with it lightly, but i think the other

point is i told you i did want to highlight mr. holder's tenure, but he's been around since 1976. let me just say he has had many times to disabuse this officer role, and he has not done so because i know his integrity. i'm glad you mentioned now, national security advisor rice, let me congratulate her. and again use that as an example. let me congratulate her and use that as an example a very fine public servant, outstanding diplomat. in this instance not a morsel of evidence that she would manipulate the benghazi talking opponents. what an enormous tragedy. who would want to see our fallen diplomats lose their lives and their families. let me just say this, we want the truth. something use that, that suggests let us hold our words until we know what the facts are.

and i just want to compare now very quickly all of what you have heard discussed is what has been absorbing the time of a place that should be talking about making right on the affordable care act. now, i know that thousands of californians are just getting rebates back because of the affordable care act. i know that small businesses are getting dollars back because of the affordable care act. i know that seniors are now getting preventive care because of the affordable care act. children are getting preventive care, women are getting preventive care. but you're only hearing the bad news. why? because we are too busy making charges about perjury. i'd rather you have the testimony, let's have hearings to get people to come forward to tell america how the affordable care act is making it better for them. .

we are suggesting that the attorney general with no evidence whatsoever is purgering himself. in a couple of days, the parents of america, the children of america will be facing a 6.8% increase in the interest rates that our children will have to pay who are now coming out as 2013 graduates. we are talking about general holder. he's been a fighter against consumer fraud and human trafficking and crime and no evidence of perjury. instead of us meeting to have the clock from ticking on july 1 and kicking up the interest rates, this is a nightmare. $10,109, that to was the bill that was passed by our republican friends, and

then the automatic increase is $8,000. this is what our young people are going to be feeling the brunt of as they're trying to pay for college loans. could we get together and work on that? i think we could. and then of course we have heard dead silence about what we're going to do about reasonable gun legislation or hope the lights of the chambers don't turn off, sound goes out because it looks as if we're trying to take away guns. no. every one of us holds up the banner of the second amendment, but what we're saying is, can we at least know -- there are some putting forth mental health laws. i am a strong supporter of it. et us help individuals who are suffering. at the same time automatic weapons of any kind, there needs to be minimally closing

the gun show loopholes, minimally. and then those who are far more sophisticated than what these pictures may show, from my perspective, the kind that was used in sandy hook, we can do better as the american people. but maybe we can also do something that we can all come together on. what about a simple gun storage law? we don't have it. and the series of children that have killed their siblings or their grandparents or parent by having a gun laying around, not locked, because there's no law, no requirement. some states have it. we've done it and done a good job in bringing down that loss of life in texas. i'll be introducing legislation , be working with the general and the department of justice to ensure that we find a good balance. but there's a lot of work. sequestration that is literally

closing teachers and childcare units and cutting off civilians military bases and stopping i.c.e. enforcement officers and customs and border protection and numbers of others on furlough because of sequestration. couldn't we get rid of h.r. 19? it says elimination sequestration, go back to the budget or at least go to conference and treat the american people with respect so that the services you need are not shut down because of sequestration. why are we talking about perjury from a legal office -- top legal officer whether there's been no proven evidence that anything that he says in the judiciary committee was contradictory to what happened to mr. rosen? no proof. recuse himself. not involved. no indictment. no intention of indictment on

the premise of what this particular issue was about was the leaking of national security matters. and so my plea today is that we can do better. we can do better by our youngsters. in essence we can stop the bleeding. we can do better by our children, for health care. we can do better by better gun laws. we can do better by getting a better budget. we can do better by serving the american people. we can do better by building new roads and bridges and infrastructure, fixing the dams, stopping the flooding. all i want to say, mr. speaker, as i close and i thank you is to thank you, mr. holder, for your service. do not resign. and to my colleagues, let's get to work to help the american people. i believe that will in fact be our finest hour. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. members are reminded to direct heir remarks to the chair. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. is important today and an important day that we are on the day of the anniversary of the invasion on d-day during world war ii. there's also another important aspect about today because we

learned about the of istration's collecting massive information, private information about every verizon customer's phone numbers, all the calls they made outside the country and within the country. staggering, and it makes one think, well, gee, if this administration was gathering information and demanded, got a court order, secret court order to get all this information for verizon, then most likely they did from the other carriers as well. as a verizon representative has pointed out, look, when we get a court order demanding that we turn over information, then we have to turn it over. and that is what we do in a

country where we believe in the rule of law. we are supposed to follow the law. but what is staggering for those of us who have debated over the fisa courts where you ave a real legitimate, nominated and confirmed federal judge, presides over information that is considered so secret that the discloseure -- disclosure, even the request for information would create dapingers for national security. -- dangers for national security. we debated that in judiciary committee. that included my friend, ms. jackson lee. we've had these debates over these issues. and i was talking with my friend with whom i often disagree in judiciary, congressman from new york,

jerry nadler, and actually i recall him indicated during debates that if we didn't rein in the power of the federal government these were the type of things that could happen. d i have to admit today that any predictions or concern on the part of jerry nadler that if we gave the power under article 215 or section 215 or basically the patriot act, the fisa courts, that it could and would be abused, mr. nadler was right. we're now seeing affirmation of that. but i do think it is important that we understand what we're talking about with regard to these phone records.

and as a preface, i think it's important to look at the order from the united states foreign intelligence surveillance act -- foreign intelligence surveillance court, washington, d.c., it's entitled, mr. federal bureau of investigation for the order of getting tangible things from verizon bissonette work rvices, inc., on behalf of communications, inc., d.b.a. verizon business services, and it cites for its authority in 50 the law at 50 -- volume of united states code, section 1861. and in this order that is

granting the request of this justice department under this attorney general who is under fire for other issues, it says the court having found that the application of the federal bureau of investigation, which is under the auspices of the attorney general, the justice department, for an order requiring production of tangible things from verizon business, etc., court finds that it satisfies the environments of 50 u.s.c., section 1861. and it goes on to say that accordingly, these things are ordered. and it orders -- and i'm quoting now -- an electronic copy of the following tangible things. all call detail records or elephone metadata created by verizon for communications, one, between the united states and abroad or, two, wholly

within the united states, including local telephone calls. further down it says telephone metadata includes comprehensive communications, routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information, originating and terminating telephone number, international mobile subscriber identity number, international mobile station equipment identity number, trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. the telephone metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication as defined 2510 u.s.c. section subparagraph 8 or the name, address or financial information of a subscriber or customer. now, this comes on the heels of

information about just how invasive this administration had gotten when they went after the records of the associated press. the phone information of many, many phone numbers and some of them coming from right up here in the area where the reporters use. this is in the united states capitol. many times these phones up here are used by reporters to call members of congress who have another constitutional privilege under the nstitution that provides privilege for the information -- to a ovided for member of congress. it's not unlimited.

but that's on top of the freedom of the press that's also granted in the second amendment. it's amazing with our attorney general said, gee, in essence, this was like the most egregious or one of the most egregious national security leaks i'd ever heard about. so serious we had to go after this material and then we find out that there were only a handful of people in the entire administration who knew the information that got leaked. and instead of just going without a warrant, they don't need a warrant to get their own administration phone call data. they don't need a court for that. it's their data. they could have gone to the handful of individuals that knew the information that got leaked, checked their phone logs to see who they called. but instead of doing that, they

decide to go on a fishing expedition for all of this telephone information about the associated press. they apparently wanted to know who the a.p. talks to, what they do, what they know, who they know. let's get all of this information. they didn't need that for their pursuit of the leaker. they could have gone straight to their own sources and got what they need interested there, and once they have a subject within the a.p., if anyone, then they could go for that information. and as a former judge, if somebody came and said we have found the source of the leak, here's one of the five or so people that knew the information, he called this reporter at this jump, and so we have probable cause to believe that the leak was made to this reporter, and put other information in there that raises it to the level of probable

cause to allow the judge to let them take a look at that one reporter's phone logs. no, they didn't do that. they went on an incredibly vast, and very chilling fishing expedition. and thn we have the attorney general testify before our judiciary committee, i know my friends mentioned this before i got up, my friends on the other side of the aisle, they were talking about how he is such a great attorney general, in essence. and certainly never perjured himself. but i heard what he said. i have heard it replayed over nd over. and when he says he wasn't aware of, he had not heard of, he never participated, he didn't think it was a good idea was the basics of what he said of ever

prosecuting a reporter, and then within a week or so we find out actually he approved of an affidavit that went before a judge with the request for a warrant from the court against james rosen of fox news. now, i have had people wake me up at all hours of the day and night. i have had people call when i was awake at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning say judge we need to come by your house. this is serious. they would come by. if they had enough data in their affidavits that established probable cause, then i would grant a limited warrant. but there were times i would get upset with the law officer that bothered me with an affidavit and a request that clearly didn't have probable cause. we are not going to grant those. if you're not sure if you have probable cause, talk to the d.a.'s office.

run it by them before you bring something in that clearly does not establish probable cause. fortunately the officers were so good that we normally dealt with, that normally was not a problem. sometimes it was. and any responsible judge takes that very seriously. sometimes you would get a request for warrant for information, you go, ok. you have established probable cause in your affidavit, but your request is so global and broad or so ambiguous i can't sign the order you prepared. sometimes i would write n.a. in the order and make it more specific. sometimes they would know that i was going to be restrictive and they would leave blanks for that. but then to find out that the

court granted this administration's demand with an affidavit supporting it under oath, that they needed all the records that verizon had on phone calls inside the united states and to places outside the united states, and the judge just grants it. and now following on the heels of learning that the i.r.s. targeted political enemies, political opponents, people in tea parties, people that were very pro-israel. other groups, a group that was very pro-marriage between a man and a woman, like has been the tradition in this country. for the entire history of the country. until now when it's come into question and some think that nature totally failed when it

created biologically a mating between a man and a woman that it screwed up. it should have been a man and a man. well, that's a difference of opinion. but under this administration they felt like it was worth going after and preventing a group like national organization for marriage, from stepping up and standing on the traditional marriage. and being able to deliver that message. didn't prevent them from quickly granting legal status to groups that felt otherwise. or somebody was related to somebody in the administration. we have seen those examples. but, gee, they also knew within the i.r.s. that if they granted or denied a request, well a denial could be immediately appealed, and so in order to prevent justice from being done,

prevent people from having the opportunity to politically express themselves as a group, they just sat on them. one, two, three years to prevent them from being able to go public as a group. i was shocked a reporter asked you were n, well, coming, begging to the i.r.s., you were the ones asked for legal status. i'm sure this is a very fine reporter, but it just showed the ignorance. we are all ignorant of different areas, but showed the ignorance where we have got yep to in this country where the internal revenue code is so oppressive, if you as an individual go out and say i don't have much money, i'm a working man, just barely getting by, you are a working woman, you're just barely getting by, but if we pool our

money we might can be able to express ourselves politically. maybe buy a commercial or maybe send out flyers, or maybe buy billboards. but something if we pool together, maybe we can have an impact in politics on an issue like marriage. and if you pool your money like that, and you don't have permission from the i.r.s., then they are going to come after you. because you got to have a legal status to do things like that now in america. and it is further indication as to why this internal internal evenue code and the incredibly huge number of regulations that were never passed by any elected representative, they just generate it. day after day after day by some

bureaucrat somewhere, i used to say in a cubicle, but apparently we find out they have some pretty luxurious offices and go get -- they spend millions on their conferences they go to. apparently they haven't spent enough on learning to line dance because i wasn't very impressed with their line dancing. but that's not part of their job. maybe they need to get into a different area or different profession. but they have to obtain legal status if they are going to do anything politically, or the i.r.s. can come after them for not doing so. so we have forced groups into getting government approval before they can ever express themselves politically. it's astounding. and when you find out this administration has used so many aspects of its power to chill or

prevent political opposition to eir positions, their re-election, then it really gets scary when you find out they are just out there wanting everybody's information on everybody they called in the country and out of the country. we had some pretty significant debates in judiciary under fisa and under the patriot act and we were assured, no, the law makes very clear, you can only get information from an american citizen if they are in a foreign country and the foreign law allows that. and they call it known. but under these laws we can't just go get information about an american citizen's personal records. we can't do that without probable cause they have committed a crime. but under these incredible powers of the patriot act and

to go to the fisa court as they did here and get a secret order, we were told, and we debated, and some felt like, look, even american citizens in a foreign country, we don't think you ought to be able to get that foreign -- that american citizen's phone data even if you just pull it out of the air. we don't think you should be able to get that. so there was debate about those things. well, what if they are calling a known terrorist? and we've got american intelligence agents gathering in a foreign country and we can get that without a warrant, it's out there floating around. we can get there. there was debate, yeah, but there are american citizens, you ought to leave them alone. some felt, if they are an american citizen in a foreign country, and our intelligence agencies can get intelligence

data without violating the foreign law, then you need to know as an american citizen when you go into a foreign country you may have our own intelligence agencies getting information about your telephone calls as long as they are not violating the law of the country they are in. and that's the way i felt. we were always assured that unless there was probable cause to believe an american citizen was calling a known or suspected terrorist, or a hostile foreign government, that kind of thing then, no, we don't go after american citizens' information. especially not if there is a call from an american citizen to another american citizen. no. that's none of our business. unless there's problem cause -- probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. then we find out they actually

found a judge that signed off on this thing and they got all this information. i know there's some even republicans who would say, gee, i don't care if the government has my phone number. they have gotten it so they can go after terrorists. unless you are a terrorist, the american government has no business monitoring what all you're doing and who you're calling. especially this administration with all the abuses we have already seen. it's wrong. should not be occurring. but they have done so. there was a tweet today by ace of spades. the tweet was, we have all got an obama phone now. well, apparently we do. because this administration is following every call being made by every phone in america, at

least the ones on verizon. so that leads you to believe they have probably gotten some other information, too. i do appreciate my colleagues on the other side concerned that enough good things about obamacare are not coming out because some of us are concerned about the attorney general's perjury, and i would submit, humbly, a major reason not enough good things are coming out about obamacare is because there are not a bunch of good things coming about. people are losing their insurance. they are getting in trouble. that is a big problem. mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: approximately seven minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you. but this is the anniversary of d-day. so many americans died on the beaches at normandy. so many from so many free countries gave the last full

measure of devotion there on those beaches. it wasn't normandy, it was another beach where one of my constituents who since passed away said, when they were landing, they were doing it so early in the morning there was no sunlight but the actioncies powers are so powerful lights you could read a book in their landing craft. they had been taught when the landing lamp went down, when they got to shore, they would all run out at the same time and as they got closer they heard the bullets going back and forth. machine gun bullets going back and forth across the front of the ramp. we were all so scared we knew when that ramp went down we were all going to die. d one of the guys, i don't recall his name. but he exemplifies the spirit of america. he finally looked around and said, guys, we all know if we want to run out of this landing

craft the way we have been trained, we are all dead. here's what we are going to do. i'm going to go first. everybody is going to put your weapon in your right-hand and grab the belt of the man in front of you and we are going to run out single file. some of us won't make it, but that way some of you have a chance. . and paul stanley said he was third. the two in front of him were killed and everybody else made it. that's the spirit of america that landed on the beaches of exiss y to take on the powers who sought to take -- axis powers who sought to take freedom from free people. s it to -- it was on this day in 1944 franklin roosevelt said this on national roofment probably today it would be ex coreated. he said, my fellow americans, last night when i spoke to you

about the fall of rome, i knew at that moment that troops of the united states and our allies were crossing the channel. in another and greater operation. it has come to pass with success thus far. and so in this hour, i ask you to join with me in prayer. almighty god, our son, pride of our nation, this day has set upon a might yen dever, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion and our civilization. and to set free a suffering humanity. lead them straight and true. give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfast innocence their faith. they will need -- steadfastness in their faith. their road will be long and hard for the enemy is strong. he may hurl back our forces, success may not come with rushing speed but we shall return again and again. and we know that by thy grace and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. they will be sore tried bidet

and night without rest until the victory is won. the darkness will be rent by noise and flame, men's soulslike shaken with the violences of war -- souls will be shaken with the violences of war. they fight not for the lust of conquest, they fight to end conquest. they fight to liberate, they fight to let justice arise and tolerance and goodwill among all thy people. they yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. some will never return. embrace these, father, and receive them, thy heroic servants into thy kingdom and for us at home, whose thoughts an prayers are ever with them, help us, almighty god, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith, in thee, in this hour of great sacrifice. many people have urged that i call the nation into a single

day of special prayer but because the road is long and the desire is great, i ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer as we rise to each new day and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking thy help to our efforts. give us strength to strengthen our daily as if , to redouble e -- task, to redouble the institutions we make in our forces and let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our currently onto our sons, wherever they may be. and o lord, give us faith faith, give us faith in thee, faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united crusade. let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. let not the impacts of temporary events, of temp porl matters, but fleeting moment,

let not these deter us in our unconquerble purpose. with thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. help us to conquer the apostles of agreed and racial arrogances. lead us to the saving of our country. and with our sister nations, into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. and a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. thy will be done, almighty god, amen. franklin roosevelt on this day in 1944. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 30 minutes.

ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to come to the well of the house. thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to speak a few minutes his afternoon on two subjects. but first involves both a for any evening member of congress and a tragedy in our capitol hill neighborhood nearby. and the second involves the upcoming appropriation period. mr. speaker, last night was a terrific night if you happened to be there.

members of congress, it looks like equal numbers of democrats and republicans, we're part of the so-called no labels caucus, these are members of congress who are trying to get beyond the needless polarization in this house, decided to go to the baseball game together, the nationals stadium, our new terrific stadium here in the district of columbia. it was a nats-mets game. i'm sorry to report the nats lost badly. they also played the night before and won. if i may also report that. i was coming back from this really wonderful bipartisan experience, we ate hot dogs together. we drank -- me wine, a lot of my colleagues beer together. and we talked about anything

but the house. we talked about what people have said members need to do more, we talked about the game nd what was happening in our lives. i sat next to a member i had never met before, even though he's on the transportation and infrastructure committee with me, his name is rodney davis. it was so funny to hear him talk about how he was -- no wonder i didn't know him, he was the lowest man on the totem pole. he apparently was least in seniority on our committee and i'm near the top. he laughed about that. he laughed about how narrow was his margin of getting to the house. i mean, all of this was, you know, fun and, yes, games, the game of course was a basketball game. and he told me about his 12-year-old twin boys. it was really so touching how he missed a suspension vote ecause he was coaching the

baseball team where his boys played. so that was the setting of the evening. you can't help but feel good when you come home from an evening like that. and because i have for many years lived on capitol hill, i represent the district, i'm a native of washington, i now live on capitol hill, i didn't have to go far from nationals stadium to come he home. -- to come home. but i retired to find a pungent the in the air because neighborhood hardware store was in the process of being burned to the ground. i could get only so far along pennsylvania avenue and everyone had to take a detour, even this morning parts of pennsylvania avenue, southeast, were closed off. because of smoke -- of even

then hot spots from the fire. it was like losing a friend, a human friend, that is. my first thought went to the employees. there are about 65 of them. and i'm grateful to have learned that it appears that no one was injured or hurt and i'm telling you, this pungent -- remember, this is a hardware store. so there's all kinds of things to go up in flames and all kinds of smells coming and even though i'm a number of blocks, no more than about six blocks, from smell very deeply the fire. in fact the city said everyone should go in, turn on their air conditioning and not come out for a while. the employees were still in the building, some of them got out

of the fire and no one was injured or killed. i have understood that there may have been a couple of firefighters who were injured. we certainly wish them the very best. and thank them for fighting what was a horrendous hot and unusual fire in the middle of a residential neighborhood. when a store that's been in the same location for 100 years goes up in flames, you begin to realize that it was more than a neighborhood's hardware store. that after almost 100 years in the same location, it had imbedded itself into our capitol hill community as an institution all its own. it stirred in me something like the emotion that i felt when the easton market, this

historic old market that was even older than fragers, went up in frames -- flames a few years ago. those are parts of your neighborhood you cannot imagine being without. we have since rebuilt easton market so that it looks very much like it always did. because great pains was taken to see to. it i'm not sure we'll be able to do that for frager's. after all, it was a public institution. the easton market. and that's not the case with this private business. which has thrived in our neighborhood through the era of megahardware stores, it survived. when the era of the corner grocery and the corner store of any variety seems to have gone y the way.

it says everything about frager's that it could survive in this kind of competition where these multipurpose megahardware stores are accessible if you want to get in your car. i guess that may be the key to why these corner institutions survived so long. frager's was not a state-of-the-art building. that's part of the reason it could burn down. you go in there and they have squeezed goods into frager's that you will not find at our wonderful megahardware stores. there are the kinds of things that may have gone out of style but they're just what you need and they're just what goes with your own home and we are in a historic district. i live in a historic house, you

can't do anything on the outside of that house. you can change it on the inside. so you can imagine we're always trying to match up the historic things of our homes with what's available in the stores. well, frager's always there to help you. so the loss was -- is for us monumental. i think it has survived all these years not simply because it happened to have often what we can't find anywhere else, but because of the service ethic that is a part of this neighborhood institution. you go in there, they know you, if you've been in there once before. they go out of their way to help you, even as you try to find your way through the cramped aisles. they have the amenities you need. you may still go to the big megastore but very often you'll try frager's first or have to

go to frager's when you didn't find it where you might have thought it should have been. above all, such stores in our neighborhoods are tailored to our needs. they've learned what people ask for and they try to stock it when no one else would. it made me recall the 90th anniversary, that was about three years ago, of frager's. i was so impressed that you could have a store that is where it was, 90 years ago, and ow -- 93 or so, that could still celebrate that it's there and it's been there all that time. so i came to the floor on that occasion and have since put those glattory remarks in the congressional record. so i was really very much looking for another opportunity today to salute frager's and to say that we know you're different from the eastern market -- easton market. yes, you have insurance but you

don't have taxpayer dollars to help you build. but i think you will find a very grateful neighborhood doing all it can to help frager's survive even as the easton market has survived because there are certain institutions that are endemic to the neighborhood and if they go, it simply will not be the same neighborhood. the morning after you still couldn't get close to fragers. i'm going to try to find the owner this evening. this store is located at 11th and pennsylvania avenue southeast. the cause of the fire is still not known, or at least was not as of this morning. squon wine traub -- john winetraub brought this store,

bought fragers from the family in 1975. so that tells you that's where a very his -- well, good section of this period one family owned it. and yet he has kept it so that it seamlessly moved from the family to mr. winetraub. he's hoping that his insurance takes care not only of the building but somehow helps him with the salaries of his 65 employees. i'm very pleased that by the time i awakened this morning the matchbox, another store in our location, had announced that it ould offer temporary work to fragers employees until they are able to find employment. i was so pleased to read that

the nursery, which was my favorite spot, was somehow intact. besides this hardware store, which is a remnant of its former nursery, as a large outdoor nursery with just the kind of flowers you need to start up your window box in the spring, with all the plants. and you could go and shop on the outdoors there. somehow the -- that had survived. most of the fire. and i bet you that we are going to be able to go very soon, notwithstanding the destruction of the building, to the nursery. ust to remind everybody that fragers is alive, well, and thriving.

i want also to salute those who stood with the mayor, vincent gray, and me just about 10 days ago, to announce that as the district of columbia appropriation comes to the floor , we will be looking at the ppropriators to make sure they respect the district of columbia 00,000-plus american citizens as -- 600,000-plus american citizens as the independent jurisdiction it is and will not try to direct us how to spend our own local funds. there were representatives from a number of organizations, d.c. vote, the extraordinary organization that leads the fight for district voting rights, for our ability to spend our own money, for our ability to be treated as other americans are treated. and then there were the groups who targeted the way we have

been targeted. there were the gun safety groups. there were the pro-choice groups. there were the health groups saying that they would alert should the district appropriation be targeted for what we call riders. which are undemocratic attachments to the d.c. appropriation to keep it from spending its own local funds in a democratic manner as directed by its citizens. this of course would never be the case for any other jurisdiction, but because the house has -- the congress has retained some jurisdiction over the congress, there are members of this body who would take toantage of its jurisdiction intrude into the local affairs of a local jurisdiction.

and yet in 1972 the congress itself recognizes it was wrong. on the heels of the civil rights movement, interestingly, it delegated the authority for governance to the district of columbia itself. it was about time. it had been done once before in the 19th century. when the republicans after the civil war allowed the district to have representation in congress and a home rule government. the democrats came back to power local government and the right to be represented in the congress. we still do not have the vote on the house floor. although we pay taxes at very high rates like every other members' constituents. but at least there was some

representation. finally in the mid 1970's the togress saw how wrong it was claim itself to be the leader of freedom around the world and to have its own capital city where there was no local governance and no representation in the congress of the united states. it did, in fact, when it delegated its authority, to the district for local governance, it did leave four or five exceptions. the exceptions were for example, that you can't tax the federal government or federal property located in the district of columbia. but those exceptions were just of that kind. they didn't say and members will come in any time and keep you from spending your own local funds the way their own constituents can spend their own

local funds. so we will never give up our full rights as american citizens . spend our own funds. we raise $6 billion more than some states every year. when our folks tell us how to spend that money, we are going to always fight to spend it just as every member would fight to spend it. we have fought against republicans, particularly tea party republicans, as they call themselves, they would be among the first to side with us on that matter because they are supposed to, according to their recited principles, resent the intrusion of federal power. sometimes even when federal power always has fans. we thought they would be the first to understand that you don't use the big foot of the federal government against any local jurisdiction. and then somehow claim the constitution. i can do it because i can and

because somehow they don't have atehood yet -- if that isn't unprincipled the word doesn't deserve to be uttered on this floor. i appreciate how the appropriators have handled our appropriation for the last several years. when the democrats were in charge of this body, we were able to get all of the riders off of our appropriation. only one has come back, a rider, an abortion rider. we intend to get that one off again. but the others did not come back and i want to just express my preciation to this house for at least keeping those attachments off. one of them was an attachment that will cost lives. and it's left us with people who are ill. that attachment kept us from spending or own -- our own local money on needle exchange

programs, which are widely used around the world and throughout the united states. you can't spend federal funds for needle exchange programs, but you can spend local funds in every large city and many counties spend their own local funds this way because it's one f the few ways to keep h.i.v., aids from spreading. the district was kept from spending its own local funds on needle exchange programs for 10 years. the result was that the district had the highest aids rate in the united states for that reason. right down the road, baltimore, much poorer city than the district of columbia, and the district of columbia is not a poor city, it is a city of, yes, a modicum of poor people but a very prosperous city, down the ad in baltimore you have had for years a better aids rate than you have in the district of columbia because nobody could keep them from using needle

exchange programs. these are programs that when an addict is on the street allows you to wean him or keep him from passing a dirty needle on that will spread the virus. and often to wean him from it because he expects the clean needles to come every day. highly effective way. whatever it is, we have the right to save the lives of our own people the way we want to. if that way is legal and constitutional. so you can imagine the anguish we felt when we could not even save the lives of our own people. to its credit, that rider -- and credit of this house, that rider had not come back on our appropriation. i have had a meeting with

chairman crenshaw. i don't have any idea what will happen, but he seems a fair and open man, and i was pleased also to bring the mayor to have a meeting with him so that he could meet the chief executive of the city. and there are other riders that were on the appropriations that are not now on it. we learned to take the offensive, though, because we are left here by ourselves, delegation of one. so it's real easy to gang up on us because i'm all the district has. it has no senators. and therefore we try to stop such intrusions before they occur. and yet partly perhaps because of that, perhaps of the action of our allies in writing the appropriations, the appropriators alerting their own but rs, having them write,

i think what has also had an effect is that there are members who have, i think, listened to the effect of these riders, seen them as inconsistent with the principle of local control. and acted accordingly. so i say to those members, you have our thanks and our appreciation. and i say to my own capitol hill neighborhood, as i close, that we have lived through the many loss of a major public institution, the eastern market. we saw it come back. if chill chill -- if capitol hill, it seems to me, all of us to help fragers to come back. it's been there when we needed them. they cannot depend upon public

money. they need support and we'll have to learn what kind of support it is from all of us. if we value neighborhood institutions. at a time when our country is growing larger and it's becoming so easy to become anonymous, where the personal and the ability to touch and feel that you are heard, it often seems so distant. when even those of us who tweet and facebook recognize that at the same time we are keeping our distance, at a time like this, when fragers brought us close, when it made us walk to the store instead of getting into our cars and we found, after all, what we could not find anywhere, let us celebrate this institution which i think every member of the house from

whatever community, large or mall, could identify with. i celebrate fragers. i look forward to its return in a fashion that will remind us of a century's worth of service. a near century service to those who lived in the capitol hill community, one of the oldest communities in the nation's capital. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i thank you and again i appreciate privilege to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and i come to this floor to

voice my concerns about the direction some of this executive and legislative body seem to be going. and i'm starting off this way, mr. speaker, that yesterday it finally occurred to me how to describe the political whiplash that has taken place and goes against the logic and history and experience of myself and i think a majority of the american people. i said to them yesterday at an immigration meeting inside the republican study committee that had a panel there of house and senators there to talk about immigration, some of them experts, and i said i feel like rumble stilts skin. the story was that he went to sleep under a tree and he was clean shaven. when he woke up he had this long, long beard that apparently grew over a century or so.

the culture shock was what the story was about. i went to bed the night of november 6, and having fished -- finished election celebration, having succeeded in another election, what i watched was mitt romney had to concede that he had not won the presidency from barack obama. i understood what that election was about. as much as most anybody in this country. it starts in iowa and we spent nearly four years sorting out and helping to contribute to the knowledge base of the american people. as to what the planks in the platform would be, what the platform would look like, how we select a nominee for the president of the united states. it starts in iowa with the first in the nation caucuses and the candidates that come there, many of them will go to all 99 counties, rick santorum, for example, had over 380 meetings in iowa and he went to all 99 counties. michele bachmann went to all 99

counties. that's an endorsement from the iowa caucuses that can be earned. you don't have to have millions of dollars to shape a media image and buy a nomination. but it is important to be there and talk. so we do this. we're all politics all the time. and i'm engaged in republican presidential nominating process from early on. so i watched this and i contribute to it and i weigh in on the things that i believe in and i've listened as every presidential candidate has endorsed, let me just is a say this, my immigration ideas. and yet, as i listen to the debate and mitt romney won the nomination and he and barack obama had their multiple debates, three debates, if i remember, as much debate that goes on throughout the media, i don't think anyone went to the polls on november 6 thinking this election is about immigration. i went to bed the night of november 6 having realized that barack obama would be president for another four years, a

disappointment to me. a crushing disappointment to many of us who had so many big plans on what we were going to do to put this nation back on the right track with a new republican majority, eamented in the united states senate, and a -- eamented in the united states senate, and a president, -- anticipated in the united states senate. and a president mitt romney. but it didn't work out that way. i never believed on that night that the election was decided on immigration, mr. speaker. it was not. the debate was almost exclusively about jobs in the economy, jobs and the economy, jobs and the economy. it was drilled so relentlessly and so often that it put the american people to sleep. and i said so before the election multiple times, this needs to be more than a race about jobs and comet. nevertheless that seemed to be what the pollsters on the republican side were advising mitt romney needed to be continually coming out. so the american people went to the polls doing what they do. they make decisions based upon what they hear people talking

about. and you can track polling and i have looked at it for years, the poll something going to the he highest priority, one that people and media are talking about. national conversations or many times driven through the media. these conversations of a presidential election was about jobs and the economy. i want to -- i went to bed that night on november 6 disappointed, perhaps even crushed at the loss of opportunity that this nation would have. i woke up the next morning not with a beard that was 100 years long but just a normal one from a night's sleep. not thinking that there was anything except jobs and the economy and the promise of the president to expand the dependency class and telling people that you're going to have less personal responsibility under barack obama and you'll have more risk under mitt romney. that was part of the argument. jobs and the economy, grow the dependency class, that was the argument. but, when i woke up on the morning of november 7 i began

to see some of these things come through the news. this analysis that mitt romney would be president-elect on november 7 if he just hadn't said self-deport. or mitt romney would be president on november -- president-elect on november 7 if he hadn't lost such a large percentage of the hispanic vote. and then the numbers began to trickle in a little bit and you get those numbers that show that, and i don't dispute them, 27% itt romney got about of the vote and -- of the hispanic vote, and barack obama got 71% of the hispanic vote. so, the people who had promised that mitt romney was going to win the presidency, including pundits who hung in until the polls were closed, until the last minute, still insisting that there were precincts coming in ohio that was going to turn the election the other direction, needed a scapegoat. they needed a scapegoat to blame the election loss on because they had predicted that victory and contributed to the

engineering of the campaign and had pushed the jobs and the economy argument to the detriment of some of the other topics that would have been useful to get a better turnout among conservatives. and so looking for a scapegoat, they began to say on november 7 , mitt romney would be president if he hadn't said these two words, self-deport. he'd be president if he had a large percentage of the hispanic vote. he lost too much of it. and this is the mantra that we saw that came out of president george w. bush's campaign when he began to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. and i remember a document that was produced by the republican national committee chairman. it was referred to at least as an autopsy or postmore tum report that said, again, that mitt romney would be president if he'd got an larger percentage of the hispanic vote and that george w. bush got 44% of the hispanic vote in 2004. that number has floated out

there since date after that election in 2004. but it's not true. george w. bush never got 44% of the his spanic vote. that number is someplace -- hispanic vote that. number is somewhere between 38% and 44%. it's a stronger percentage than mitt romney got but mitt romney was competitive with john mccain's vote on the hispanic side and it's clear john mccain has been an open border senator all of his life. the only time he was for border security and border control is when he had to save himself from a primary and that's when he said build the blank fence. and so what we have here is an irrational conclusion drawn on the morning of november 7 of last year that turns out to be a handy little scapegoat, excuse, change the subject matter for people who made predictions that didn't turn out to be -- didn't match what their professional opinion was. and another thing that takes place is, if you repeat something often enough in the news media, you can convince

people that that is the topic, that was the subject. so i will just tell you that in this conference people are now starting to understand the election wasn't about immigration. there is no mandate for barack obama to sign an amnesty bill. there is a strong desire on the part of people that are for open boarders to pass one -- borders to pass one. i understand why democrats are for open borders and amnesty. they are the political beneficiaries of open borders and amnesty. republicans are paying the price for this wedge that's being driven between the republican party, mr. speaker. and in political tactics, as well as warfare and military tactics, if you can split the line of your enemy, your opposition, your competition, if you can divide them, especially if you can pit them against each other, you have a much greater chance of success. this is a classical example of

republicans accepting an argument, in fact, creating the argument, joining some with democrats who gleefully drive the wedge in between the republican party to separate the rule of law, border security, pillar of american exceptionalism, constitutional conservative republicans away from the establishment wing of the party that sees this world a little bit differently. conventional wisdom here is romney would be president if republicans had done a better job reaching out to the hispanic community. and i'm saying, mr. speaker, that's not true. there's no data that to supports that theory and even still they insist on adhering to this and when i ask them, would what is in this gang of eight's bill in the united states senate that is passed out of committee now to be considered on the floor of the united states senate? what's in that bill for americans? the answer is, nothing. there's nothing in that bill

for americans. what's in that bill then for, let's say republicans? well, political disaster is in it. there's nothing in the upside of it for republicans. what's in it for democrats? millions of new voters, more political power, continued expanding of the dependency class, an erosion of the individual responsibility and the god-given liberty and freedom that this country has and that's the benefit to the democrats' side of this thing, mr. speaker. then what is the effect? the effect is pretty clear. you have a study done by the stellar robert rector of the heritage foundation who does multiple studies. he is the most accomplished analyst that i know on this hill and his work has been subject to public scrutiny for more than two decades. and his work has been unassailable. when it was announced that he was doing an analysis of the

economic impact of the senate version of the bill, the amnesty bill, immediately his political opposition began to attack him personally. and to attack a study they had never read. i know they never read it, mr. speaker, because it wasn't out and it wasn't released. and i got a verbal preview of that when robert rector came to speak before the conservative opportunities society which i have chaired for some years, and i knew that they hasn't read the report because it wasn't released -- hadn't read the report because it hasn't been released. i've read every page of the rector report, i believe it's 102 pages. there's a five-page executive summary. this report boils down to this, mr. speaker. that if you pass the senate gang of eight's comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty act, the net cost of the people who would be legalized in america, even if you use the 11.3

million which i think is a very low estimate, the net cost to the taxpayer when you calculate the drawdown from the welfare systems and the health care and the education and the infrastructure, he's got it all broken down in detail, the net cost, and then you subtract from that the net tax contributions made by this group of people, you end up with a $6.3 trillion price tag to the senate's amnesty bill. $6.3 trillion. and still republican members of the gangs of eight, house and senate, posture themselves as conservatives. they posture themselves as conservatives and they advocate for a $6.3 trillion net cost. and their best argument against the rector report is, it's not dynamically scored. i heard that yesterday from the gentleman from idaho. the rector report is not dynamically scored. if you'd dynamically score it, then presumably could you get

around to a purist libertarian view that any time -- and that's this, any time anybody does an hour's worth of work and contributes $1 to the gross domestic product, they contribute to the economy. that's their theory. that's a very narrow view of what goes on in any country. if you're going to call it economic growth because the g.d.p. goes up by $1, but it costs you $2 or $3 on the other end, out of tax receipts, to fund the stimulation to get that extra $1, that's not economic growth. but they argue that it is. if you dynamically score the rector report, it gets more costly, not less costly. it goes to the number from $6.3 trillion in costs up, not down. so i would suggest these people who are attacking robert rector or the heritage foundation or the people that are making allegations that the rector report's not dynamically scored, go in there and dynamically score the rector

report then. tell me, what is your number? it's not good enough just to criticize somebody else's data without actually addressing the data. what's your number? how much do you think the gangs of eight bills are going to cost the taxpayers for the people who would be legalized instantly? how much? and then they say, i want more legal immigration, more legal immigration. and you could ask them, how many are coming in here legally now? most of them who make such a statement would be stumped, mr. speaker. they don't know. if you don't know how many people are coming in here legally, say over the last decade, how can you assert whether there should be more or less? and, if they think -- if they do know the number, then i would say to them, you'd think there should be more legal immigration, how many is enough? how many is too many?

there's two more stumping questions i've just asked. they don't know how many is enough, they don't know how many is too many. they're making a political calculation, not a policy analysis. it isn't good enough to change the destiny of the united states of america simply by wetting your finger and putting it into the air or checking your political barometer and making a decision whether it's a plus or a minus for you politically. can you get re-elected if you're for amnesty or not? that's some of the question that's going on around this body. i suggest, mr. speaker, we have a higher charge and a higher challenge and a bigger responsibility. this is a constitutional republic. and one of the essential pillars of american exceptionalism is the rule of law. this shining city on the hill sits on these pillars of american exceptionalism. and among them, many of them are in the bill of rights, free tom of speech, religion,

petition the government for redress of grievances, second amendment right the right to be secure in our person, the property rights that used to decision, the that's another issue, i'll take that up in another special order the rights that evolve to the people or the states under the ninth and 10th amendment, no double jeopardy, all those thing, you take any piece i mentioned out of the history of this country, you don't get the united states of america. you can't be the united states of america without the law. without the rule of law. millions of people come to this country to escape lawlessness and we owe it to them and the her tg of all americans to ensure we don't have lawlessness institutionalized in this country. amnesty is -- to grant amnesty is to par ton immigration lawbreakers and reward them

with the objective of their crime. that's what's advocated by the gangs of eight, no matter how they want to spen it. if they do that, they will have provided an amnesty plan that can never be reversed and they will have destroyed the rule of law at least with regard to immigration so that it can never be restored. destroyed so it could never be restored. there is no going back to this, going to -- back to what was if this legislation passes. and i'll take us back to 1986. ronald reagan signed, he was honest with us, he seened the amnesty act, mr. speaker. he was pressured, no doubt, i'll just say i know this by a lot of people who have good judgment almost all the time, good advisors but the pressure that came was this. there are a million people in america, it started out about 750,000 or 800,000, but at the time the decision was made by

ronald reagan they said there are a million people in america here illegally and we can't deal with all of them so we want to get a fresh start. we can make this teal with the democrats in congress that if you just sign, mr. president reagan, the am necessary tai act we will ensure in this bill there would be border security. shut off the bleeding at the border and the tradeoff would be, we'll give amnesty to a million people. and ronald reagan with his compassionate heart and his good principles and good judgment, didn't see what was coming. what was coming was, the intentional undermining of the enforcement, democrats never intended to enforce immigration law in 1986. ronald reagan accepted their word, his word was good, he didn't have a reason to believe theirs was not, it was not. it was intentionally not good. but president reagan signed the amnesty act for the purposes of

the one sole and only amnesty act that was ever going to take place in the history of the united states. that was the promise. and in exchange, we all had to fill out the i-9 forms with precision and fear that the federal government would come in and catch us in a technicality and lock us up in jail or fine us a great deal. i've still got i-9 forms in the dusty files from back then, i was sure that i.n.s. was going to show up and enforce against me. it didn't happen. it didn't happen in my company, it didn't happen in thousands of companies across the country. they didn't enforce it the way it was promised to be enforced. we got the amnesty, all right, but we didn't get the border security. and now, we have people that seem to have the wisdom as if they had been born since then and been denied access to the history books that seem to think they can write laws that are immigration laws today that will put this thing away and finish adapting to immigration law for all time. they're saying, just listen to

us pass our gangs of eight amnesty bills, and we will fix the immigration problem for all time. it's clear to me that the lesson from 1986 didn't soak into them, they don't have a lot of gray hair, they don't -- you don't have to pull out a history book and read it, just down the street, about any respectable member of congress could, i believe, get a meeting with attorney general ed meese who was ronald reagan's attorney general in 1986 who i believe advised ronald reagan to sign the amnesty act but attorney general meese, whom i greatly respect for his intellect, for his character, for his judgment, for his work eth ex, he is still in the game. wrote an op-ed in 2006 to deal with george w. bush's amnesty proposal and that op-ed said, reagan would not make this mistake again. and then now, some two or so

weeks ago, he released another statement that mirrors the 2006 statement. so we have -- we have the benefit of attorney general ed meese and listen to what 86. ened in 19 if these members were sincere about making an objective decision. they are not. they are salivating over putting their imprimatur on history and changing the character and the culture and the -- and the direction of the civilization of america. now america has always been about assimilation. we are, yes, a nation of imgrants. so is every other nation on the planet, by the way. so we should not overemphasize that we're a nation of people that come together, that have assimilated different cultures and civilizations and we have something i call american vigor. american vigor comes from these pillars of american exceptionalism that i listed most of them in the bill of rights, add to that free enterprise capitalism, add to

that the faith of judeo christianity and western civilization all wrapped up together on this continent with essentially unlimited natural resources, the rule of law, manifest destiny, all of that was a magnet that attracted the vigor of every civilization here. we didn't just get a cross section of people that came from asia or europe or south america or wherever, they came to america. we got the dreamers, the doers, the vigorous people from every donor civilization on the planet. the people that came to work to contribute, that had ideas, they wanted to be unfettered by the ropes and chains and the straints that their home country had and come to america to embrace the american dream. that's why we are america. that's why we have a can-do spirit. we got the best of the spirits of every single country on the planet an we must preserb these pill loofers american exceptionalism, including the rule of law, or this nation

will never reach its god-given and intended destiny. that's why i stand so strongly on preserving respect and adherence to the rule of law. that's why i reject the president's lawless activities to suspend immigration law that he doesn't like, and advance his political foundation in doing so, the president has suspended the immigration law by the stroke of, executive amnesty is what he has done. that's what the debate was about last night with the king amendment, that's what the vote was about this morning with the king amendment that passed with a strong support in a bipartisan way, some people i think took a walk but in any case, my amendment said this, they'll not use any of the funds appropriated in the bill to enforce the morton memos, which are the memos commonly referred to that come if the president's wish to grant amnesty by executive edict.

and in one of those memo the most famous of which, which established dream act light, the president of the united states went out and did a press conference, within two hours of the issuing of the memo that came from janet napolitano's office and it says in that memo seven different times, we will apply this on an individual basis only, on an individual basis only. i could repeat that five more times. that gives you a sense of what they put in the memo. they know that when you lit gate something like this, the individual basis only is the reference to prosecutorial discretion. and an executive branch that has the prosecutorial discretion. it's well-est tab lished, i agree wit they can't enforce every single law. but the law also requires that when i.c.e. encountered an individual they believe to be unlawfully in the united states they are obligated to put -- to place them into deportation proceedings. that's the law.

the president su spend -- suspended the specific laws. he created four classes of people under the morton memos and then suspended the law as being applied against these four classes of people. he's not doing it on an individual basis only, trs lip service on an individual basis only and of 450,000 people already adjudicated for deportation, they have waived that on 300,000 and are grinding through the rest. it looks like they're on their way to half a million people that get administrative amnesty, this is before the dream act light memo came out. that's another chunk of this. so the president has time after time through the actions of his executives defied his oath of office which is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that's the president's obligation. it's his oath to the constitution he had his hand on the bible when he gave that oath. he gave an oath to our constitution and he gave a

lecture to some students out here at a high school on march 28 of year before last, i believe it was, and they asked him why don't you just pass an executive order, sign an executive order to grant lawful status to the dream act kids. the president said, as a former adjunct constitutional law profess quor at the university of chicago, accurately, he said, i don't have the authority to do that. the legislature passes the laws, my job is to carry them out and the judicial branch is to pass judgment on the meaning of the technicality of the law. pretty good response for a constitutional law adjunct professor. and about a year later, the president decided he wasn't bound by his oath of the constitution, neither was he bound by the analysis or the opinion that he gave the high school kids, defied his oath and defied his own judgments, publicly stated, and granted administrative amnesty through a series of six different memos known as the morton memos. we cannot be a civilized

country if we are going to have a president who legislates by executive edict or by press conference, by the way. mr. speaker, you'll remember that the obamacare was not supposed to fund abortion. nor was it supposed to fund contraceptives or sterilizations and there was an accommodation made in an amendment here in some negotiations with the president but they do it anyway. they impose this on our faith communities as well. and our churches filed multiple laults, more than i can actually quote into this record today to object on the grounds of religious liberty, this country shall not impose a violation of religious liberty on our faith people and it shall not draw distinction between an individual's faith, a private sector business' faith, or a church itself. it's all the same. no one is -- no one is exempt from the protection of our

first amendment rights. yet, this administration goes after them and when he heard the heat that came back from the churches in particular in the roman catholic church, the president did a press conference at noon on a friday and he said, i'm going to make an accommodation to the religious institutions and -- an accommodation. now i'm going to require the insurance companies to provide these things for free. abortifacients, sterilization, and rerepeat -- and he repeated himself, for free. the president can't do that. even if the rule further defines the obamacare law that passed that rule has got to be published, got to go through the administrative procedures course of action, the president cannot just simply with impunity and utter arrogance step up to a podium with the great seal of the president of the united states on it and say, now i'm changing things. hugo chavez does that. barack obama did that. he legislated by press conference. and now we have more

lawlessness coming to undermine the rule of law, grant amnesty to 11 million people that if history shows us right will be 33 million people, if you score that dynamically, take 6 ppt 3 trillion times three and get better into the zone of what this could cost this -- this house is going to oppose amnesty, defend the rule of law, it's fwoning to protect the dignity of every human person, god's gift to this planet. but this country is also god's gift to this planet and i urge, mr. speaker, all of those that are listening to this discussion we're having, and my threes on both sides of the aisle, let's stake with our oath of office. let's stick with our oath to uphold the constitution. let's defend the rule of law. let's have a smart legal immigration policy that rewards people that follow the law and can come here and contribute to this country. we cannot be the lifeboat for all of the poverty in the world, but we can be the inspiration for all of god's creatures on this planet. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

an amount that exceeds defense department budget caps under sequestration. see live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span when members gavel back in on tuesday. representative john dingell becomes the longest serving member of congress in u.s. history. the 86 year-old michigan democrat will surpass former senator robert byrd's tenure. he has been in office 57 years. he was elected in 1955 to fill a seat his father held. he is one of two world war ii veterans remaining in the congress. on the other side of the u.s. capitol, the senate gaveled out earlier this afternoon so that

the body of frank lautenberg could lie in repose. passed away early monday from complications from viral the ammonia. he was 89, one of the last remaining world war ii veterans serving in the u.s. senate. chris christie has named state to filly general senator outnumber's seat. lauenburg's seat. john boehner briefed reporters in the u.s. capitol. he accused president obama of making a reckless threat to shut down the government. he was referring to the president's threat to veto a homeland security spending bill. speaker boehner's news conference lasted about 10 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. this morning, i sent the president a letter urging him to reconsider his reckless threat the government later this year. the bill passed the house with overwhelming support. the bill says the president will not sign any spending bill unless we agree to his demands for a broader budget deal. in short, the president said higher taxes and higher spending or we will shut down the government. i think that is reckless. no one wants to make progress on the deficit more than i do. i have been working on it for years. i know how hard it is. that is why the idea of shutting down the government if we cannot find a deal is so irresponsible.

the truth is that we have a consequence. we are failing to find further deficit-reduction. it is called sequestration. the president knows that. he concocted this idea and insisted upon it. the administration's threats represent a significant departure from the agreement the president made several months ago. at a meeting at the white house on march 1, i asked the president and other leaders for an agreement, that we should address funding for the government in putting a deficit plan together as separate actions. everyone, including the president, agreed. i cannot say it any better than the president did back in march when he said, there is no reason why we should have another crisis by shutting the government down in addition to these arbitrary spending cuts. the house and senate budget

shares are continuing to be engaged in discussions. informal conversations about a framework is necessary before moving to a formal conference. no one should be surprised to find finding a framework is difficult. the senate budget never comes to balance. peace talks are hard. i am hopeful that we will be able to find an agreement in some way. it is critical for the long-term health of our economy and essential if we are going to protect and preserve important programs like medicare and social security. what the president did this week only makes this difficult task even more difficult. today, i am urging him to take the cover may shut down that offer of the table. in honor of our agreement march 1 and to treat these agreements separately. i hope you will take a look at

eric cantor's co-sponsor project. the congress more open and transparent. made digital versions of easier for thets public to get their hands on. announce in more to the months ahead. with that, i will take your questions. what the nsa was doing here. many of the people who voted against that said there could be an overreach and potential for abuse. do you think the chickens have come home to roost now? andhere are public policies civil liberty concerns.

i trust the president will explain to the american people why the a administration considers this a critical tool in protecting our nation from the threats of a terrorist attack. >> there has obviously been fights with the administration and the news media. this is taking it to a new level. i am fully confident that the house and senate intelligence committees will have provide oversight on this subject and will continue to provide oversight on this subject. it is important for the president to outline for the american people why the tools he has are critical to the threats that we may have. i will leave it to them to explain. congress approved it. we will provide the oversight. it is time for the president to

outline the issues and why it is important. theenator reid said republicans and the president are trying to protect speaker boehner. is is still possible for the senate to reach a deal? >> i hope so. the two chairs are continuing to have conversations. they are falling but give the order. the out --know about the assets program that was being outlined? >> i do not discuss classified data out here. >> everybody approved of this. why is it on you to explain why the program is not being implemented?

with largewas passed bipartisan majorities in the house and senate. it was given to the administration. it is the administration's responsibility to outline what the schools are what we are being used. will see those answers soon. all of the senators have been briefed on the program. do you agree that this was lawful? >> i have not looked at all of the details. that the doubt intelligence committee is looking at this and providing oversight. >> he said every senator was told about this and they already knew about this. >> you have to talk to him. i am not familiar with what

happens in the senate. >> you raise concerns? review know how broad this was? >> we are still waiting for the rest of the details. be helpedat it would with the administration came forward an outline for the administration the issues. >> one thing that seems to be holding up the deficit talks is whether the debt ceiling should be part of the talks. is the something you want to keep open, dealing with the debt ceiling? not seem likely that that would ever be the case. it certainly would never be the case unless there was a broad agreement that would put us on a plan to balance the budget over the next 10 years. i know some are trying to get me to take this off of the table

entirely. senator, i am 99.9% sure that is not going to happen. you never know. when neil could fall out of a haystack. needle could fall out of a haystack. i do not know why i would want to disarm myself. thatw comfortable are you the house can pass authorization on the farm bill? >> it is important for the house to work its will on the farm bill. it is hopeful we can pass a farm bill and get to conference in the senate and resolve this issue with american farmers and ranchers. >> [indiscernible] do you agree with that

assessment? do you feel like we are farther away? with senator rubio with regard to the border security provision in the shin -- the senate bill. i applaud his efforts to strengthen those provisions in the senate bill. i do not think we are farther apart on immigration in terms of the conversations that are continuing. i spent all year trying to people a framework for in both parties to work together to try to come to an understanding of what could happen. we are working closely with the members of the committee. i met with members of both sides of the aisle yesterday on the subject the it is a difficult issue. there are hundreds of separate issues within this period until

we have real border security and the ability to enforce our immigration laws within our country, all of these additional steps cannot happen until that happens. he american people will never accept it otherwise. have theseinuing to conversations. the judiciaryhat committee will have some vehicles available to us by the end of the month. the health-care undocumented workers are a deal breaker for you as a republican. group made itsan clear. an adjudicated process and a deferred adjudication, having health insurance was part of that agreement. most members would believe that was part of the agreement.

thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] democratic leader nancy pelosi also spoke to reporters in the capital this afternoon responding to reports that the national security agency collected phone numbers from verizon under a secret court order. she also spoke about health care law. this is a little less than half an hour. >> was that last nine? that was a long time ago, huh? good afternoon. earlier this week, our country lost a good patriot, senator frank lautenberg, whose life embodied the american dream. he worked hard in the private sector to help all americans to achieve the american dream. we will markonday,

the 50th anniversary of president john f. kennedy signing the equal pay act. earlier today, we had an event with families, women, leaders, as the kids coming together to coming -- advocates together to observe president kennedy's words. he said it was an unconscionable practice that women be paid less for doing the same job as man. that equal pay act was a first step. i said this morning to those who were there that it was personal for me because in the room there were not many people alive at that time, but i was and i have pictures with president kennedy around the same time. it was a personal as well as

official is joy to be celebrating 50 years and we still do not have pay equity. lilly leaddge to the better at, the first bill president obama -- ledbetter act, the first bill that president obamas signs. this is really important because of theake up over 50% work force and 40% of the families have women as the top toadwinners to continue enhance economic security, we will keep working to enhance the health and well-being of america's families. democrats are proud to be advancing the affordable care act provision to build a healthier nation. we are working with constituents

and small businesses and families, advocacy groups, state and local officials to implement the bill into law. progress is already being made. the kaiser family foundation shows the affordable care act saved consumers $2.1 billion in lower premium costs. in california, the new health- insurance marketplace is encouraging. there will be 13 options for california consumers. small businesses are receiving rebates from blue shield and and anthenmoved cost -- and m will cross. elsewhere, 90% of those projected to a role in 2014 will have about five options to

choose from -- an average of five options to choose from. more insurance choices in the workplace. one out of every four insurance companies offering coverage next year will be an hh -- in hhs run marketplaces, increasing competition, which will lower prices. .here is more to come in a few weeks, we will be observing the one-year anniversary of the supreme .ourt democrats are working with their constituents and their small businesses to make sure they are aware of the enrollment. what the roman period is.

enrollment period is. there are no lifetime limits and no annual limits. being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition. it is so exciting. it is about wellness and technology and taking us to a different healthy place. it is about and entrepreneurship. people are talking about not waiting until january to start a new business to be a photographer, to be a writer, to

be self-employed, to start a business. no longer it job lot, but following your passion, your talents, your aspirations, honoring the vows of our founders, the liberty to pursue your happiness and we are excited and proud of it and look forward to many more people entering the benefits of it. here we are again. today come -- today, 155 days since the start of the congress and no jobs bill coming from the house of representatives. is this what the american people want us to do? come here to get results to create jobs, to reduce the deficit, like opportunity for people. jobs bill.o

remember before the senate passed a budget, republicans said we want regular order? we want to pass a bill in the house and they should pass a bill in the senate and we can go to the budget tabled in the view. 75 days since the senate passed . budget does it occur to you that a party that advocates for regular the senateminute passes a budget they decide they do not want regular order anymore? sequestration is still in .ffect

it is choosing partisanship over progress. we think it should be the reverse. the republicans passed an amendment that would forbid the president from giving relief to the dreamers, children here in america, brought here by their , all-american kids, english speaking. they did not make the decision to come here on documented.

it was a pretty thrilling thing. the president gave that relief to dreamers. the amendment, if enacted, would require the president to strip undergoners who have background checks already and have been granted deferred action. nearly half a million dream as have applied for deferred action under the president's initiative. nearly 300,000 of them have been approved for the third action. today, the republicans in the house passed an amendment that would undo all of that. it is wrong. it is not worthy of who we are. immigration is the lifeblood of america, the constant reinvigoration of our country. people coming here who aspire to the american dream, consistent with the american dream, people who bring their hopes and their

optimism for a better future for their family, bringing with them and values that all family, faith,, community, a work ethic. what are the republicans doing? .assing legislation on the happier side, i am please with the work our bipartisan committee has done, moving the process forward on trying to find a bipartisan bill that can pass in the house of representatives. .hey seem to be making progress are judgments about its viability.

i salute them for that. i will take any questions you may have. yes, ma'am? >> [indiscernible] on phonerom verizon calls. do you think it needs other changes? were you aware of it? becauseasking you first you did come to our ceremony. this is serious. that it is in the paper is disconcerting to me. is fact that it is happening something that was done with approval of the fisa court. we have come to the place where we always have to make judgments about how we balance our security and our liberty.

has in its act also eighth privacy and civil liberties board. a privacy and civil liberties board. it has been in the news for the last 24 hours. it brings to the forefront the need for us to strengthen and use the privacy and civil rights bore that was put forth by the patriot act. i believe it -- civil rights by thehat was put forth patriot act. the fact is, we want more oversight for any president and privacyto look is the and civil rights board. way back when, many of us insisted that be in the patriot

act. yes, ma'am? >> a follow-up. you voted against the most recent patriot act bill. this gave too broad and authority, is centrally a dragnet. do you agree? >> we had concerns about what was in the patriot act. one, the provision that those provisions would be sunseted and we will revisit them and it had a privacy and civil rights board that we wanted to be strong and be used. bill came back again for the last time, i do not know if you would call it a sun sought -- a sunset or that thatorizon was so far away that made it unacceptable.

we have to protect the american people. we have to protect their liberty as well as their security. i stand by what i said before. let's use the privacy and civil rights board. let's use congressional oversight as we go forward. .hat is my answer on that >> [indiscernible] the dream act. of gang of 8 became a gang 7. aboutou talked to them what they seem to have come to an agreement on? what is the acceptable threshold on the health care provisions? have to seeall, we the bill in writing. the angels are in the details. let's hope.

my hope for the bill is that current law must be observed. we will see when it is written down. under theo subsidy affordable care act. i sent this to you before. said this to you before. no additional benefits to people who are undocumented. i believe they do not fall under the mandate of the affordable care act at the present time until they become legalized. it is a compromise bill. have to balance out a bill. they have license to go in there and do the best they could do, understanding the values of our caucus.

our caucus had principles that had been out there for several years. secure our borders, protect our workers. that means not exploiting workers coming into the country because that hurts our workers. , a path toication legalization. , there were things visasa and the rest. led by our hispanic caucus, we were led by our negotiators. there was strong interest on the part of all of us to have a , recognizing that to do that, we had to have a compromise. we had our principles set forth. the affordable care act is

clear. no subsidies are allowed for undocumented people in our country. that would hold true under the comprehensive immigration reform. i really do not think the vote this morning is indicative of where the house will be on immigration. maybe just that one piece. that is why it is important to have comprehensive immigration reform. taken piece by piece, some of us may have objections to one thing or another. advancing comprehensive immigration is bigger than some of the individual pieces. mislead please they are going to the next step. >> some might see that as the first shot in the quarry. >> some light.

i am just giving you my judgment. negotiations in the immigration bill that were part of the comprehensive immigration reform. sometimes, you may not support one thing or another. as part of a compromise, that is a different story. if you take certain pieces out wethe house or the senate -- call it a proposal. in the senate is looking more like a bill. you might not want to vote for more than one piece of it. you really have to talk to republicans. am more optimistic and positive about what our prospects are. you have to ask them what they think of it. >> you mentioned the california healthcare opinion. the bill is advertised as

something that would lower health-care premiums for everyone. some people, 25-year olds purchasing health insurance would actually see their health- care premiums going up. what would you say to those people who are going to see their premiums going up? >> some people do not have health insurance and they will certainly have their health insurance premiums going up because they do not have health insurance now. for those who have challenges, there are subsidies in the exchanges. people will be getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of a pre- existing medical condition. it has a whole cadre of quality that is in the legislation. if you do not have health insurance and you do not qualify for a subsidy and you are mandated to have health

insurance, you will have an increase. we are sensitive to what it means for young people, especially those who are single. there are policies that people can get. i do not remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium. everybody in the country does not have health insurance, so how could it be lower? the value of what you get for the cost that you pay is a reduction in cost to you. if you cannot have insurance, you are going to pay something that you did not pay before. if you cannot afford it, you can have a subsidy on a sliding scale within the exchange. for everybody, it is going to be a liberation, a freedom. allealt with invincibles along. there were people who did not think they would ever be sick.

they have the fear of being constrained by being sick. there was somebody who thought he was invincible -- that she was invincible and being diagnosed with breast cancer and told that she would spend the next 20 years with monthly payments on her credit cards to pay off for medical bills at the time. in of person like that being better off? i think so. be optimistic about it. enterprise.iting $400ther side spent million ms. characterizing --

mischaracterizing the affordable -- affordable care act bill. people will see what it means to them if they are a young person. you will see what it means for small businesses. for the with a solution american people. because of it is unsustainable. of it isst unsustainable. theyou see the bending of curve in terms of the cost to

the medicare system, already extending for bill timor years the length of medicare. we have to do more. and the bill does do more. cost was an important part of it. it was the main reason to do it theddition to its being unfinished business of our society. health care is a right, not a privilege. yes? >> [indiscernible] has $20 billion over the next few years. things,th all of these it is a giant kaleidoscope. we would just like to see the bill come to the floor and see the bill passed. i wanted to follow up on part

of her question. >> in a few minutes i have to go franke we have lautenberg lying in repose in the senate chamber. isn't that just lovely? such a patriot. the last world war ii that iran serving in the senate. we still have mr. dingell, among others and we will be celebrating him next year. week, you will be here when we observe him being the longest serving person ever in the history of the congress. just a few days and hours passed senator byrd. it is not just about the length of service, but the quality of his patriotism and the nation.

>> when did you first learn about the story? >> i learned about it when you did. my understanding is the house was offered a briefing. it has to be next week. maybe we will get a briefing with the speaker. i do not know. we heard the night before. maybe it was the morning it was coming. about the same time everybody else did. >> [indiscernible] prevented a terrorist attack. did you know that? be abledid, i would not to talk about it here. whatever it is to protect the american people, we have to protect our liberty at the same

time. that is why i keep coming back to that balance. it is important to our founders, how wise they were. and why i think congressional and the civil liberties board. be in this is going to the public domain. it is important for people to know what checks there are on any president in that regard. is that it? >> he said there is a briefing coming up. >> i said we did not have one. my understanding is that since know if it i did not will be next week. it cannot be this week.

to be -- not that they would make the decision, that they can make judgments about it. that oversight would have provisions of the patriot act and the rest. i would certainly hope that whatever we can do to prevent acts of terrorism -- axc -- acts of terrorism, we can do in a way that does not expose sources and methods. thank you all very much. i hope you are getting ready for the anniversary of the

affordable care act in 2 1/2 weeks. thank you. >> the house oversight committee met today about the latest treasury department inspector general's report revealing the agency spent $50 million on employee conferences over a three-year period. here is a top democrat on the committee. >> what happens here is that when we have episodes like this , it has an impact on the average person. i live on a block where most people do not make $3,000 a year. yet we can produce a video that has no redeeming value, none. taxpayers' hard-

earned dollars for that. then there was that learn -- line dance. we did not see any there either. we can do better. but guess what? the money that was spent on that, that is my money. is the lady who got the early bus this morning. that is her money. the one who makes $35,000. the gentleman up the street from me who makes $45,000 hauling trash. that is their money. so it was wasted. in my district, i cannot tell you that $50,000 is a huge amount for families struggling to get by. that is more than households make in this country. this was only part of a broader

problem, the growth of conference standing over the last decade. the inspector general's report found that the ira's spent $48.6 million on conferences over the past three fiscal years from 2010 until 2012. the irs spent more than that in the three prior fiscal years from 2007 until 2009 when the irs sent an astonishing $72 million. inquiryhe scope of your was limited. it would be legislative if we did not bring mr. schulman in here to explain 2008,why, from 2007 until in 2007 the conference budget was $13 million and then it more

than doubled. we are going into a recession. president bush's coming to us telling us the sky is about to fall. our economic situation is about to go over a cliff and we double it. in this way are going to get to the cause of this, we have to understand what happened to cause something to double. >> you can see that entire hearing as well as the newly appointed acting irs commissioner tonight at 9:15 on c-span. also, the senate wrapping up early today so the late new jersey senator frank louth and berg could lie in repose inside

that chamber. you can see the casket arriving at about 130 eastern this afternoon. the senator passed away early monday morning because of complications from spiral pneumonia. he was 89 and was the last remaining world war ii veteran serving in the senate. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the late senator ross casket lying in repose this afternoon. senator lautenberg passed away on monday. he will be buried in arlington national cemetery. >> when you put on a unit for a maintenance job, and this is if you are building janitor or a sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the role to the point where it is almost like you are a part of the

background, almost like a machine, so you are a human being wearing that uniform. the world gets to overlook you, and sort of not see you. i have called it like a romulan cloaking device, people are " geeks willr trek recognize that, which i can observe people in ways where they do not know i am observing them. .> sunday at 8:00 eric holder told members of congress today that the justice department has not and will not target the press in its investigation of national security leaks. he was responding to reports

that he approved the screening of phone records of a fox news reporter. this is an hour 50 minutes. >> the commerce, justice sub subcommittee will now come to order. he take the testimony of the attorney general of the united states. the committee wishes to welcome the attorney general, and we know he will be testifying on the department of justice's budgets, it's priorities for also thear 2014, and impact of sequester this year and next year in terms of the impact of the department of justice, its mission, because of its impact on its employees.

we will be listening to the doj inspector general testifying for the first time about oversight in terms of management issues. we are doing this -- every one theur hearings -- we invite inspector general to come so we have a better sense of not only how this can make spends money, but how we can be a more efficient and get value for our dollar. today we will discuss how the department of justice's 2014 budget strengthens national security and counterterrorism, protects the safety and security of the rights of citizens, and how the department in shores it uses taxpayer money wisely. the department of justice enforces and in defense the the interests of the united states.

our safety against threats, foreign and domestic, and providing g leadership in controlling crimes and assuring fair administration of the justice of all americans. that is a lot, and we ask a lot of the department of justice of employing more than 115,000 employees. 26,000 of them are federal agents. the fbi, dea, u.s. marshals, atf. have roughly over 20,000 prison guards and nearly 10,000 prosecutors, investigators, and legal experts. we get a lot for what we do. the u.s. marshals have arrested over 12,000 huge dip sex predators being taken off the streets because of the aggressive work of our marshals. dea put 3000 drug trafficking organizations out of business. the fbi dismantled 409 criminal

enterprises. the u.s. attorneys collected $13 billion in criminal and civil penalties after the bad guys. they are the guardians of our justice system, and we want to make sure we let them know we value them. mr. attorney general, when we get ready to turn to you, for all those people that work at justice, administering justice, or taking, we want to say thank you. in maryland we have many agencies with many wonderful accomplishments, and i will put those into the record. we ask a lot of the department of justice, and as we look at this year's budget, we know that the department of justice has got a request from the 27 point $6 billion. we also know that in fiscal

2013, we and acted a 26 point $8 billion, but then we faced the sequester, we took the entire $1.5ng down by almost billion. those are numbers that they must've had a tremendous impact, and we are going to work -- look forward. for community security, national security, oversight, and accountability. weknow for your highlights know there have been limited and targeted increases in gun violence. $4 billion,ne point $379 million over the 2013 request to keep home schools and community safe. i like that we want to help states improve the quality of criminal records and also mental health records. allow schools to hire school safety personnel and train local

police on how to respond to these threatening incidents. while we are looking out, [indiscernible] our threat to cybersecurity. in the last month doj has charged cyber committed ills. why rob a bank when you can do an atm heist? there is a growing nexus between tokenized crime and nationstates. our nation faces a digital pearl harbor. we know the justice department millionsting 668 dollars for fbi agents, computer scientists, federal prosecutors, or the issue of cybersecurity, and we look forward to working with you about that. there are many issues facing the budget. one of the biggest stresses on

the budget is federal prisons. the bureau of prisons request is close to $7 billion. inmates ford 32 new a total of 200 24,000 people in our federal prisons. 224 people are in our federal prisons. , andis a stunning number it requires a lot of protection. we are concerned about keeping the bad guys off the street. we need to deal with the present situation and also look out for the safety of our prison guards. we want to strengthen national security, and we will be talking about that as we move along, but we also know that for state and local law enforcement this is an area of great concern because we know the department of justice, the fbi [indiscernible] ,he way our u.s. attorneys were

it is through state and local. $2.3 is a request of billion in grants. we look forward to hearing more about that. we look forward to hearing from you in terms of how we can -- wee both savings and want to have a safer country, we need to have a smarter government, in terms of how we use our resources, and yet at the same time, we want to protect all american people. i would like to turn now to senator shelby. >> thank you, madam chairman. today we will hear from the attorney general of the united states, attorney general holder, about the department of justice and the its 2000 14 budget request. we will also hear from the inspector general, michael hurwitz, who has taken a very active oversight role within the department, as he should.

first i want to take a moment to ofognize the men and women the department of justice who protect this country from crime and terrorism. they work hard to keep us safe in this country, and for that i think we all owe them a debt of gratitude. the 2014 budget request for the department of justice totals $28.4 billion. comes largely in the form of funding for new gun control measures, while the majority of law enforcement accounts basically remain flat. the budget also proposes a number of gimmicks to find additional so-called savings within the department. i believe this approach is misguided and look forward to working with chairman mikulski to put the department boss is on the right track in the 2000 14 process.

the budget also proposes to remove language that prohibits the transfer of gitmo detainees to u.s. soil. ais provision received broad partisan support last year come and i am troubled by the administration lost recommendation it be removed. is particularly disconcerting in light of the president's renewed declaration on may 20 32", mowbray. guantanamo bay. the president has made no specific proposal for dealing with the current detainees. the president has not even attempted to remove those detainees his own administration has determined and be returned to their own home country. the proposal leads me to believe that the president is planning to move the get go cheney's here to the united states. why else would the budget delete the transfer language?

either this is a real proposal or it is a political posturing. in my view political posturing is unnecessary and detrimental to any real discussion about terrorist detainees. i am also adamantly opposed to moving any terrorist detainees to the u.s., and i believe many of my colleagues would agree with me. such a move would necessarily place americans in harms way. they are dangerous individuals and need to be isolated. gitmo revived this isolation. having chairman, i would be remiss if i did not mention the controversy that has engulfed thethat department and attorney general in recent weeks. these issues have cast a shadow of doubt upon the tenor of -- the attorney general. he is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.

as head of the department of justice, it is his responsibility to ensure that the laws are enforced and the interests of the united states are defended. the controversy that has embroiled the department has called into question its ability to fairly administer law and justice. further, the questionable actions of the attorney general have furnished the integrity, impartiality, and efficacy of the position of attorney general. i believe it is the responsibility of this theittee to provide resources necessary to ensure that the department of justice can efficiently and effectively enforce the laws, protect our citizens, and administer justice. similarly, it is the responsibility of the department of justice, headed by the attorney general, to ensure it carries out its duties to my that it is responsible and responsive to the citizens of the united states, and that it operates with and tolerates no

less than the highest degree of honesty and integrity. unfortunately, i believe until these issues are resolved and the controversy surrounding the justice department and the attorney general's office is laid to rest, a few queue of distrust will cover of hever the department. it is my hope that you will move swiftly to address these issues that have been raised by me and others to put this controversy to rest in a full and open manner so that the is soment which important and get back to focusing on issues central to its mission. thank you, madam chairman. >> mr. attorney general question --mr. attorney general? >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and provide an overview.

ofnks to my colleagues, employees serving in offices around the world, the department has made tremendous progress in protecting the safety and rights of the american people. nowhere is this clearer than in our work with regard to ensuring america's national security. since 2009 you brought cases, security benches, and obtained sentences against scores of dangerous people are relying on our tested federal article three civilian court systems. we have identified, investigated, and disrupted lots by terrorist organizations as well as by homegrown terrorists. we will continue to remain vigilant to a debt to emerging threats and take these comrades of efforts to a new level. the president's budget request for vital national security programs and to respond to events like the horrific terrorist attacks on the boston

marathon. as we continue to investigate this matter i want to assure you and the american people that my colleagues and i are determined to hold accountable to the full extent of the law those who bore responsibility for this heinous act and all who threaten our people or who attempt to terrorize our cities. while the department of justice must not waver in its determin ation, we must be just as physical and in our protection of the sacred rites we are equally obligated to protect, including the freedom of the press. in order to ensure the i haveiate balance, launched a review of existing justice department guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters. last week i convened the first of meetings with representatives of news organizations, agencies, and groups to discuss the need to strike this important balance, to ensure robust first amendment

protections, and to foster a constructive dialogue. i appreciate the opportunity to engage members of the media and national security professionals in this effort to improve our guidelines, policies, and processes, and were renew the important conversations that is as old as the republic itself about how to balance our security and our dearest civil liberties. as part of the conversation let me make at least two things clear. 's goal in department investigating leak cases is to identify and prosecute government officials who jeopardize national security by violating their oaths. not to target members of the press or to discourage them from carrying out their vital work. second, the department has not prosecuted in as long as i have had the privilege of serving as attorney general and will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job.

with these guiding principles in mind, we are updating our in general guidelines to ensure that in every case the department's actions are clear and consistent with their most sacred values, and gd extent there's a problem, i think it is with our guidelines and with our regulations and not with the people of the justice department have been involved in these matters. ,his conversation is not static and it seldom results in easy consensus, and it is often difficult and emotionally charged, and it requires all parties to approach these delicate issues in good faith so that today's leaders and concerned citizens from all walks of life can come together as our predecessors have done to secure freedoms, ensure the safety of our citizens, and to update and refine key protections in a way that is commensurate with the challenges and technologies of a new century and consistent with our most treasured values. my colleagues and i remain to working withd

congress for preventing and reducing gun violence. the president's budget requests supports these efforts and allows us to keep our promise to the families and communities of those senselessly murdered at sandy hook on metro school and in countless other acts of gun violence throughout the nation. we will continue to advocate for conference of immigration form and strive to improve our broken immigration system in a way that is fair, that guaranteeing its all are playing by the same roles, and requires responsibility from everyone, including those who are here in an undocumented status and employers who would attempt to export them. i am encouraged these principles are reflected in proposals that are currently under consideration by the senate. i look forward to working with leaders of both chambers of congress to strengthen, pass, and implement as possible reform legislation. the justice department will

continue to move aggressively and appropriately to enforce existing immigration law to safeguard the most formal members of our society, to ensure the fairness and integrity of our financial markets, protect the environment, and to invest in strategies for becoming both .marter and tougher on crime i think we can be proud of the progress that the department has made in each of these areas in recent years, and i am encouraged to note the budget request includes the resources that we will need to continue this important work, including an additional $25 million for the sake of office for immigration to augment staffing and to improve the efficiency of our immigration courts, $2.3 billion for state and local and tribal assistance grants with a focus on funding evidence -- to combat fraud, and an additional $92 million to address cyber security needs and to expand on the historic

achievements of the civil rights division in addressing bias, intimidation, and discrimination. our ability to continue this progress has been negatively impacted by sequestration which 1.6 billion dollars from the budget from the current fiscal year. earlier this year, the help of this subcommittee, i provided $150 million to prisons to mitigate the effects of the untenable reductions and avoid furloughs of correctional staff each day from federal prisons around the country. in april with your support and using similar authorities, i provided necessary funding to the fbi, u.s. marshal service, atf, and u.s. attorneys and other components to prevent furloughs and maintain adequate operations. i want to thank the subcommittee for your full and immediate support of these actions. it could not have occurred

without your assistance. i must stress these and similar solutions will no longer be available to alleviate fiscal year 2014 shortfalls due to joint committee reductions if they persist. i will work with the subcommittee and the congress to prevent this from occurring and to secure the timely test of the budget request, which provides a total of $27.6 billion for the justice department. that level of support will be essential in ensuring my colleagues and i have the resources we need to fulfill our critical shins. i want to thank you again for the chance to discuss this work for you today, and i will be glad to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> take you. we will go to the 5 -- minute rule, and i will stick to it as ,ell, and we will do it senator shelby, with the arrival of everybody. there are many questions to be asked because justice has such scope and incredible mission.

i want to ask my first question related to what i consider an explosive situation. that is the federal prisons. i am concerned about the rising population, the fact that prison overcrowding, the fact that right now literally the federal prison budget is making up 25% of the entire department of justice budget, and that it keeps increasing year after year. the competency of the u.s. attorneys offices, we are getting convictions of bad people. that is the good part. the other part is we have 224 thousand people in prison. i worry about the safety of the guards and i know you do too, mr. attorney general. we are in some ways a fiscally unsustainable path here, and i want to ask first of all, do you feel your request of $6.9

billion, which is again 25% of your budget request of adequate to meet the needs of meeting the ethical standards in the care of prisoners and at the same time protecting our guards and then do you have thoughts on how we can reduce the prison population without increasing risk to our american people? we worry about gitmo, and it is a big issue, but i sure have worried about what is going on in our federal prisons here. i have a top-notch one in maryland in cumberland, as you know, which i visited, can we hear your thoughts, sir? >> i share your concerns. the money we requested will support and allow us to run the system in an appropriate way. it includes it will handle the population by finalizing the activation of two new

facilities, one in new hampshire, one in alabama, and bringing on the activation for three other institutions which will increase our capacity. ,t also adds 2087 new positions including 956 correctional officers. there we have a life and death issue. we have to have sufficient numbers of correctional officers to ensure that we have adequate numbers of people who can be deployed, not only to maintain order, but to protect their fellow officers. i'm confident at this level that we have a sufficient amount of money to bring on that additional capacity and the additional officers. >> that is heartening to hear because we have legal and ethical standards in the care of prisoners. of the population of 224,000 prisoners, how many of those are repeat offenders and the recidivism rate question mark

--? >> the recidivism rates runs at 25% and 40%, slightly lower in the federal system than interstate system. one of the things we need to do is focus resources on reentry programs and rehabilitation programs while we have people in morens so we make effective our efforts at reducing that recidivism rate. ,> you have a lot on your plate and now we are going to have the immigration bill, and we will have to implement. i want to come back to this 'scause i want to keep america streets safe. at the same time, the administration of justice is now going to be ever increasing. we cannot build our way out of prisons. vigorous lawor

enforcement and tough prosecution, but what i am asking you is, do you have within your establishment, within your justice department, a management mechanism to look at how we can reduce recidivism? what are the other tools and techniques where we can begin looking at stabilizing or reducing the population without increasing risk to our american people on the streets? because it could go 25%, a tango 30%. we have other things to do with the justice department. >> the point you make is good. we not only have to focus on how we manage the existing system we have and those who are incarcerated, but need to focus on prevention activities as well so we reduce the number of people who are coming into the system. in that regard our office of juvenile justice and dealing with the french and, the office of justice programs, we have a variety of things we do --

>> i want a plant, and let's look at the prisoner as a prisoner come that they they have done bad things and so bad that they are in a federal prison. and i look at this continuum, which is really a vicious circle. what then do we need to be funding for the prevention programs, and then once they leave -- and what happens when they are in our care and custody and that begins to change them there for when they hit the streets again so they are not hitting up our people against back in the same prisons/what are those programs so when we do have a funny, we are not only funding the prisons, but we are funding continuum of services to prevent at thisrom becoming dead end and then what are some of the other programs you need to do? we need to look at this, the

scope of the committee is such that we need your advice on what it should become a what those levels should be, so we begin to tackle this. it is both a humanitarian concern, a public safety concern on our streets, a mutual dear friend of ours has spoken of not the cradle-to-grave, but the cradle to prison cycle. this committee wants to be a partner with you on a bipartisan basis to begin to break that, and you know, you are in theirs neighborhoods like me, where we are now spending to keep a person in prison than we are sending them to school or to higher education. look at that continue on and work together on it. which you the way in have stated it is right. we want to work on prevention, rehabilitation, while people are in prison, and we want to deal with reentry. we also need to ask ourselves tough questions about the enforcement priorities that we have in the department and the way in which we have enforced

our laws and the collateral consequences of some of those enforcement activities. i will make proposals later in the year about rethinking the ways in which we are conducting our criminal justice system prosecutorial efforts. , madam chairman. mr. attorney general, the department as we all know has been mired in a controversy of late. it began with reports of an overbroad collection of telephone collections of 20 ap reporters and editors, was followed by revelations of the led espionage investigation of a fox news reporter, and culminated with the restaurant he of your testimony before the judiciary committee. these issues have led some members of congress and the public to question the department's adherence to the rule of law and your ability as the attorney general to lead. these controversies have become

i believe a significant distraction for this department and have led to calls for an investigation into your actions and the actions of your department. others have called for your resignation. -- i hope you would agree that leading the department of justice is a full- time job. i think you would also agree that these country first role -- controversies have become a distraction for the department, and for you as a leader. i hope you would agree that the american people deserve an attorney general who is completely focused on the fair and impartial administration of distracted and not by controversies of his own making. i have observed over the years that effective leaders from time totime subject themselves staff and valuation processes in hopes of improving their performance. how would you if value weight and isrformance to date

there any room for improvement? have you or will you take actions to remove the department beyond this controversy and in short that similar missteps in the cloud will not continue their? >> i want to assure you and the american people that in spite of the recent controversies that you mentioned the department is fully engaged in the work of protecting the american people and all the ways that are unique to the department. i want to ensure the american people that i am engaged in that regard. i go through a self-and valuation prices on a daily basis. i have not done a perfect job. i have done a good job, but i am trying to do that are. some of the criticism that has been labeled or thrown at me and the department has cost us to rethink the way in which we will deal with these media inquiries, and we will make

changes, and that is why we are engaged in a process eating with groups so we can formulate new policies, regulations, and hopefully it that behind us. and i hope you would agree with me that the american people need to know that the administration of justice, headed by the attorney general, is in the hands of a dispassionate and capable leader, and whether you will continue to be the chief law- enforcement officer of the federal government, the attorney general, is either a decision for you or the president to make. i understand that. i am interested to know what criteria you will use to determine whether you can continue to lead the department. what is the tipping point here? are you going to clear up this controversy, or is it going to hover over us in the justice department, which is very important to the american people? >> the tipping point

might be fatigue. beyond that, the tipping point -- there are certain goals i set for myself and for this department when i started back in 2009. when i get to a point when i think i have a congress all the will that i have set, i sit down with the president and we will talk about a transition to a new attorney general. the change is frequently a good thing for an organization, a new perspective. i am not a person -- this has been the honor of my professional life as attorney general, but i also have such respectful department of justice and i want to make sure that it operates at peak efficiency and that new ideas are constantly being explored. i am proud of the work that i've done, the maen and women of this department have done under this leadership, and when the time comes for me to step aside i will do so. belief in integrity

of the attorney general and the justice department is central to the well-being of this country, is it not? >> it certainly is. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein? madamek you very much, misse chairman. i would like to sue police say that i believe in your integrity. i believe that you are a good attorney general. i think you have had undue problems that it is hard to anticipate. you have responded the best way you possibly could, and i want to say that, because candidly i do not like to see this hearing used to berate you. let me ask you this question. i chair the senate caucus on international or context control, and we issue a series

of reports, and we have just issued one on money laundering. and what has come to my attention is that there is substantial failure of some united states banks to comply anti--money-laundering laws, which fueled drug-related violence in mexico. over $670 million $9.4re transfers, and over billion in fiscal money to enter the united states from mexico, unmonitored. of that money we know at least $881 million in mexican drug proceeds answered the united states illegally. hsbccember 11, 2012, entered into an agreement with the justice department and paid

1.9 $2 billion in fines. similarly in 2010, a cody agreed wachovia agreed to pay enabled at least $110 million in mexican drug money entering the united states. is a hugeon in fines fine. the question i have of you is am a do you believe these fines are going to change what has been kurt practice, and i suspect that there are other banks doing this same thing? this is an enormous app in our-- gap in our infrastructure. could you comment on that? >> the concern you raise is a good one. we are being aggressive in our

efforts. we have come up with robust but the personal financial penalties, but we can never get to a situation or this is seen as the cost of doing business, where a bank can simply pay, a huge amount of money, and think that is the way it can absolve itself from wrongdoing. we have put in place as part of these agreements compliance measures, ensuring remediation, imposing minorm, trades to make sure these kinds of things should not happen again. these sanctions we put in place go well beyond what a judge would be able to do if this were decided in a court room in your traditional setting. nots not to say he should hold corporations criminally libel and i think wherever we possibly can old individuals liable for this kind of activity. >> this is the recommendation of our drug caucus, that individuals begin to be held responsible for money- ,aundering, when it is overt

and you'd does and does not done. i thank you for that response. oig report on atf 's gun dealer inspection program that mr. hurwitz is going to testify carried out, and i understand that report found that 50% of federal farms dealers had not been expected if in the last five years. you cited three reasons for this under staffing. a large geographic area, some , and anivisions cover increase in gun dealers. it is my understanding the president has $51.1 million to ensure atf enforcement efforts and strengthen inspections. we hope now to get a director of that unit. the judiciary committee on which i served as him coming before us this next week.

they project that this allocation would fund 60 additional inspector positions. your report concluded you would need an additional 199,000 hours to inspect all dealers , andn a five-year time the field divisions told atf headquarters in 2012 they needed 504 more investigators. the federal firearms dealer in my view is what makes any legal gun sales possible in the united states, because they require certain material. that 58% figure is really a distressing figure. what are you believe these additional inspectors could do to increase that 58%, and do you have any idea as to what

level we could be confident that with these there would be inspections of federal farms dealers within the five-year time? >> i think we would be able to deal that. the atf is an organization that has been resource starved over the recent past. actually for a great number of years, without senate-confirmed leadership. it has also suffered. the concern you raised about doing these inventorying, having the ability to do inventories at giverescribed level will us greater comfort and have an impact on our ability to monitor the gun trades so we make sure that the right people have access to weapons, and that is secondespecting peoples amendment rights. we are talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have been. without controls there is no .ay to tell

i am confident if we get the money that we have asked for, if todd jones is confirmed as the leader of the atf, that we can change that situation and make the american people more safe. this ist to say important to me, and i appreciate it if an emphasis can be placed in that area. so thank you very much. -- mye is a very rights time is up. >> mr. attorney general, it troubles me that the president has virtually unreviewable, unfettered authority to order the killing of any american who is overseas suspected of terrorist activity

without any kind of charge or trial or judicial review. we have all read this morning of the controversy over the nsa having access to phone records of american citizens. it seems to me that an american currently receives a greater degree of to process protections from the judicial branch if the government is hising to listen in on phone conversations or get information about his phone conversations than if the takedent is seeking to his life. that just does not make sense to me. why has not the administration proposed to congress a process that would provide some degree of independent judicial review

for a targeted lethal strike against a u.s. person overseas, either an expansion of the fisa court or a different kind of classified proceeding before a court to ensure that there is some kind of judicial review toher than --that authority take an american life, overseas, only with the president? >> i would say that it is incorrect to say that it is only --that the president has unlimited authority with regard to the use of drones, and we are talking about being more transparent. i sent a letter to chairman leahy that the president gave a to get more transparency

with disregard. ,e operate under the statute and when we are dealing with these matters we try to focus on capture or possible. we focus on whether or not the threat is imminent. we operate under the rules of law. as the president said in his speech, people cannot plot against the united states, people cannot kill american citizens and then use as a shield their american citizenship. these are steps that we take with great care. they are the most difficult of decisions that we have to make. the other things that keep me up at night and as a think about my role as part of the national security team in discussing these matters. the concerns you raise are legitimate, but we are working within the administration to make sure when we take these ultimate measures they are done ,n appropriate ways, legal ways have done in a way that is

consistent with our values. >> i would say to you that the strikes havedrone occurred outside the battlefield. we are not talking about countries that were engaged in hostilities ike iraq or afghanistan. i do not understand why you would not want the protection of some sort of judicial review of the target. i am not saying that the president is wrong to try to kill american terrorists torseas who are plotting execute our citizens, but i am uncomfortable giving the president that authority without any kind of digital check. officet comforted by the of legal counsel opinions which

i have read now for the legal basis. let me turn to a second point that you just made about a preference for capture. i have not seen a preference for capture. if you compare the number of terror suspects who are captured in the previous administration versus this administration, there is a huge difference, as there is in the number of lethal strikes with drones that were undertaken. is the reason for the exceedingly low number of intures due to the change the obama administration's position on detention and the fact that the administration does not want to send captives to guantanamo? isn't that really the reason? here we have a case of the a terrorist who

was convicted but who was driven around on a navy ship for two months because there was no place to put him. >> it is not a function of not wanting to take people there. as you indicated, he was facered and brought to justice in an article three court. the desire to capture is something that we take seriously because we gain intelligence. i am not sure how long he was on that boat -- it was not a joy ride for him. we were gathering important intelligence from him in the intelligence community and then later on after he was read his rights and waved them from people in law enforcement. that was time well spent, and ultimately led to his plea in that case or the conviction in that case.

it is not a function of us not toing to take prisoners particular places. we try to gain intelligence and then we try to bring them to justice. >> my time has expired. thank you. an excellent line of questioning, senator. to thent to take you verizon scandal, which takes us to possibly monitoring up to 120 million calls. when bureaucrats are sloppy they are really usually sloppy. i want to ask, could you share with us that no phones inside thatapitaol were monitored would give a future executive branch if they started pulling this thing up would give them unique leverage over the legislature? >> with all due respect this is not an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue.

i would be more t than glad to come back in an appropriate setting to discuss the issues that you have raised. in this open forum, i do not -- >> i would interrupt and say the correct answer is to say, no, we stay within our range and we did not on members of congress. >> i would like to suggest something. " read " the new york times this morning, and i said not one more thing, not one more thing when we are looking like we are spying on america. i think the full senate needs to get a brief on this, and the the attorney general. we need the national security agency and other appropriate people. this is no way to minimize your excellent question, but there are also certain answers that might have to be given in a --ssified and ferment

environment. i am not going to determine who answers what questions. >> if i could, i would hope -- you aschairman chairman would create the appropriate form that is a classified hearing to get into this with the attorney general. what senator kirk is raising is very important. >> i agree that the question is -- >> i am sure you will. >> what i would like to suggest a note towill send senator reid and mcconnell, because i think this cuts across committees and goes to judiciary, it goes to armed , andces, it goes to intel not only including the scope of an appropriations. >> the oversight of justice,

does it not madam chair, i would suggest that for separation of powers, whoever was so sloppy running this for you, probably did not segregate out the supreme court to make sure that when you are jumping out of your executive branch lane, you want to make sure that you are not gaining new intel or leverage over separated powers under our constitution. i would hope it we would get absolute assurance that not a single supreme court justice was at all involved in this verizon thing. a senator shelby raises great point. why don't we talk about how you would like to proceed when we do our