professional working relationship, so i was very surprised when that letter was submitted to the senate. >> in 2009 after confirmed by , this was one of the allegations that mr. oswald made. >> when i became a u.s. attorney for the second time, i spent the first month talking to every single assistant indebted states attorney in the office. i received several resignations from individuals who had been serving in supervisory roles. a leadership team that remains in place and has been very effective in helping move the district forward with the goals and objectives of both the district and the department of justice. >> did you remove the chief of the narcotics and violent crime section of that office?

>> i made management changes when i came into office for the second time in august and september of 2009. >> did you remove that person? >> did i remove that person? >> the chief of the narcotics .nd crime section >> i received the resignations of most of the supervisory practices is a common when i became u.s. attorney. >> you did appoint a new chief to the section? >> i did. >> how did you know the individual you appointed as chief to the section? >> how did i know them? >> to that section. the narcotics and violent crime section. >> i know many of the ausa's, i have known over 20 years so i know individuals by reputation and i know individuals

personally. >> did she have previous management experience? -- who are you speaking of in particular, senator? i do not want to engage in guesswork here. if the question is am i did an individual that remains as our narcotics and violent crime chief, assistant u.s. attorney carol kaiser have previous management experience, the answer is yes. she is a very experienced prosecutor from the northern district of georgia where she asset ausa doing forfeiture. dekalbthat she was a state prosecutor in georgia and was brought into the u.s. attorney's office prior to my creepiestder the administration. she was very experienced and had under the previous

administration. she was very experienced and office. in >> i want to follow up on one question since he was asking about management. before you you were u.s. attorney, who was the u.s. attorney before that? >> there was a nearly two-year mcgill wase judge the u.s. attorney. before it was rachel paulis? >> what happened to rachel paulis? >> there was challenges and she resigned as u.s. attorney. whene was appointed attorney general gonzales was in and one of the first act, when attorney general new keys he mukasey came in,

was mr.y suggestions miguel. it was two years after this turmoil which made the front page of many newspapers in the country am i is that correct? >> that is correct. >> enqueue. senator schumer. >> thank you. i want to thank you, director jones for your service in the attorney's office and now is acting director of atf. you have a long and distinguished career. you are past for u.s. attorney by this committee a few years ago and now, of course, it has taken a long time to move your made,get your nomination approved by this committee and by the senate. say would like to first that i think having a vacancy at

this agency is a big mistake. such an agency has to have leadership to provide direction to many employees who work here and keep americans safe, so let me ask you this question. what would happen to the fbi without a director? don't you think that could be that the united states is weak on terrorism, if we had for years and acting director of the fbi? i do. i want to know your opinion. >> it is sort of comparing apples to oranges because the fbi has always been part of the department of justice. it has been 10 years since atf has been part of the department of justice and since 2006 that the director of atf has been subject to senate confirmation. the analogues are not quite right but to your point, that continuity in leadership has been absolutely essential. when i left government service in 2001 and then -- when i came back in 2009, knowing 9/11

happened in the interim, the federal bureau of investigation was not the same organization. leftd that i knew when after serving as u.s. attorney before. much of that and i have known mr. muller for a long time. they have continuous, outstanding leadership over a long period of time which has allowed things to structurally settle and to stay focused on those missions that are in their bailiwick. >> it is my view having a lack of the atf tricked her signals the same thing. we do not have the continuity, gun trafficking, crime. atf isds of things important. it is not good to have a vacancy for so long and i would hope that your confirmation would be moved. any not directing this at particular person. in agencies that people do not like with agency does -- epa

d.c. circuit, we get vacancies there and they're blocked for a long time. your record is exemplary. you were approved by this body unanimously as u.s. attorney. i would just hope we could move forward. i have a few specific questions. i know my time is running out. the undetectable firearms act, this deals with 3-d guns that expires at the end of this year. i want to commend your agency working with tsa and secret service to keep us up-to-date on this. when the law was passed, there were few guns that could be brought undetected through a metal detector. that has changed. guns that fire one shot that can be brought through the metal detector? guns?3-d

prior technology branch as you mentioned, working with secret service and tsa and the fbi and other law enforcement organizations is in the -- process of testing variations of the 3-d gun and some other components that are somewhat troublesome, but the fundamental material for that, various grades of polymer, does make it undetectable without metal components. >> do you think we have to reauthorize the undetectable firearms act and would your agency be prepared to submit some recommendations if any changes are needed? >> we are always available to provide technical guidance and advice to my given our expertise, and i think the evolving technology that underlies 3-d printing on a variety of friends certainly ,enerates a sense of urgency

particularly since the s actectable firearm sunsets. >> my time is expiring. i want to thank you for your service and for continuing under very difficult circumstances and i want to thank you for your calm demeanor in this hearing as well. >> thank you. >> we hope that continues. senator cruise. >-- cruz. >> mr. jones, thank you for being here. are a currently sitting united states attorney. you previously served as chairman of the attorney oferal's advisory committee the acting director of the atf. you are perhaps uniquely situated to discuss the obama administration's priorities and record concerning gun

prosecution. i would like to ask you a question. is it a priority for the obama justice department to prosecute felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase firearms? for that question. one of the priorities of the department of justice has always been, during my second tenure as u.s. attorney, protecting the american public from violent crime, including violent firearms crimes. >> is that a yes? >> that is a yes. >> would you describe it as a high priority? >> it is one of the major priorities. >> a major priority. >> yes. >> i would ask you to reconcile that comment that it is a high priority. -- with the data. in particular in 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the department of justice prosecuted only 44 of

them. 44 out of over 48,000. at least for me, i have difficulty reconciling those hard facts with the assertion highave made that it is a priority of the obama justice department to prosecute felons and fugitives who try to illegally purchase firearms. >> during fiscal year 2012, the department of justice did 85,000 federal criminal cases involving defendants and one out of seven involved firearms offenses. the check does generate hits of people who are potentially prohibited. you are correct in that the number of folks who are prosecuted federally for what has been coined lying and trying is a small number, but the number is not tell the story about what the department has done with armed career terminals. >> my question was not about

armed career criminals. my question was is it a priority to prosecute felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy firearms? that is why -- you could have said no, it is not a priority and i would suggest the data demonstrate it is not a priority of the obama justice department to prosecute felons and fugitives. in my view, that is completely unacceptable. do you think prosecuting 44 out of over 48,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy guns, do you think that is an acceptable allocation of prosecutorial resources? >> prosecutorial resources are thin and there are a number of issues that u.s. attorneys deal with ranging from national security financial frauds and we have tough decisions to make. the reality is as a first line prosecutor and someone who exercises their discretion on a regular basis, if, given the choice between doing a lying and trying case which we have not done in minnesota, and

not done a have lying and trying case. >> your office has prosecuted zero felons and fugitives who tried to illegally purchase a firearm? over 150 felon and possession armed career criminal cases, we have done straw purchaser cases on the spectrum of prosecutions that u.s. attorneys can do, lying and trying cases both because of the the dedication of resources and the potential deterrent impact and the sentence that is going to be involved are not commonly done, which is underlying that 44 figure that you cited earlier, senator. >> i have to admit i find it remarkable that you testified to this committee that it is "a major priority of the department of justice to prosecute felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase firearms" and you respond to this committee that it is an

acceptable allocation of prosecutorial resources to prosecute just 44 out of over 48,000, and even more astonishingly, you inform this committee that you have .rosecuted zero my question to you is, are there other things you would describe as major priorities of the department of justice that at the same time, you have chosen , andosecute zero cases forcing those so-called major priorities? >> without you respect, just so the record is clear, major priority of this department and justice is protecting the american public from violent crime, including violent gun crime. i want to make sure that it is clear so that what my testimony is is not twisted into something that it is not. was --estion, sir, >> are there any other so-called major priorities in which you have prosecuted zero cases? >> we have made hard decisions with

our resources. priority one is national security. we have made major efforts on that front with al should bob and we have made major efforts on protecting our community from island crime including gun crime. we have made major efforts protecting the safer -- the eggsy of people's nexst and fraud. we have a smorgasbord of decisions and all of our work has been consistent with the art --t of justice's department of justice's priorities. >> one final question. the grassley-cruz legislation that received a majority of votes in the senate, 52 senators including nine democrats, it was the most bipartisan of all the comprehensive gun legislation produced, it provided funding for prosecuting felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally urges firearms because

in my judgment and the judgment of the majority of the senate, it is utterly unacceptable for this justice department to refuse to prosecute felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase firearms. in your role as acting director of the atf, or as u.s. attorney, did you support the grassley- cruz legislation and do you support that legislation? familiar with the specifics of that legislation. i am not in a position to answer the question because i am not familiar with the legislation. well.y thank you. >> thank you. i wanted to include a few things on the record. first of all, discussion here is to place about prosecutions of cases and i discussed earlier how crime rates are very important and in fact i'm a -- in fact, in texas, the violent ofme rate is twice the rate

the state of minnesota. between 1991-2011, and airing many of those years, you were the u.s. attorney in the state, mr. jones. the data i have here is that the minnesota violent crime rate in 2011 was a little over 200 per 100,000 inhabitants. the violent crime rate in texas was about 400. i also have the crime rates of every member of the committee that are here. i thought it was interesting to look at. i would note that the only two states that have lower crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants has been minnesota -- are the states of utah and the state of vermont. there is many things that contribute to crime rates. i would point out that this idea that somehow during your term that work is not being done just is not supported by

these numbers and i would put that on the record. i also would put on the record the fact that we have many people here from law enforcement in this room in support of you, mr. jones. the executive director of the fraternal order of police trade we have the international association of chiefs of police. the director of the state association of chiefs of police. we have prince george's county chief, representing the international association. evans, andef john stephen hudson, and the maryland state police and marcus brown. with that, i will turn it over. >> thank you. i too am pleased to hear about the support for the nominee from and many other

professional organizations. thank you for your presence here today. i look forward to your service. my questions will also focus on acting director jones. i suspect you have had a more comfortable confirmation hearing than you might expect. attentiveve been during the hearing. >> if i might give the comment about the support your nomination has received from the law enforcement committee -- community. tell me about your perspective on the importance of collaboration and information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement. and tell us something about your experience in the miami undercover investigation and how that strengthens that experience from minnesota and now in the atf.

>> one of the strength that i 20e discovered over the last or so months is the acting -- as the acting director is the reinforcement of my belief that there are outstanding working relationships with atf and state and local law enforcement. it is absolutely critical given on thesion that atf has arson front, which is often times understated and under known. but absolutely critical expertise and that has us working with state and local. on the gang and violent gun crime front, we have 600 task force officers that work with atf special agents around the country that we could not do that work without that collaboration and that cooperation. our relationship with the state and locals is absolutely

critical and we have always valued that relationship because we cannot get it done without that level of work. with respect to miami, it was -- it is an ongoing prosecution now but it was an excellent example of a number of operations, surges, undercover storefronts, that we have engaged in as atf. it took nearly 95 violent criminals off the streets in miami gardens. some of them went state, some went federal. over 200 weapons. it was a collaboration not only with state and locals but with our sister agency, the dea. >> some concerns have been raised about the magnum case. , who areour client you representing? >> the department of justice represents the united states and courts of law around the

country both in civil and criminal matters. the client agency in that matter was hud. >> and making litigation decisions in behalf of the united states, in your view, is it ethical and appropriate to take into account not only the judgment of an agency with enforcement responsibility, but also the consequences of a litigation decision that might impact the broader ability for the government to enforce civil rights statutes? is that your view? >> it is my view and i have expressed that before in sessions with senator grassley's staff. >> begin you would about whistleblowers -- speak if you would about whistleblowers. real primacy for me in my local government service. some communications have been made to suggest that you have attempted to suppress whistleblowers and i wanted to

give you an opportunity to speak to that am i to answer a concern as to whether you let the atf as active -- acting director in a way that would support whistleblowers or the contrary. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to reinforce and sort of dismiss a misperception that i have engaged in conduct that suppresses whistleblower rights. nothing could be further from the truth. i have represented whistleblowers in private practice. some of my most satisfying experiences have been and the representations of those who put themselves in the position of being whistleblowers. i know firsthand from my former clients how difficult that can be in terms of your perception internally and the challenges on you personally. the utmost respect for

both the underpinnings and the purpose of whistleblower protections. it is again a fundamental good government effort and it is absolutely critical to us doing our job effectively as public servants with responsibility for public agencies. >> a lot of the challenges that exist at the atf that you are responsible for addressing or cleaning up and you became acting director were in part a result of an ongoing operation that came to light because of whistleblowers. do we have a commitment from you that if confirmed, you will continue this view of welcoming and supporting whistleblowers within the agency as appropriate in order to ensure that this good government tracked this is part of the atf going forward? >> you definitely have my assurance. the inspector general's report exemplifies the importance that whistleblowers pay in the fast and furious issue.

we have since i have been there enhanced our ombudsman program internally. we have strengthened our ig inonship with the doj their ombudsman program and any noterception that i do believe in open channels of communication and respect for whistleblower protections. i hope it has been and will continue to be diminished. >> thank you for your testimony and your service as a marine and service as the u.s. attorney and acting director. congratulations and thank you for your testimony as well. >> thank you very much. senator grassley. >> a common complaint i have heard within atf is that u.s. attorneys'offices are not willing to pursue straw purchasing charges. yourding to one account,

reportedly said of gun and drug " we could do that all day but we have chosen not to because that is not the best use of our resources." how would you expect to encourage agents in the atf to pursue gun crime when you would not think it is a high priority for yourself as a u.s. attorney? is a highmes priority for me as the u.s. attorney. >> is that statement wrong? >> without knowing the context or the specifics of the statement, it is difficult. " minneapolishe star tribune." >> it was an article that addressed what we discussed earlier as to why the drop in terms of the overall numbers

and criminal prosecutions and again, it really is driven by three things. our resources, our collaboration with state and locals, and what can we do that they cannot do, and focusing more on impact cases as compared to be solely driven by the numbers. i believe that was the context because in particular, in the drug and gun area in minnesota, felonis a pretty vibrant and possession statute. each of the last few years, county attorneys in minnesota have executed in excess of 800 individual cases and this is subject to a reporting requirement they have annually. working in collaboration with them, what we have done, sometimes formalized as what we call exile light in minneapolis but generally throughout the state is made sure that those most egregious offenders do come into federal court without

alpeding on the jurisdiction prerogatives of our county attorneys who'd do yeoman's work working with us to keep the streets safe. >> your chair of the attorney general's advisory committee from 2009-2011. you're a member southwest border strategy group -- you remember the southwest porter strategy group. drafted a statement. merely seizing firearms through interdiction will not stop the firearms trafficking to mexico. the draft strategy emphasizes identifying the members of armed trafficking network, the application is clear. the strategy places a higher value on gathering intelligence about trafficking networks than on arresting straw purchasers.

now, were you there at the october 26, 2009 meeting of the southwest order strategy group -- border strategy group? did you approve a strategy to address straw purchasing cases and is it a good idea to go wheneveraw purchasers you can? >> to answer your first question, i was not there. i was brought in as the chair of the attorney general's advisory committee in september. we were ramping up with a revitalization of that. i was not an active participation on the southwest border working group. i was a nt on the northern working group because that had more relevance to the district of minnesota. with respect to your last question about opinions about the firearms case, we have made

it clear from the outset that public safety will never be sacrificed for prosecuting or investigative needs. public safety is first and foremost and what we f, when he took over at at you set out to clean up shop. rather than dealing with employees who are clearly responsible, you waited for an inspector general's report. after 18 months after the inspector general's report, atf has not reported a single individual being disciplined for fast and furious. no one seems to be fired. instead several people are allowed to retire or terminate for other reasons. i want to ask you about a series

of individuals that are all criticized by the inspector general. -- tommyther atf whetheratf - tell me atf will hold them accountable .or fast and furious how was one of them discipline? >> that special agent was subject to the internal disciplinary process. there were repercussions. i am very sensitive in this context about the privacy concerns. he was subject to the disciplinary process. >> let's move on.

how about the assistant agent in charge? is retireder agent -- the former agent is retired. special agent needles? >> special agent needles is in another capacity within atf. >> so something -- so nothing has really happened to him. >> what about this one? >> there still resolution pending that should be forthcoming. >> so nothing has happened to him. mcmann? director >> retired from atf. >> some of these individuals are involved in other controversies. i understand the internal affairs division found fault

in 2008's involvement in a separate manner. he sold his firearm to a after's officek opened a gun trafficking case on that person. this is currently under investigation by the inspector general. another is that -- a gun that gillett bought. however instead of him being disciplined when you took control of atf in 2011, he was allowed to wait it out and retire in 2012. why did you allow gillett to retire rather than hold him accountable? thereh all due respect,

are processes in place and these processes take time. you mentioned the privacy act. the specifics of each of these , i would like to make sure that you understand that the american public we did not stand idly by and not take correct of action tom including those planarian action -- including disciplinary action. they are sometimes painfully slow. all in the individuals you mentioned did get their due process. many of them were ably represented by counsel. >> can you tell us what discipline was proposed as a result of the 20 ~ report? -- 2012 report? >> as soon as we can disclose that to you, we will.

william was the offical and primarily responsible for supervising. inspector general criticized him for his failure to do so and the result and fast and furious. was going to allow him to retire early at the age of 50, but let him go on extended leave and earn credit for his retirement while working a high- paying job for jpmorgan at the same time. it was not until after this unusual doubled tipping arrangement to your attention that atf attempted to correct the situation. atf was not aware. possible thattus one of your senior leaders at the headquarters could be

overseas for months while drawing a federal paycheck without atf knowing it and working for a private company? what does that say and how you're running the agency? was oneor, mr. mcmahon of individuals terminated. he was not allowed to retire. he was terminated. >> he was terminated? >> he was terminated. >> was that after i brought it to your attention? >> the issue that you raised about his leave status and his employment status role subject to a process. we appreciate the information enhancing our level of knowledge about things that were already in play internally. the end result was that he was terminated from atf.

>> you have stated on november 3, 20 11 that you issued a memorandum saying that the atf must take all reasonable steps to prevent criminal misuse of firearms. can you provide a copy of that memorandum to the committee question mark -- committee? >> i believe that is something we will provide. what guidance have you provided on -- >> i'm not quite sure i understand the question. you have issued some guidance to the atf on the issue of questioning suspected -- what does that guidance a? you have a blogger questioning

straw purchasers -- you have people questioning straw purchasers. >> we have special agent sometimes involved in the investigation of firearms trafficking that would lead them to question as any other potential suspect. not aware of any special guidance that would carve out straw for juicers -- purchasers. >> what about guidance issued about cooperating federal firearm licensees and their role in an investigation? >> with respect to the issue, i know that after i arrived that atf, one of the issues that we addressed were weaknesses and lack of clarity on our confidential informant order internally. we did a review of that as he did with the undercover order.

that was based in part on things that did not proceed as they should in the district of arizona. we have greater clarity on the use of it as confidential informants in place. againstrohibition keeping a gun national registry, i know that atf keeps a suspect gun database. is there any legal standard that atf agents are required to meet before adding information on a purchaser that is suspected in the database? >> if you're talking about our e-trace and tracing ability, crime guns entered in with serial numbers, many others are well aware there is a firearms

that precludes any gun registry. it would be illegal to do that. agents goingrd atf to federal firearms licensees and taking pictures of every type of gunrtain of in the store. is this acceptable to you? >> i'm not familiar with the practice. i do know that industry operations and investigators, all 700 plus of them have a range of responsibilities. they work hard to do the appropriate inspections. that is difficult work.

wemy staff says to me that are not talking about tracing. we are referring to suspect gun database which was used extensively in fast and furious. --as i said, >> i will let you answer that in writing. >> yes. >> thank you. 2012, the house committee on oversight government reform subpoenaed all meeting notes and minutes thatollow up reports refer or relate to operation fast and furious during the time

you were chair. the justice department never produced any such documents or certify that nonexistent. do any such minutes are noticed -- or notes exist? >> i do not have any knowledge beyond the fact that relevant documents have been collected. that matter is probably part of litigation. i'm sure he could provide clarity about ongoing litigation involving production of documents pursuant to subpoenas. you didn't know and maybe that's legitimate, but if you could respond to that question in writing. >> to the extent that i have those documents still, i will respond in writing. >> anyplace that you can put

your hands on. , i send you 2013 personally a letter requesting that you provide any personal notes from the advisory committee you might have taken regarding fast and furious. you have not provided any such notes are certified to meet that you do not have any such notes. i have you not responding. >> i do not have any regulation -- any recollection of that specific request. all documentation related to my the advisory committee is at the department. andsure it review production processes taken place. >> u.s. attorney for the district of arizona was also on the attorney general's advisory committee during the time you were chair. have you ever discussed operation fast and furious by

name or otherwise? if so, when? >> senator, i did serve with him. he is chair of the subcommittee for the southwest -- our conversations were always at a higher level than any specific case that was ongoing in the district of arizona. i have no recollection of discussing that case specifically with him during my time as chair. burke testified as a result of fast and furious, you raise .he issue what do recall about those discussions? >> my general recollection was -- an effort through the community to try to enhance their capability to review title three applications generally. >> we recently learned from a follow-up inspector general's

report that a deputy attorney general reprimanded mr. burke for his role in leaking documents to the press. the leak was part of an attempt of a whistleblower. of everyerfect example agency in town. of hiss your opinion unauthorized release of information about atf agents participation in an undercover operation? >> i think the circumstance with the dennis burke is unfortunate. i know what the rules of the roads are with respect to proper communication and the u.s. attorney manual. i do not have an opinion one way or another on the facts and circumstances. i know as much as you know on the public record of

interactions between former u.s. attorney burke and the deputy attorney general. >> when and how do you learn that work was responsible for the leak? >> that is the answer. i knew as much as you knew when it became part of public record. >> did you ever look at that document? if so, describe. >> i do not have any we collection of a discussion like that with mr. burke. questions i want to put on the record. >> all right. lerneris from mr. explaining the investigation of mr. jones is in mediation, but not a post matter. >> for the record. in a closed manner.

>> for the record. than i have a whistleblower letter from the white house addressed to senator mccaskill me describing though administration's views and whistleblower protection. to encourage such individuals of waste, fraud, and other improper behavior has been steadfast in its commitment to that principle and ensuring that individuals who make unlawful disclosures received legal protections that they deserve. this is highlighted. this administration has repeatedly made clear that it -- i believerate

every president since reagan about protecting whistleblowers. do you know what one president said when i suggested you ought to have a rose garden ceremony honoring also lowers? -- whistleblowers? being a whistleblower is a youiotic thing to do if have to be right about what you are whistleblowing about. he said, if we did that, we would have 3000 whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork. isn't that a nice thing for the president to tell me? and it wasn't this president that told me that. i believe that the president said here, but if it doesn't get down to the lowest levels. and i hope if you are confirmed, mr. jones, that you will do with the president has said his

administration wants to do and do that. the only thing i would say in , if you had agreed to a staff interview, these things that we are discussing here could have been discussed in a private forum. i would like to ask you why you didn't do the staff interview we asked. ifsenator, i look forward confirmed to have regular communications and oversight capacity with you in your staff and members of this body. >> that does not really answer my question what you do not respond to our request that you give us staff interview. >> i did have an interview with respect to a particular matter. >> what about other matters? is it embarrassing? the am a member of

department of justice. >> they told you not to? >> under some circumstances, i do not have the freedom of action as i did as an individual citizen. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you, senator grassley. i'm going through some of the discussion today. i appreciate his focus on whistleblowers. i think it is important. he has done a great service and calling attention to this. i also appreciate the willingness to question people. that is what we are here to do. thank you, senator grassley, and the other senators who had taken part in this hearing. another question? >> no. i asked that the record stay open a little more than one week. >> ok. we will keep it open for two weeks. all right.

what would you like? >> until we get done. [laughter] >> i think will keep it open for two weeks. if you want another discussion, that is up to you. for now, two weeks. a few things.ify >> is it ok with you if i leave? i have the secretary of commerce coming. >> that is very important. she is a good nominee. hope you have a good meeting. i want to conclude by going through what we have heard today. there are a lot of attacks that have been made against mr. jones. i would note coming from law- enforcement and having a spin some of this myself that it is not easy -- having experience some of this myself that it is not easy.

you learn any move forward. . that is important to keep in mind. these 2300 agents deserve someone who is permanently in charge of them no matter the title of agency or political disagreements with work that is being done. the fact that we have an agency of the united states government that we currently do not have a permanent chair of that we have and dormant, it is wrong, having mr. jones coming to this hearing knowing exactly what he will be subject to t -- subjectd to, that is current right there. we have been talking about criminals in minnesota. i think he has explained his decision. others might disagree. a lot of things go into this

police work, fbi work, execution efforts -- prosecution efforts. go down,e violent rate nine percent decrease with the latest stats. that overall,ote minnesota student a good job -- minnesota is doing a good job. secondly, the support from law enforcement i have mentioned over a. -- over a period of time, i think that is important. i think that case is important to have on record.

senator grassley and senator cruz asked about fast and furious. if you're in the private sector and something went crazy wrong, one of the things you look at is whether people are still in place that were in charge when this happened. ,s mr. jones has pointed out he changed nearly two thirds of the people in charge of the agency when he came in after fast and furious. there have been disciplinary proceedings that have been underway and concluded. i understand why he cannot attest to every single name of each person. he will work with senators who are concerned about that. it is important to note that he was brought in after fast and furious after clear mistakes are made in the agency to make changes. we should not forget the good work that is done by the atf. with sandy hook and the investigation of boston and how

quickly those terrorist were apprehended and also what happened in west, texas. a horrible tragedy. atf was there in the front lines and figuring out what went wrong. day in and day out, there are cases you do not read in the news where solutions are found and investigations are conducted. .hat is the last part i know that person or the whistleblower in minnesota. mediation is very important. when you look at everything together, and he won in law enforcement would be able to find a series of problems within the agency. what you have to look at is what mr. jones has done since he took over atf. is that worthy of merit? someone who comes in

and willing to take responsibility instead of keeping their job in keeping happy with their family and staying in the state they are in and taking on a hard job and do above average in terms of trying to clean things up. rewarded ore criticize? daughter in the car one of those cliché quotes. i took out that old roosevelt quote, it is not the critic, not the man who points out how the , but then stumbles credit belongs to the man who is in the arena and whose face is marked with dust and blood and sweat and comes short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcomings, but he strives to do the deed and spends himself in a worthy and to w --ho fail -- who

fails does so greatly. when i tried that quote my daughter, she said it was only about men because they use the word "man." heent beyond that to say was willing to take on a tough assignment. .e owe these agents i think we should get him confirmed. thank you for bringing out these important questions we have a nominee before us. thank you for your fine credentials and the work you have done with the justice department. and your most amazing family seated behind you.

if you can manage the civil division of the justice department as you clearly manage your kids, you will do a good job. [laughter] that was positive. thank both of the nominees and their families for sitting through this hearing and the senators willing to attend. i hope we can move forward with this nomination. thank you to my staff who helped with this. thank you to senator grassley staff. the record will be open for two weeks unless the chairman decides to change that. thank you. the hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> coming up on c-span, the defense secretary and martin dempsey will talk about sexual assaults on -- in the military and the pentagon budget. , jeff sessions on his opposition to the immigration bill. coming up next on washington journal, joe wilson of south carolina, the chairman of the subcommittee on military personnel. you will talk about form policy. representative sanchez, a member of the homeland security committee will talk about nsa data collection programs. spotlight on magazine features joanne miller. washington journal is live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

when house members return, lawmakers plan to begin work on the defense authorization bill. it authorizes programs aimed at long-term strategic capabilities. we have an update on the legislation. >> jeremy hurd, staff writer at covers defense authorization programs. a lot of big issues. one of them is going to be a fight over sexual assault in the military and how those problems can be addressed to curb the number of problems that are happening. this is been pushing committee. they want to take away prosecution from commanders. that is not in the bill.

i think is going to be one of the major flashpoint. over the war in afghanistan and a new east coast missile site, as well as funding. the bill is 52 billion above the cap the cap set by the sequester. to the sequester, how do they justify the spending. ? submit a budget that was over. they doill say is that not want sequester. by legislating to a lower level, they would be encouraging sequester to take effect. they hope that there's still time to stop stop sequester it 2014. there is no momentum on the hill right now. this say about

house republicans priorities question mark >> missile-defense is a big one. a newant to establish point on the east coast. that would hundred 40 million in that bill. inre going to see that committee. democrats will try to strip that out. need to step forward on the importance of dealing with sexual assault. we also saw an increase of $5 billion to the war in afghanistan. that money is going to those hurt by sequester in the past year. pentagon officials have generally been supportive. they have tried to cut costs through a new round of base

closures will stop new healthcare fees. armed services committee rejected all of those. they say it is not fair. they disagree with the pentagon on the usefulness of those cuts. the're frequently vetoed bill over detainee issues in guantánamo. this is a new problem for the president. the bill passed by the threat -- by the republicans bars the president from moving detainees. >> how is this battle shaking up question mark -- up? >> it is mostly done in a closed session. they were up late doing their markup. the senate is opening up a session on sexual assault. senator joe brand talked about

prosecuting cases. -- did not agree that. he is seeking to establish a review process. >> we appreciate your time. >> defense secretary chuck hagel said the pentagon is reviewing all private military contractors following edward snowden's leak. secretary hagel and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin dempsey testified before the senate sub committee hearing on the defense department's 2014 bum. this is an hour and 50 minutes. >> good morning. we meet this morning to receive testimony for the 2014 budget for the department of defense.

thank you for being here, chuck. chairman of joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. we're going to speak today about budgets and about people. all the services secretaries and chiefs have appeared before the sub committee this year and have expressed great concern over the impact of sequestration, particularly how the size and pace of reductions have the potential to degrade our nation's defense. sequester and the increasing cost of fuel, shortfalls and oversea contingency accounts reduces the accounts by $26 billion in this fiscal year. the department's recent reprogramming that the sub committee is reviewing could set off some of the shortfall but they would still have a bill for afghanistan with limit flexibility in paying it. i would like to know the options being considered.

for face kill year 2014, the president's budget requests $5.6. , 9.9, secretary hagel you have examined options for how the department would absorb the $52 billion additional cuts in sequestration. i want to hear an update today. we can't solve the budget issues without being smarter and without making certain that we have spending cuts that are reasonable. two weeks ago, i discussed the army's track record on acquisition. an average of $1 billion spent every year on programs that were later canceled. tomorrow, i'm holding a hearing on the tuition assistance program. again to make sure the department's spending is focused on getting the best bang for the

buck. next week, i'm holding a hearing on the joint strike fighter so we can have a clear understanding of where this very expensive program is headed. quite simply, we don't have the fund for business as usual. if we want to continue to motorcycle investments across the government for a healthy work force, i know you agree. i also want to hear from you on personnel people. general dempsey, you said last year if we don't get the people right, the rest of it won't matter. that says it all from where i'm sitting. this weekend i attended a ceremony for a national guard unit, in my hometown of springfield, illinois. they just returned from operations in kuwait. it because great illustration on why people were so important. in nine months, ten soldiers took care of the needs of more than 100,000 service members. they also saw a little bit of everything, medical issue, sexual assault cases and it was

up to them to be leaders in the moment and they were. we're so proud of the work being done by all of our military and today i would like to salute the guard and the reserve units who have taken up the responsibility. that leadership is what we need to maintain but we have many, many challenges. how do we maintain the most skilled leaders when we shrink personnel? ow do we preserve the guard's reserve? 182nd airlift wing is about to receive its sixth outstanding award since 9/11. it's conducted this national guard unit 3,300 units. the issue of suicide, last year we saw deaths by suicide outstrip the combat debts. in 2013, there was a suicide every 18 hours across our force.

finally, sexual assault. this issue really threaten to undermine basic trust in the military between personnel and trust in commanders to maintain discipline. i know beneath of you take these accidents lightly but the time for action is long overdue. we need a commitment to change the culture. there was a story that came back with the national guard unit that was activated in kuwait. it because story of a young woman who was alleging as a member of our armed services that she was a victim of sexual assault. she was transferred from her f.o.b. to another unite before she was being sent back to the states to testify. the treatment she received during the transfer was awful. she was placed in a living arrangement where she had to walk through the men's la treen to get to the women's la treen.

this victim, was shattered by the experience. it was note worthy that the prosecutor said the first kind person she ran into was from the national guard unit who tried steady her nerves as she faced the biggest challenge of her life. this culture has to change. these concerns cannot be taken to say we have a broken force. we don't. we have the strongest mill in the world. i'm so -- military in the world. i'm so proud to help the military be success and keep america safe. we have many questions. before i turn it over for opening remark, i want to thank you both of you secretary hagel and general dempsey for your service. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i'm pleased to join you in welcoming the distinguished secretary of defense and the joint chief of staffs to review the budget request. in the current fiscal environment and the unservety of

future funding levels, we need to know the consequences of sequestration and its impact on the department of defense. ultimately, on our national security interests. our sub committee has learned from the service chiefs who have testified and other department of defense officials about the challenges facing our military today and specifically in fiscal year 2013. we thank you for your service and we welcome your suggestions. >> i would like to recognize secretary of defense chuke hagel for an opening statement. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the president's f.y. 2014 budget request for the

department of defense. i also appreciate the sub committee's continued support of our men and women in uniform and our civilian work force and their families. as we discuss number, budgets and strategic priorities, we will not lose sight of these men and women serving across the globe. as you all know, their well being depend on the decisions we mic here in washington. the president has requested $526.6 billion for the department of defense's f.y. 2014 base budget. $9.4 for overseas contingencies. my written statement contains details on both budget requests. this morning, allow me to very briefly focus on three areas before i take your questions. first, the continued budget challenges face facing the department in f.y. 2013 as a result of sequestration, as you have noted.

second, the department's f.y. 2014 budget request. third, how the department is preparing for the future of budget uncertainty and further reduced resources as a result of sequestration. as you know, the department has been forced to enforce deep cuts in the fiscal year because of sequestration. according to the latest guidance of office and management and budget the department must cut $37 billion for the remainder fiscal year. with our decision to shift the impact of sequestration away from those serving in harm's way the cuts fall heavily on d.o.d.'s efforts to be able to train and equip those in the future. the department is experiencing higher war too many costs than expected. -- higher wartime costs than expected.

to deal with the shortfall the department has cut back on facility maintenance, instituted hiring freezes, reduced lower priority programs, furloughs of almost 700,000 employees and submitted a $9.6 billion reprogramming request to congress. we ask this sub committee for your assistance in providing rapid review and approval of this critical reprogramming request. given the scale of this shortfall the reprogramming eastern steps we have taken to cut nonessential spending is not enough. while we have protected spending to sustain the war effort and defend america's interest, the activety -- activities will be

disrupted for the rest of the fiscal year. we have begun to reduce training of nondeployable operating forces. you had the chiefs before this committee and they have made some significant detailed presentations and accounted for these cuts. for example, the army has stopped rotation at its key training centers for all deploying units. more than a dozen combat coded squadrons already have or will soon stop flying. in the navy has curtailed many deployments. to avoid more significant reductions to military readiness i have alexander ricted furloughs to most of the department's 800,000 personnel if --. i made this decision reluctantly because i recognize the hardship place on personnel across our country and specially on their

families. but the current budget environment is requiring difficult decisions and options. let me turn to f.y. 2014. the president's budget continues to implement the $487 billion in spending reductions almost the next 10 years. agreed to in the budget control act of 2011. if the sequester related provisions of the budget control act are not changed, f.y. 2014 funding for national defense programs will be subject to an additional $52 billion reduction in d.o.d. funding. if there's no changes continued sequestration will result in additional $500 billion over the next 10 years. the president's budget replaces sequestration and gives the department the time and the flex

eblets -- flexibility to implement reductions wisely and responsibly. this enables the department to support troops still at war in afghanistan, protect readiness, modernize the military's aging weapons inventory and sustain the high quality of the all volunteer force that you noted that was in general dempsey's speech at the national press club. this budget also continues the department's approach for the last couple of years of targeting growing costs like overhead acquisition and pay in benefits. over the next five years d.o.d. as identified $34 billion in savings, this includes restructuring that will achieve $8.2 billion in savings, slow down construction and reductions in other lower priority

programs. our military compensation package preserves d.d.o.d.'s world class benefits while putting the military on a sustainable path to the future. it brings the cost share closer to the levels and vision when the program was first implemented. the department of defense must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure. the president's budget request authorize for one round of base re-alignment and closure in 2015. it is an imperfect process. there are upfront costs. but in the long term there are significant savings. the previous rounds are saving $12 billion annually.

we cannot justify to continue funding unnecessary infrastructure when we're reducing our fore structure. since 2003, d.o.d. has invested more than 300 foreign bases and operations and we're on schedule to close or consolidate more than 20 oversea operations. there's clearly opportunities to achieve savings by improving proficiency consolidations and improving overhead the scale will also require cuts and changes to military operations. the budget requests aligns the budgets with the president's defense strategic guidance. while continuing to reduce the size of the ground forces and retire aging aircraft and ships, this budget invests in key elements of our defense strategy, including rebalance the pacific region, maintaining

a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile. increasing investment in cyber capabilities and sustaining the growth of special operation forces. this seeks to sustain a high quality all volunteer force. last point, the f.y. 2014 budget reflects d.o.d.'s best efforts to match ends, ways and means during a period of uncertainty. it is obvious that significant changes to the top line spending would require changes to this budget plan. i directed, as you have noted strategic choices in management review in order to aes says future impacts and plan for those continued reductions. i have received the results of this review and i'm currently reviewing those options and those choices. the defense department will continue to find new ways to operate more affordablely, efficiently and effectively.

continued cuts and the timeline of sequestration would require significant reductions in military capabilities and the scope of our activities around the world. the president's 2014 budget sustained our military strention in an environment of strained resources giving d.o.d. the time and flex teeblets make the necessary reductions and had justments over a 10-year period. hard choices will have to be made over the next few years. in the past, many modest reforms to personnel and benefits along with efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure acquisition programs were met with fierce political resistance and they were never implemented. we're now in a new fiscal environment. new realities are forcesing us to face these tough choices and making it necessary to put the military on a path to meet these new and complicated threats we have to do things differently.

this will require the continued partnership of congress. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. general dempsey, you can see we have quital turnout this morning. welcome you to give your testimony and your full written statement will be made part of the record. >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity to discuss the budget proposal for fiscal year 2014. this hearing comes during a period of extraordinary uncertainty. risks tour nation's security are increasing while the resources and readiness for our force is decreasing. the will of our men and with women are undaunted but the means to prepare to win are becoming more uncertain by the day.

this budget was purpose built to keep our nation immune from coercion. it is a responsible investment and a force that is ready for options for an unpredictable future. it upholds funding for emerging capabilities, such as cyber. most importantly, it protects our investments in the true decisive advantage that we enjoy and this is our people. it treats being the best led, best trained, and best equipped military as the nonnegligentable imperative. it also makes our wounded -- it makes sure that our wounded warriors and families receive world-class care. there are some things this budget does not do. it does not reflect the full sequestration amount, rather it imposes less reduction and gives us more time to implement new cuts. the consequences of full

sequestration and its intended risks to our security will gain clarity in the weeks ahead. the senate has asked us to provide our assessment of the impact on the joint force by the first of july. nor does the budget account for the cost of restoring lost readiness. we don't know the full cost to recover from the readiness shortfalls were experiencing this fiscal year. we continue to curtail or cancel training and exercises across all the services in four units that are not preparing to deploy. as a result, we are less ready every day for an unforeseen crisis were contingency operation. in effect, we are foreclosing on options. is more expensive to come ready than to stay ready. this means the cost to recover

lost readiness will compete in the next few years with those costs for building a joint force that we think we need for 2020. as our military power becomes or could become less sustainable, it will become less credible. risk breaking commitments and losing the confidence of our partners and allies, our defense industrial base, and our men and women in uniform and their families. this outcome is not inevitable. working together we can of hold the readiness and help of the force at an affordable cost. to do this we need the certainty of a predictable funding stream, a reliable top line. we need time to implement trade offs and forced structure of modernization, compensation, and readiness, and the readiness to keep the force in balance. but cannot afford to postpone essential reforms such as compensation and health care. both should be allowed to grow more gradually. we should stop pouring money into excess facilities and unwanted weapons. real institutional reform is the only way to avoid repeating the mistakes of past drawdowns.

we have an opportunity and i would suggest an obligation to do this and to account for any future budget in order to restore confidence. we have within us to stay strong as a global leader and a reliable player. thank you members of this committee for all you have done in the past to support our military. we are counting on you to continue to do so, and i look forward to your questions. >> this morning front page of newspapers across the u.s. tells the story of edward snowden, who is an employee working for one of our premier national security agencies as a contract employee. the story that is told us that he is a high school dropouts, that he did not finish his military obligation and dropped out of committee college. it is also reported that he is

being paid in the range of $200,000 a year to contract -- as a contract employee. i continue to be concerned about the cost of the contractor work force, not just in the u.s.a. but in the department of defense. recent reports have emphasized that the average contract employee costs two-three times as much as the average dod civilian employee for performing similar work. according to dot information of fy 10, contract employees comprise 22% of your department's work force but accounted for 50% of its costs. 250 four dollars billion. now let's take a look at what is happening when it comes to the treatment of the work force. i wholeheartedly support the idea of exempting uniform personnel from sequestration

cuts. we owe it to these men and women not to put a hardship on them when they are literally risking their lives for america. then if we take a look at the civilian work force in the department of defense, here is what we find. there has not been a civilian pay raise since 2011. i question to you is this. if we are setting out to save money, has the civilian hiring freeze resulted in more or fewer contract employees, and if so, how are you tracking the cost ramifications? as contractor pay increase during the civilian hiring freeze? >> mr. chairman, i will defer the specific numbers that you ask as a question to the comptroller here in a moment. that we address your larger context of your question on contractors. we are currently reviewing all contractors, all the contracts we have, we have no choice, for all the obvious reasons. contractors are part of any institution. we need them. certainly -- certain skills and expertise.

there is no question that we are going to have to make some rather significant adjustments, which we are. by the way, the furlough process does include contractors. in includes companies, acquisitions, contracts. your specific questions on the gaoo report, let me make one other point. i do not disagree with any of your general analysis on contractors. i think you look at the build up over the last 12 years, and i was in this body during a significant amount of that, and as that build up occurred, the money flowed in two different departments and institutions, because we felt they were

required for national security of this country, there will come a time where we have to make some hard choices and review them. if mr. hale would like to present a response on some of the significant numbers, i would be happy to do that. >> we are taking a sequestration cut in fiscal 13 that will come out of contractors, about $2 billion from furloughs, some from a hiring freeze is that will affect our civilian employees. the majority will come out of contractors so we will see a drop in contractors. it will be a sharp drop. >> do you disputes this finding, the average contract employee cost two-three times as much as the ever civilian employee? >> it sounds about right. whether or not a contractor civilian is cheaper or better really depends on the circumstances. in some cases we simply do not have the skills and the department of defense that we

need. i am hiring a lot of contractors because they know how to do audits. we do not yet. if you are going to have a job over a long time, you are probably better off to have a civilian government employee do it. >> when i was on the bowles- simpson commission we ask how many contract employees work for the department of defense and he said i cannot tell you, i just do not know. >> i will be the best number we have. it is partly true because the feed to a fixed-price contract, the contractor has no obligation to tell you how many people are

doing it. they just do the work and if it is satisfactory, you pay them. we are asking them to tell us how many people so we know better. we have about 700,000 service contractors right now, that is our best current estimate. >> i have found a sense of disdain toward civilian dod employees. if there is going to be -- if we want to save money it should not be at the expense of those who are willing to work in the civil service. >> you will not get any argument from me on that. >> i don't know whether to turn to my right or left. i will turn to senator mikulski. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, in reviewing the request before the committee, i notice there is an operation and maintenance shortfall for the army's request in excess of $8 billion in the overseas contingency operations and maintenance account. why are we seeing such a huge difference between what is being requested and what is available for these activities? why this big disparity? >> i will respond generally and

then asked the comptroller to be more specific on the accounts. i noted in my statement here this morning that the costs essentially of transitioning and withdrawing from afghanistan, principally an army assignment as has been the situation the last 12 years, the army has had the ball of the manpower responsibilities in these wars in iraq and afghanistan. as we are unwinding those and equipment and maintenance, to get that equipment out, is not easy to get out, for a lot of reasons. the cost as been significantly

more than what had been anticipated over the last two years. that is part of it, but there are other parts to it that i will ask the comptroller to dress more specifically, which will address exactly your numbers. >> the shortfall you are referring to is in fiscal 13 and the army is short as much as a billion dollars. we do these estimates two years in the advance and it is hard to guess what a war is going to cost that far in advance. sometimes we have asked for too much money, but this year, regrettably, we did not ask for enough. we underestimated the level of operating tempo that would incur. we underestimated the transportation costs, as the secretary alluded to, to get equipment out. and a variety of other factors. so we are short as much as a billion dollars, coming at a time when sequestration has

greatly limited our ability to cover that. we need this reprogramming, full approval or close. >> we appreciate your efforts to hold down the cost and try to eliminate unnecessary wasteful spending in this budget, even though we are involved in military operations and those are costly, more costly than when you do not have a war going on. we understand that, but it struck me as a pretty high number and i was curious as to what the details were. in 2012, the department of defense -- i guess this is directed to the secretary. the department of defense announced a strategy that would

shift focus on military capability to be pacific theater. since that time, the department has been forced to deal with a lot of uncertainty, sequestration included, and events such as what is happening in north korea and how serious is that, and are we going to incur knowable amounts of additional spending for dealing with that stressful area of the world? shipbuilding four and previous warship inventory -- if you look at some of the parts of the budget that he would think might come in for increases, there will be decreases. the 30-year shipbuilding plant projects amphibious warship

inventory will fall to 28 ships in fiscal year 2013. this could have a negative impact on our ability to protect our interests in the asia- pacific region. what is your assessment of this? >> thank you. i will respond and then i know general dnc will want to respond as well. first, your initial question about additional operating expenses based on threats in the asia-pacific, you mentioned specifically north korea. we have had to place asset differently, reposition resources, capabilities over the last few months, essentially since i have been over there a little more than three months, a

good deal of my time has been devoted to that part of the world, and that particular issue of north korea has consumed a good amount of it. so there have been additional cost and there may well be additional costs. part of what the comptroller is referring to in his general commentary on answering the chairman's question about uncertainties. you plan for uncertainties but you never know. we have had to protect our assets there, whether it is guam, hawaii, south korea. we need to continue to keep all options available for the president if we would be required to take any kind of additional action. second, ship building. yes, there will be a difference in 2015 as we work toward the 300-ship navy and we are on course for that. the budget numbers play that out. you mentioned specifically why is there a decrease in some of

these areas. there are decreases in most areas, as you know, because the resources or not there. so tough decisions have had to be made, and more will come. more in line with our strategies and commitments and our guidance, we are committed to that 300-ship navy. we are finding new capabilities in these new ships that we did not have previously, but as you go through that cycle of 30 years, and if the comptroller wants to go into more specifics he can, you will find a couple of those years will dip because we are retiring old ships that would cost more to maintain them, as we are acquiring new technologies and ships. let me stop there and ask general dempsey if he would like to respond. >> if you are asking if the sequestration level cuts will

have an effect in our ability to produce capability and capacity, absolutely. we are talking about 01 $0.20 trillion difference when you add up what was done in the gates efficiencies and sequestration. $1.2 trillion is going to leave a mark on what we plan to do. this strategic management review that the secretary does lead us through will allow us to identify the point at which the defense strategic guidance that referred to from last year, where we will potentially render it in feasible. that work should become clear in the weeks ahead. >> thank you, senator cochran. chairwoman mikulski. >> thank you for your questions about mr. snowden and all of

maryland is reeling from this. his mother's name was disclosed, workplace and home address. that woman had nothing to do with this incident and now she's being harassed. people are asking, what is the kid who could not make through a community college should make 200 grant a year and be exposed to some of our most significant secrets. it is good to see you, secretary hegel and general dempsey. i want to knowledge all the work that you do and to stress -- the stress that you are under.

it is enough to keep any one functioning at a 36-hour day. i just want to acknowledge we are in a very difficult transitional time. today i want to focus my question on the truth, their families, and their well-being. secretary hagel, i want to thank you for your participation, your prompt response, we look forward to working with you to cracked the code on the military backlog. second is health care. as you recall in our confirmation hearing, i had hoped to work on these issues and i look forward to working with these issues with you. mr. chairman, there is in the budget request for something called a healthy based initiative. this is working on all the resources of the federal government, working with the

private sector and the state to create a healthy base related to everything from nutrition, physical fitness -- i will be working with the chairman to fund it. and now you have selected 13 site, there is a national geographic tour. there are three in virginia and four in maryland. not a good thing to do. fort meade is in the news every day. there are 39,000 employees, military and civilian contractors there. could we take a look at that? i would like to talk more about health care, but let me move on to something else, which is

sexual assault. i have been working on this issue for 25 years, both as a member of the senate -- we had a hearing last week and there was robust response. let me tell you my focus. my focus is on the service academies. i focus on the training of this generation and the next generation of leaders. secretary hagel, when i read your testimony, you outlined several steps that you are taking. i wish to acknowledge those steps and appreciate them. you talk about developing military commanders performance. i support that. i support everything you have in your testimony. but let's go to the service academies. i agree that leadership trains leadership. the tone is set by the superintendent of the academy.

as you look at how to evaluate military members performance and establish a command, of dignity and respect, what you saying your testimony, incorporating sexual assault prevention in the selection of superintendents for the united states military, the now are would you consider really evaluating their performance, how they did their job and how they retain their jobs, that this be a matter that is included in the command performance evaluation. >> absolutely. yes. as you know, there is an evaluation process before any of these individuals are given these assignments. however, to your point, there has been merrill emphasis on this issue, but that is -- there has been very little emphasis on this issue. training, attitudes, the entire context of this issue.

i have redirected that effort and recertified and revaluing of our senior people from recruiters, all the sexual prevention office heads, anybody in those offices across the board. this also includes all our leaders at the academies, the superintendent, the commandants, and that will go down into instructors as well. that is a proponent of this problem but it is not the only part of the problem. >> i would like to focus on the superintendent of the academies. for 25 years, i have watched the superintendent's and i have seen some duds. 50% of the general's graduated from west point. 90% of apple's graduated from the naval academy. it shows what the pipeline of leadership is. that is why we spent $400,000 educating these very talented men and women.

they need leadership that is contemporary and understands the contemporary work force. i am very concerned that in their selection for being a superintendent, what this is. i support everything having your testimony, but i need a focus on the superintendent. could you give us a list of the criteria on selecting the superintendent? >> we will provide that to the committee and once again have my absolute commitment, and our entire leadership, on getting this right. we will get it right. i understand exactly what you are saying and we will provide that information. >> my time is up. every year you get a report that

was mandated in the dod authorization when the sexual assault at the service academies the board of visitors is enormously uneven. there are inconsistent policies, in consistent implementation of the policies. could we really focus on the service academy? i could go through the numbers and statistics. >> we will, we are, and we will continue to update the committee. we would be happy to come and give you a briefing on specifically this issue any time your request. >> would you support senate confirmation of the superintendents for the service academies? >> i don't have any problem with that at all. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman of ayer appropriations committee.

it seems to me that her. about the service academy are very important and i appreciate her bringing them up today. secretary hagel, you testified this morning that the shortfall in the military readiness accounts for the remainder of this fiscal year is about $30 billion. since unanticipated work cut its not per sequester account for at least 25%, and perhaps up to one-third of the shortfall in the readiness account, and about 50% of the shortfall in the army readiness accounts, should we not be addressing this portion of the fiscal 13 budget shortfall with a supplemental oco request?

we understand that war is uncertain and it is extraordinarily difficult to accurately estimate but the costs are going to be, particularly in the situation we find ourselves in in iraq and afghanistan. but there is a direct link between the unexpected, unfunded war costs and the furloughs, because they are funded from the same account, the readiness accounts. you mentioned, as has secretary hale, the reprogramming request that you have before our committee, but that doesn't give you more funding, it just allows you to shift funding around. my question, mr. secretary, is this. will the department be

submitting a supplemental request to congress to address a higher than anticipated war costs? >> senator collins, as you are aware, one supplemental to address this issue is not going to fix this problem. the only thing that will fix this problem is a change in the sequestration, as i know you have heard countless times. now to your specific question. we have not considered a supplemental. i have not discussed a supplemental. if that occurs, then we would look at it. but that is about as far as i can go. we just have not moved at that as a possibility. well, i would encourage you to do so. also, i do not support the sequestration process and

believe we should be setting priorities. i am very worried about the detrimental impact on the department of defense. the fact is, that is not the total calls up the shortfall in the readiness account, and overall, across the department's come up between approximately one-third of the shortfall is not due to sequestration it is due to higher than anticipated war costs. even if we abolish sequestration today, that does not solve the problem of your legitimately needing more money to deal with the unanticipated, underestimated war costs. so i would ask you to look at the possibility of submitting a supplemental request. let me just make one more

comment, to talk about the 300- ship navy being on track, and i am happy to hear that given the new defense policy focusing on the pacific that the president has revealed, the assistant secretary of the navy recently testified about the 10-ship plan for destroyers and that the marginal cost to acquire that 10th destroyer of makes it an extremely affordable acquisition, and would contribute to the cost efficiency of the overall multi year. in fact, due to sequestration, the department is about $306 million short, despite the fact that a dish for your cost considerably more than that, but there are real economies of scale due to the multi-year procurement plans that the congress has approved.

do you support continuing with that multi-year procurement plan? >> i am familiar with the specific situation. we are currently closely examining whether a commitment to the 10th ship should be made, for the reasons you just mentioned. the decision, as far as i know, has not been made yet. i will ask mr. hale to respond to this. it is part of the overall larger strategic interest, as we are moving 60% of our naval assets into the asia-pacific area. do you want to respond? >> there are specific problems with sequestration. we are trying to solve them.

there is a small amount of money in this program to help. but we have to look at this in light of what happens in overall sequestration before we make the final decision. we would like to finish it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i could not help but think of one of the earlier questions about sexual misconduct. at the naval academy and elsewhere, at least it was reported in the press, in most of those cases where nothing was done, that it was outside a military reservation. local prosecutors would be prosecuting people. there would be people going to jail. i would hope any local

prosecutor who knew what they were doing would not be taking the position almost of blaming the victims that we saw in some of these cases. i mention that because i know there is some reluctance expressed in making the chain of command more responsive. but with all of you here, let me tell you, there is some thought, and this is a matter before the judiciary committee, to removing the exemption, and allowing state prosecutors to move in on those cases. i realize that would be quite controversial. but i throw that out as a matter as a warning to the military chain of command that this -- if they do things as they have always been done, it is not acceptable.

there are many of us on the judiciary committee who had the opportunity to serve as prosecutors, of parties, in earlier careers. i just throw that out. i am not looking for an answer. i know the armed services committee and others will get it. mr. secretary, i was heartened by your very, very strong statement in this area. general dempsey, i know of your concern. i will be revisiting this with you privately. but it is something that we are considering. i think we have talked about what our troops have accomplished in afghanistan. i include the 86th brigade. they fought with great bravery.

several lost their lives. with syria, iraq, and much of the muslim world descending into sectarianism, i wonder whether afghanistan faces a similar fate. i ask you -- can our efforts be sustained in the afghan army when we leave? and is it possible that we leave earlier than we now plan? >> thank you, senator leahy. a brief response to your sexual assault comments. you summarized it pretty well. you know what i have done, in cooperation with our chiefs. there are going to have to be changes made. there will be changes made.

but as we make those changes and work with congress on this, we need to be sure that the consequences that will come from one at that -- from whatever decisions are made by congress to make those adjustments we need to make, and you know and agree with that, in many ways, that they are thoughtful. as you know, the congress instructed the department of defense in 2013 to put together a panel, which congress appointed 4 representatives to that panel. department of defense, five are on that panel. that panel will have its first meeting in the next two weeks. i have talked with them a couple of times. the objective of that panel is to go down to every aspect of this issue -- chain of command, authority -- and make

recommendations to the congress and the department of defense on what needs to be changed, what they think needs to be changed.

with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so we have before us 1,000-page bill that's extremely difficult to read and to understand. we're being asked to vote on it, and i would just say that majority leader reid indicated that he wants to list amendments and presumably no more would be agreed to, and he is going to pick and choose which ones he would approve by the end of this week. and i believe that's very premature. i do not believe that that's the way we should be proceeding. and we've got to have the time to sufficiently analyze all the complexities that are here. i have to say to my gang members who produced this bill, this tome, that you spent months working on it with special

interest groups and lawyers and the obama administration staff people, and you produced a bill, and now we have to rush it through the senate. i don't think that's the right thing to do. let me just read from one of the sections in the bill. and i hope my colleagues know this. if you begin to read the bill, you know how hard it is, colleagues. this is not an easy bill to read. and you have to study it, and you have to have lawyers reading it, and you have to find out what the exceptions are and what the limitations are and what the additions are. the lawyers who wrote it know. the gang of eight doesn't know, i sure you. they don't know all the details that are in this legislation. it is not possible for them to do so. so people who were writing at the special interest group, the ag business groups, meatpackers

group, the la raza, immigration lawyers association, all of them were in the thing working on it. they know what the impacts are. but how about this section right here from the guest worker section? subparagraph (b): numerical lim- numerical limitation. subject to paragraph d, the number of registered physicians that may be approved by the secretary for a year after the fourth year referred to in paragraph (1) (a) (4) shall be the equal of -- get this -- subparagraph (1). the number of such registered positions available under this paragraph for the preceding

year. and (ii] the product of (i) the product of such registered positions available under this paragraph for the preceding year multiplied by subparagraph (2) the index of the current year calculated under subparagraph (c). now, you think that's easy to understand? it has meaning, and what it basically means is this bill is going to allow more workers to come into this country than we've ever allowed before at a time when unemployment is extraordinarily high, our ability to reduce unemployment is down, wages are down, and we are falling -- our workers are falling below inflation rate in their wages for years. and how about the second paragraph. i am just reading this. so we're going to rush this thing through, really?

subparagraph c -- index. the index calculated under this subparagraph for a current year equals the sum of -- subparagraph i -- one-fifth of a fraction. (1) the numerator of which is the number of registered positions that registered employers applied to have approved under subsection e-1 for the preceding year minus ther number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the preceding year and subparagraph 2 the denominator of which is the number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the spreeing year. -- for the preceding year. i am a sure we all got that. i'm sure you all know exactly what that means.

and it goes on. subparagraph iii -- three-tenths of a fraction. subparagraph 1 -- the numerator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the preceding year min minue number of unemployment united states workers for the current year. and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the spreeing year, sub-- and it goes ton subparagraph 4, three-tenth thrf a fraction. it goes on. somebody knows what that means. because you had special interests on top of writing this big monstrosity. they were there. they wanted their deal. and i would say to my colleagues, when you say -- those in the gang of eight -- rched and i know they want to do the right thing and have worked hard, but they got off on the

wrong track. the papers reported for weeks, well, the unions are here and the chamber of commerce is here and the ag workers and the ag industry people are here, and they want more workers for this and this one is demanding more workers thor that, and our senators over here somehow letting them all hammer it out. and that's how this writing comes up. that's how the -- it came from them. the senators didn't write this. they knew exactly what they were doing. they were putting in numbers to get certain workers that businesses wanted so they could have more employees and they could keep wages down. that's what the scheme was. more workers, less competition for labor, loose labor market, less pay raises, less overtime, less benefits because the

employer has options. and, remember, these are guest workers. these are people not on a citizenship path. they're not here to form corporations and hire millions of people and cure cancer. these are workers that come in and work for existing existing corporations. i just would emphasize that some thought needs to be given to that. we haven't talked about that yet. we're going to talk about it. the impact of this large of an increase in immigration into our country has real impacts, and a lot of the numbers and a lot of the data that's out there has not been challenged. and the data indicates that we're already at a point where the flow of immigrant labor into america i is depressing wages, d it is a big factor in the cause

of workers' wages today being 8% in real terms below what they were in 19 -- in 1999. wages haven't been going up. democrats used to talk about it. they used to hammer president bush on it all the time. now that president obama has been in office for five years, you don't hear them talking about it anymore. nobody is talking about, well, senator sanders talked about it on the floor last week. i give him credit for that. he is an independent. i haven't heard my democratic colleagues continue to repeat the fact that steadily we're not -- we're seeing a decline in wage rates in america, making it harder for middle-class americans to get by. and what about even find a job? so the matter is not a little bitty matter. i know that.

we're going to have to talk about it of the and we don't need to rush this through. it seems quite clear to me, crystal clear to me, that the gang of eight never discussed this. they certainly didn't call professor borjas at harvard. dr. borjas is the leading expert on immigration and labor and the impact of it in america. he's written books on it. he says that, i believe, 40% -- i believe it was his study -- of the fall in wages for american citizens is attributable to the current flow of immigrant labor into america. it pulls down wages. it is free market. you bring in more cotton to america, the price of coughs cot on falls. you bring in more labor, the price of labor falls.ing

that's the way market forces work. he says this is a factor right now. but we need to understand that if 15 million people are legalized, virtually immediately and the guest worker program appears to double anded number of people that will -- and the number of people that will come in and the permanent immigrant flow of people who want to become citizens will increase 50%, then we'll have one of the largest increases inflow of labor to america we've ever seen, and we can't get jobs at a decent pay for american workers right now. that's real out there. people are worried about their families. they're worried about their children's ability to get a job. they're worried about their grandchildren's ability to get a job. about to graduate from high school, they don't have a college degree. maybe they don't plan to go to

college but they're willing to work. jobs are not that plentiful. did you see the article in philadelphia, i believe it was, they said they had job openings to try to help people who have had a criminal conviction in their background. they expected 1,000 people. 3,000 showed up. they had to cancel it and reset the whole deal because they interviewed people who said you can't find a job in philadelphia. and i believe in new york, one of the boroughs of new york there was a very interesting article just two weeks ago about job openings for elevator mechanics, people waited five days. they took tents out to stay in line to try to get those jobs. the number of people waiting in line was 20 times the number of jobs that were out there, or more. and so we're going to reward people who enter the country, we have to understand, in this bill

right here, these people -- if the bill is passed, the people who come here that have been, many are in the shadows -- and that is correct, and that's a sad thing and it's a difficult thing. but those individuals also will be able to go apply for the elevator mechanic job. they will be also able to compete for employment in philadelphia that right now they may not be so able to contribute. it raises real question. i want to mention this. this is last saturday's -- this saturday from "the washington post." you heard that those are good jobs numbers; right? the job numbers weren't so great. 175,000 jobs were created last month according to "the washington post" based on the new government data that was

released friday, and the labor department said unemployment went up from 7.5 to 7.6. the unemployment rate went up even though the number of jobs was 175,000 created. what i want to point out is this is -- this fact that's in the report -- and i'll quote from "the post" -- "the bulk of the gains in may were in service industry, which added 57,000 jobs. still about half of those were temporary positions." temporary positions. not real jobs. and i continue, "suggesting that businesses remain uncertain of consumer demand. missing from the picture were production jobs in industries such as construction and manufacturing." those weren't the kind of jobs

being created. meanwhile, manufacturing shed 8,000 workers. american manufacturers reduced employment last month. and those are the better jobs with the retirement pay and with the health care benefits that come with a good manufacturing company. so we're creating more and more competition for lower-wage jobs. the article goes on to say this, "in addition, some economists have raised concerns about the types of jobs being created. sectors such as retail, restaurants, bars have been adding plenty of jobs, but those positions tend to pay low wages. friday's report showed workers' average hourly earnings rose only one penny in may to $23.89

for the entire year wages have risen 2%." again, that's below the inflation rate. so, again, we continue to have this situation in which wages trail inflation, which means the average american is having a hard time getting by. and many of these jobs are part-time, not permanent. and they are the kind of jobs that a lot of people would look to advance from, whether working in a restaurant or something like that, they would be looking to move forward. and the kind of manufacturing jobs we'd like to see more of are not there. so i mentioned the work visas in this process. despite a huge increase in the numbers of those that are going to be legalized and put on a path to permanent residence and citizenship, we have a large

number of people in this total number. all right, for example, under the bill, it's widely conceded that we would legalize 11 million people. they would be put on a path to legal he permanent residence and into citizenship. 11 million all of whom are in the country illegally and are here in violation of the law. what's not mentioned is that there's another 4.5 million that's in a, they call it a backlog status. they are basically chain migration members, family members who want to come, but under our current law, you have a cap, a limit on how many family members are allowed to enter each year. and as a result, a backlog they call it has moved up to 4.5 million. so now we have people say this: they have been saying well, you shouldn't give the 11 million here illegally an advantage over people that have been waiting in

line. that was a problem for the gang of eight. i can see them sitting around dealing with that. how can we give somebody who was here waiting in line patiently and lawfully status behind that of somebody who had been here working in the country with false documents illegally? that wouldn't be right. so how do they solve that? like washington does, they legalize them too. they didn't want anybody to say the 4.5 here waiting -- so they just let them come in too. so really we'll be initially processing 15 million people. and then, well, what about the annual future flow? now it's the most generous flow in the world. we admit a million people, a little over a million people a year under our legal flow into

the country. what about that? in light of all this accelerated admissions and legal status, what's going to -- should we reduce the number of people that are coming here each year lawfully now for awhile? oh no, that's increased. 50%, according to "the los angeles times". it could be more. i'll accept that number. so that's, instead of a million a year, that's 1.5 million. over ten years that's 15 million. so that results in 30 million people in ten years being given lawful permanent status in america. lawful permanent status in america. 30 million. 10% of the entire population of america -- and overwhelmingly this group is low-skilled. over half of the people here illegally don't have a high school diploma from their own home country, and they are not able to take the better jobs.

they'll be competing with, for the lower-wage jobs in america. and if they're legalized, legal immigrants who entered the country a few years ago, they're going to find some way or another -- maybe they were legalized in 1986. maybe they have come legally since. that immigrant population is going to find their wages pulled down by this large amount of flow of labor into the country. i just don't think there's any doubt about that. we'll go more into detail about that as we go forward. but we're talking about 30 million be placed on -- be given legal status on a path to permanent legal residence and citizenship over the next ten years. they will be given that status. we've not discussed that. so i ask senator schumer at the committee twice, how many will

be admitted under your bill? he refused to answer. i'm not sure they know, because these numbers aren't all the numbers. there's an additional group of people who will come under the chain migration theory, family-based connections, and other special provisions in here that have no caps, no limit on how many would come. they refuse to answer. the sponsors that have producing legislation for us today will not say amazingly how many people they expect to enter into our country if their bill passes. why not? you don't know or you won't say? either one is an indictment of this monstrosity. and that's why it cannot pass. even senator rubio is now saying

he can't vote for the bill unless it's improved. he was in the gang of eight. this is legislation that is a flawed legislation, fatally flawed, and it should not become law. it shouldn't. and they said a lot of good things about what they expect the bill to do. if it did those things, we could be more interested in it. we'd have a framework that -- we'd have a framework of a bill that could actually do some good. i would say that for sure. as we go forward, we need to ascertain with absolute clarity what the best economic data shows about how many people this

country can absorb in a reasonable way and be able to provide a decent place for them to work and without pulling down the wages of an already stressed american workforce.weeed to tal. so far as i can tell, that was never discussed in the groups. what was discussed pretty much in the groups, it seems to me, was businesses demanding more workers, la raza demanding more people and basically open borders. they were the ones writing the legislation in large part. there was some union objections to some of this, and it needs to be listened to. republicans say, well, that's a union objection. they make a good objection, so be it. i think they made some points but went along with this in a way that's not effective. we've got to talk about the economic impact of it, and we will. and we need to ascertain the

second aspect. 30 million people i just mentioned, those 30 million are people who become permanently, they are on path never to return to their country. they have a legal status that allows them to get legal permanent r.e.s. tkebs and then -- permanent residence and then get citizenship. normally we do a million a year which would be 10 million over ten years. this will increase it to 15 million over ten years, and that doesn't count the 11 million plus the 4.5 million that will be given legal status. it's pretty clear to me it's indisputable that we're at 30 million people put on a path to permanent residence in america. and i ask my colleagues if they have a different number, they should share it with us. maybe in these bills, with these subparagraphs and numerators and denominators and fractions and all got a different number. i'd like to hear it. we think we've figured it out.

"the los angeles times" agrees. other analysts seem to agree with it as best we can do so in the time since the bill was introduced. then you've got the worker programs. that's what i was reading about, reading about earlier. let me mention those programs. these are programs in which, have generally been referred to as the guest worker programs. we believe -- and i think data shows -- that the bill doubles the number of guest workers that will be allowed into the country. every year we bring in a certain number of people, some work in agriculture, some work in landscaping, some work in other things. at a time of high unemployment with americans doing landscaping, americans are working in meatpacking plants and doing farm work, but temporary, seasonal jobs are

often hard to fill, and guest workers can do that. and i'm not opposed to a guest worker pravment but at this point this history, should we double the number on top of the 30 million i just mentioned? this is an annual flow on top of that. for example, it adds four times more guest workers than the 2007 bill, that the american people and congress real estatejecteje- and congress rejected. at a time when 20 million more americans are on food stamps today than in 2007, when teenage unemployment is 54% higher and median household income is 8% lower than in 2007. so we're so desperate now we've got to bring in twice as many guest workers?

arwhere are they going to find work? are we going to disappoint them? what if they can't find work? will they then be able to say, well, i'll work for minimum wage. and the american young guy, he's 20, like to do some work, has got a child, perhaps, trying to get that job and get started and learn a skill as a carpenter, bricklayer, construction or equipment operator, would that make his ability to find away job harder? what if the young guy had a drug offense? i used to be a drug prosecutor. you don't want to see a person who just because they had a drug offense, they could never get work again. we know that if people don't have a job, the government has transfer payments -- food stamps, medicaid for their health care, housing allowances, and other benefits.

so is that how the taxpayers now have got to have even more people subsidized by the government because they honestly can't find a job? there's not enough out there. and some of my colleagues need to focus on this. and there's been almost no serious discussion about it other than what we hear from certain squeaky wheel special interests. but how many of our colleagues know the difference between the h-1b visa, the h-1b 1 visa, the h-2a visa, the h-2b visa, and the h-4 visa? and how many will come in under each one of them and what tarnds will they use, and do you actually to make sure you've advertised and offered a job to an american first before you use this visa? and those are just the h visas,

what about the w-1 visa, the w-2 visa? and the w-3 visa? and you also have the e-3 visa, the e-4 visa, and the e-5 vehicles and you got the "x" visa and the y visa and it goes on and on. and that's how we've got a doubling of the number of people that are coming in under the guest worker program. so our .o our time because the bill is fatally flawed. the only thing that clearly works in the bill, the only thing that is guaranteed to work is the amnesty. it's guaranteed that people once this bill is passed, people that are illegally, will be given legal status.

they have then be placed on path to citizenship, legal permanent residence and then citizenship. that's what's guaranteed. all we have, as in the past, as in 1986, a promise that we'll have enforcement in the future. and i have to say, we've been around here, a lot of us, for several years and we know that's not going to work. this promise is just that, a promise. we don't have the backing to make it sure. senator cornyn has got an idea that he thinks will strengthen that, understand i know it will strengthen it. well, i appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. i know senator cruz is on his waway. senator cruz, i know, is here, but he's now in the judiciary committee dealing with some other important issue issues, oh

i'm glad that able lawyer is there. i'm sure he'll be speaking later. mr. president, how much time is left on this side? the presiding officer: there is 17 minutes. mr. sessions: so senator cornyn indicated that the bill fails with regard to enforcement and enforcement at the border. i could not agree more. senator cornyn in 200 spent a lot of time working on this bill. he proposed an amendment then that would have improved the border enforcement, and he is an expert at that. he is a senator from texas, he's wrestled with this over the years, and he should absolutely

be listened to. but we also know this: that people are out there every day enforcing the law, telling us that the system is not working and that changes and improvements need to be effected. and they are concerned that this bill doesn't do it. mr. president, the rockingham county sheriff's office on june 10 in north carolina issued a news release, "more than 75 north carolina sheriffs warn congress that the senate immigration bill would endanger public safety." well, that's a pretty serious matter. they say this -- quote -- "in a short time, over 75 sheriffs from across north carolina serving counties both big and small across this great, great state have signed the attached

letter opposing the current senate immigration plan." "our first responsibility and highest duty as sheriff is to provide for the safety of the citizens residing in our communities where we serve. unfortunately, this flawed immigration bill, which was produced by the gang of eight senators, puts the public safety of citizens across the united states at risk and ham percent the ability of law enforcement stories do their job. requestings "they go ton say, "this senate bill should be opposed by lawmakers and instead congress should work with law enforcement on reforms that we already have and we're willing to propose that will enhance public safety." close quote. kenneth polincus, american federation of government employees, president affiliated

with the afl-cio, wrote this letter. "there has been much public concern over the fact that the legalization occurs prior to any border enforcement. indeed, from what i understand, every amendment offered in committee, which made legalization contingent on achieving border security first, was defeated. history tells us that future promises will not be kept and that our border agents will be left high and dry by the executive branch, as they have so many times before, regardless of who writes the plan." close quote. this is the head of a federal employees union that represents law enforcement officers. i think the biggest one. he goes on to say, "but even if you completely rewrote your proposes to resolve the many border security concerns and change the ordering to delay

legalization, the legalization would still fail and would still endanger the public because of the fatally flawed interior enforcement components." he goes on to say, "if passed, s. 744 would lead to the rubber-stamping of millions of applications for both amnesty and future admissions." he goes on to say, "why should the senate pass a bill that makes it even more difficult for the uscis, the citizenship and immigration officers is who they are, to identify, remove, and keep out public safety threats, people that are dangerous that maybe they are in danger krallly in their home countries. what do you do if you are about to go to jail in another country in the world. if you can flee the country and get to the united states, that's not a bad we are seeing over the last decade more criminals as a part

of the mix with very fine and decent people who come to the country because they are in effect fleeing maybe prosecution in their home countries. what about the i.c.e. officers, the immigration and customs enforcement council? they wrote a letter with pennsylvania sheriffs, the north carolina sheriffs and sheriffs nationwide on may 29, and they say this: "congress can and must take decisive steps to limit the discretion of political appointees and empower i.c.e. and border patrol to perform their respective missions and enforce laws enacted by congress." this is a bold statement. these people work for the president of the united states, or at least part of the administration. the i.c.e. officers have already voted two years ago no

confidence in their supervisor john morton because they say he spends more time dealing with pro-amnesty groups than directing them not to enforce -- and directing them not to enforce the law than doing his duty. they've actually sued secretary napolitano and mr. morton for blocking them from executing plain congressional mandates that they feel they have no other obligation than to enforce. they have to do it. but they've been told not to do it. rather than -- they say this, "rather than limiting the power of those political appointees within the department of homeland security, s. 744 ploys them with nearly unlimited discretion which will serve only to further cripple the law enforcement missions of these agencies." i've talked to these officers.

they asked to be a participant with the gang of eight in writing this thing. they were refused. they asked repeatedly. they warned that this was not going to work. they never wanted to hear from the people who enforced law every day. they wanted to hear from the amnesty crowd. that's who they met with. they wanted to hear from the big business guys who want more labor, cheap labor. and that's who wrote the bill. but they didn't listen to the people who deal with this, who put their lives on the line. so this letter continues, "while business groups, activists and other special interests were closely involved in drafting s. 744, law enforcement personnel were excluded from those meetings. immigration officers, state and local enforcement working together with the nation's broken immigration system were

prohibited from providing input. as a result, the legislation before us may have many satisfactory components for powerful lobbying interests and other special interests, but on the subjects of public safety, border security, interior enforcement this legislation fails. it is a dramatic step in the wrong direction." the wrong direction -- close quote. that's a pretty resounding condemnation. and i think that's fundamentally correct because i met with them. i asked the group of people to meet with them, and they wouldn't do it. participants in the recent calls

include -- to discuss this bill and how to promote it -- include the heads of goldman sachs, the business round table, everycorps, the u.s. chamber of commerce, as well as the heads of washington trade groups representing the banking industry such as the financial round table. they all had input into it. they all were involved. i guess they made contributions or something. thomas wh hodson sheriff for bristol county, own june 10 wrote this, "no immigration reform without legitimate -- without legitimate security." he is from massachusetts.

i believe that's the sheriff of massachusetts. he said -- quote -- "i have grave concerns about illegal criminals being eligible for citizenship and gang members being permitted to qualify for the provisional status, registered legal status once they renounce their affiliation. most troubling, however, is the fact that we do not have adequate systems in place, such as biometrics to verify identification for people entering and leaving the united states. announcing that biometrics will be available at our 30 busiest airports serves only to limit illegal entry at those locations diverting illegal entry to those locations without the superior technology." i ask you to make it known to your senators and representatives that they vote "no" on passage of 744 until a security plan is in place, the

sheriff says. pete nunez, former united states attorney in san diego, wrote this -- great united states attorney. he said this -- quote -- "but our greatest concern is the so-called trigger that we are told will delay the path to citizenship until the border is security. that's what they're saying, until you guarantee the border is secure, i think the legalization doesn't happen. we've demonstrated already that's absolutely ineffective. so, mr. nunez goes on to say, "this is an illusion meant to fool the public into believing that amnesty will only take place after the border is secure. nothing could be further from the truth. because on day one, every one of

the illegal 11 million illegal aliens will be eligible for a temporary document allowing them to stay and work in the united states, their two most important goals." close quote. so he was united states attorney on the california border, and he worked with these issues and understands it. he had the responsibility of prosecuting cases by the thousands. probably hundreds of thousands. former united states attorney nunez is a very wise and experienced person. all county sheriff's office, florence, arizona, sheriff baboa said this" secure border first or you will repeat history."

who he he announced his opposition to the proposed immigration reform offered by the so-called gang of eight officially titled border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act, sheriff baboa said -- quote -- "we must secure the border first, prior to any discussion of green cards and path to citizenship offered to nearly 20 million illegals and their families. this plan gives everything to president obama up front while border security is promised once again on the back end. we are about to repeat history when in 1986 the president gave amnesty to two million illegals. yet it seems we haven't learned our lesson. the failure to secure the border after the reagan amnesty got us to where we are today with 11 million to 20 million illegals in our country. this plan will repeat history." close quote.

i think he's exactly right about that. chris crane, the head of the i.c.e. union, is so outspoken about this, he's testified about before the house. he's had press conferences here that i've participated with him. he's warned that this will make america less secure, not more secure. he warns that it makes the ability of the i.c.e. agents already handicapped, even more problematic. he says that the bill gives to the secretary essentially, he says, more discretion to violate the law than they're using today. and in fact the orders and directives and the policies they're giving to the street officers, the i.c.e. officers about how to do their job are currently in direct violation of the law. this bill ratifies that by explicitly giving statutory authority to the secretary to

make all kinds of waivers for other matters. that's not a way to give confidence to america. mr. president, i don't know what our time is. i see no one else on the floor. i don't want to take anybody else's time. but if i yielded the floor, i guess their time would run against them anyway. the presiding officer: there are 2 minutes remaining on the opponents' side. mr. sessions: our law enforcement officers are really frustrated. so you've got three major law enforcement groups: the border patrol, which was given considerable funding after the failure of the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bill. and they have enhanced their efforts as a result of that. but we still are not where we

need to be at the border. indeed, since the announcement of this possible amnesty, illegal entries have increased significantly at our borders. the number of people arrested is considerably higher this year than last year. and 55% -- 55,000 of the 90,000 people -- 90,000 -- that have been arrested this year since january were not from mexico. and this was primarily on the mexican border. but from other countries. and some of them from countries that have a history of terrorism. senator cornyn has talked about that previously. so we've got a surge happening. and they're concerned about it and protecting their officers. the customs -- the citizenship and immigration officers, these are the people that will process the amnesty claims and the request to be treated as lawful

residents that will occur after this bill passes, who deal with the people who make applications to come to the united states and process the pathway to citizenship for everybody. they have explicitly voted and opposed this legislation. they say it does not work. and i just read a quote from the head of their union as to why it won't work. the i.c.e. officers who deal with all the interior enforcement, they apprehend people who have been convicted of crimes that are in state and local jails who are noncitizens are illegally here and they're supposed to deport them, they have been consistently, consistently out front pointing out how they have been constricted in their ability to do their job. and that if this bill passes and the vast majority of those here

illegally are legalized, they're not in the future going to be placed in a position where they can do their job. they're not going to be placed in a position that they can effectively manage the interior enforcement in america. and they say the bill will make us less secure, not more secure. how wrong a direction could that be? so those are the things that we've got to get a grip on here. that's why the legislation cannot become law. and i don't think it will -- it won't become law as it's written today. that's for sure. one way or the other, it will not become law because it's fatally flawed. mr. president, i thank the chair to have the opportunity to share these remarks as we begin the discussion on the great issue of our time, one of the great issues of our time: immigration. it's got to be done right. the american people rightfully,

as are these law officers, concerned that we are about to do another 1986, that we're going to give immediately lawful status to millions of people that came illegally with and we promise that we'll enforce the law in the future. but when you read the bill, you can see that won't happen, and we'll be setting up another, sending another message worldwide that the united states is such that if you can just get into our country illegally and hold on for long enough, you too will be the beneficiary of the third major amnesty that occurs. o that's where we are. >> the c-span video library has reached a milestone. there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span

programming. all totally searchable and free. a public service created by private industry. america's cable companies. >> tuesday, the state department spokesman called a department memo containing allegations of diplomats nduct by unsubstantiated. here are some of her comments. >> today we have some new developments and these specifically have to do with one boston named in documents in the memo. a certain ambassador has denied any allegations that he took part in any behavior that was

described so it begs the question of where the statusor any type of investigation dealing with him. you said yesterday, any investigations are either still in process or are over. can you tell us at least whether or not that investigation of just this ambassador is over? >> i'm not going to comment on individual cases today or yesterday. you know, i will say as you mentioned, the ambassador himself did put out a statement. i will point all of you to that. let me reiterate what i said yesterday. the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct is not only preposterous, it is inaccurate. let me just give you an overview. i think there has been some confusion of the different memos and what the process was. on october 12 an internal memo

was written without the benefit of reviewing any case files, included a number of unsubstantiated allegations. 2 department's bureau of diplomatic security had started looking into or completed the prosovers looking into these individual incidents. all of these case will be have been or will be brought to their rog cal conclusions. n february of 2013, o.i.g. wrote a report. as is normal, the department of diplomatic security was afforded an opportunity to provide comments before the report went final. they expressed some concerns as part of a standard process. they are still reviewing the recommendations made in this february report. since that time, o.i.g. has brought on some additional experienced former law enforcement officers to review the cases and process for

handling the cases. this is a decision, of course, that they made and the o.i.g. is again independent, but the department fully supports this step and we look forward to their final report. >> there is this one moment, which really we need to condemn. the memo says that that investigation was stopped by a senior official here. >> which investigation? >> well, looking into the allegations about the ambassador. that that was stopped by mr. kennedy. >> well, i believe you're referring to the october 2013. there is a statement out there from mr. kennedy, 2012. we are not yet at october 2013 yet. that's correct. one, let me first say that there is a statement that mr. kennedy himself has released, which many of you may have. two, this is a memo that you're

referring to that had unsubsaverageuated ackzpation -- unsubstantiated ackdations? it. we investigate them thoroughly and that's what we are in the process of doing and are doing in all of these cases. these are accusations and not conclusions. that's why this process will be seeing it through. more specifically to your question, jill, the february 2013 memo, which again is publicly available on their website -- a report, i apologize, a report, publicly available on their website, the department of diplomatic security express some concerns about what was included in there including a reference. i talked about this yesterday to the lack of a firewall and they are conducting the next stage in

their process here of their review to look at the processes here that took place and we will see that through. >> getting back to the ambassador. if he is still in place, still working, dunth that imply that at investigation is over, if he can remain in his position? >> again, i'm not going to speak to the status of these investigations or any individual cases. of course we look into every allegation that is made seriously. we will take every allegation seriously, but i'm not going to outline the status of those or individual cases from here. >> the cal gation against ambassador -- allegation against the ambassador has been proven to be false. wouldn't that be best if you publicly say that is that case? >> as a matter of policy, i'm

not going to talk about reviews that are ongoing. >> that is a statement that the ambassadors put out themselves. it would be a show of confidence on the state department's part. if that is the case that he is completely exonerated of these accusations. >> i just don't have anything more to add. >> why don't you try and answer this. you said that the october 2012 unsubstantiated allegations. to the best of your knowledge, are those allegations unsubstantiated. are they after they were investigated? do they remain unsubstantiated. >> i don't want to break down individual cases from here. >> ok. so some remain unsob

substantiated. others, there was something to them. is that what you're saying? >> there are processes that are still ongoing. i don't want to get ahead of processes that are ongoing. >> to clarify what you're saying to matt, when you tell us that the memo contained unsubstantiated, a, you don't mean it is untrue. >> it is disproving a negative. we take every allegation seriously. of course we would look through it. i'm not going to break down individual cases. to go back to joe's point here. i can assure all of you that if the secretary or previous secretary were presented with documented evidence of misconduct, they would take appropriate action. but i'm just not going to break down individual cases. >> ok. by way of not breaking down individual cases and also not

making blanket statements because this memo listed eight different cases. when you tell us the memo contained unsubstantiated allegations, you're not asserting all of the allegations in all of these cases were unsubstantiated. >> the processes are still ongoing. i'm not going going to make a sweeping statement about those. >> you were not about all eight cases were you? >> i can't go more specific than i have already gone. >> a couple of other parts, if you would, please. first, has secretary kerry spoke on the the ambassador? >> not that i'm aware of. >> does he have full confidence in this ambassador? >> he is proud to lead 70,000 men and women serving. he takes every accusation seriously, as we all do. i can assure you in any case if

there were documented evidence and action was needed to be taken, he would be declining that action. >> you designing to say that he has -- declining to say that he has full confidence in his ambassador. under secretary kept, i have the statement that he issued earlier today through the state department. but there was a lot in the october 2012 memo to which the undersecretary in his statement did not at all respond. for example, the idea of the notion that he received from the special investigating agent a full femmeo on the ambassador and the investigation that was underway in may of 2011. can you confirm that secretary kennedy received that memo? >> i'm not aware of the memo. >> do you have any plans to provide -- to make undersecretary kennedy available for questioning by the press on

this subject? >> well, i think he leased a statement. if there is more to say, we'll see if there is more to say. >> i have questions based on that statement. >> consider your request for an interview lodged. >> on cheryl mills who was also named in that october 2012 memo. can we expect a similar statement from ms. mills as was provided by undersecretary kennedy? >> i believe there was one. if there was, i will check on that and get that to you. >> you stated yesterday and today that any notion that any investigation involving allegations of interim misconduct would somehow be overlooked or halted prematurely or otherwise blocked by senior officials in this department, preposterous and inaccurate. but the alghation just that kind

of thing occurred and occurred repeatedly was contained not only in the october 2012 memo, but in the december 2012 draft of this o.i.g. final report, which stated that the o.i.g. team heard of instances once or twice a year where senior officials in this department intervened investigations and that sentence was scrubbed from the march 2013 time report to which you referred us. -- final report to which you referred us. this was in fact included in a draft o.i.g. report. your comments? >> it was also included in an internal memo in october, that was, as i referenced had a number of unsubstantiated accusations. i went through a little bit of the process here just to give people a better understanding of that. one of the pieces i mentioned

was that as is normal, as is part of an o.i.g. process, when there is a report, not a memo, but a report about you, the department of diplomatic security expressed some concerns about some of the issues and allegations that was raised in there. that was one of them. they are now going to go back and take a look at the prose sess. i would -- process. i would point you to that. to see what's happening there and they have included some former law enforcement officers in that. we welcome that and we look forward to the conclusion of that. >> is that at the cost of the taxpayer? >> i would point you to the o.i.g. for that question. >> very briefly. you said about the unsubstantiated allegations and the october 2012 memo. that was not just the allegations against individuals but also the allegation that

there was interference? is that what you're saying? that is also unsubstantiated. >> yes, we took swhu that specific niece the february memo. >> and the other thing on the line that you say it is proprostrouse and inaccurate perceive ed not criminal investigations. >> i'm not going to speak to individual cases. it is referred to the department of justice if there is criminal activity. >> i'm not sure -- i don't know what the laws of prostitution are in the country in question. i don't know for sure that if the allegation was true, that it was illegal. however, i do know that this kind of conduct -- >> is unacceptable in the state

department. >> is it preposterous and inaccurate to say it. an administrative disciplinary proceeding. that that would not happen or that that would be stopped, is it also preposterous to say that that -- do you understand what i'm saying? >> i'm trying to follow it. i think i do. >> they would not pursue a criminal prosecution of someone who has broken the law or someone who there is evidence that broke the law. is it preposterous or inaccurate to say they would not pursue administrative disciplinary action if warranted? >> yes. and to your question, if we have proof an individual has engaged in acts that rise to criminal behavior, we'll work with the department of justice. if an individual engages in acts that contravene our rules and procedures, that would be applicable there.

they could be subject to administrative disciplinary action. there are several levels just as there are anywhere of action that can be taken. >> it sounds like what you have said, none of them have been referred to the department of justice as far as you know. correct? >> not that i'm aware of, but again, i don't want to get to any individual cases. >> can we get one thanks for covering a lot of ground. one, clarification. regarding all of these ongoing investigations, is anyone in this building now specifically investigating whether senior officials did, in fact, tell bureau diplomatic security official officials not to investigate? >> that is the o.i.g. investigation. they are incorporate. it is not even an investigation, i should say. it is a resprusme that is what the o.i. zpwmbings reviewing.

>> thank you. >> can you just clarify your change again just now. this is just a bit of housekeeping here. my understanding is you were not saying it is preposterous to say certificate that the state department -- to say that the state department would fail to follow up on criminal misconduct. >> to investigate. there is a process that involves many agencies, often if there is any criminal misconduct, of ourse. >> i'm just wondering, is the building concerned, are people concerned at all of unsubstantiated allegations like this are being float around by someone who claims to have whistle blower status? at what point -- is there a concern that something -- if you're describing them as unsubstantiated allegations, that is -- and they remain

unsubstantiated now, which i realize you're not saying, but if they are, or some of them are unsubstantiated, it is just like gossip, no? >> one thing to be clear is that the individual as i understand it who claims whistle blower status is not the same person who wrote the memo, just to be clear on that. whenever there are what we view as unsubstantiate allegations, we are concerned bauds these are people's lives and these are -- there are tens of thousands of men and women who serve proudly around the world on behalf of the state department as is evidenced by past actions if there is criminal activity, an allegation that warrants administrative activity, we do take action and we would in any case if needed of these as well. >> you said if we had proof that

rises to the level of criminal behavior, you would refer to d.m.j. >> uh-huh. >> so, in other words, the people who are looking at this, let's say diplomatic security initially, that it does not go to d.o.j. unless there is some sort of level of investigation or collection of evidence, right? just the allegation doesn't trigger pushing it over to d.o.j.? >> no, it is my understanding it does not. >> none of them have been referred to d.o.j.? >> not that i'm aware of, but again, i don't want to speak to individual cases. >> coming up this morning on c-span, the senate health labor intentions committee marks up education legislation. then "washington journal" looks at mipt issues. foreign policy, data collection programs and a car of the

future. at noon eastern, the u.s. house returns for work on the 2014 defense authorization bill. >> today, prime my opinionsters question time from the british house of commons. prime minister david cameron takes questions from members live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. members of the senate education committee are marking up education legislation and working on ways to change the 2001 no child left behind law. the committee voted on a series of amendmented largely along party lines. this portion over the markup is n hour and 20 minutes.

we have seven senators here. with the ranking member, i'm withstanding.t, not we can begin debate now, obviously -- we can debate with the seven members present. if there is no objection, then we'll move ahead. we have a finished debate on the haguen amendment. of course we don't have enough members here to vote so we'll turn to senator alexander. >> thanks. i agreed to go ahead with the debate because i wanted all of the democratic senators to hear my argument about teacher evaluation. i see the most important ones

are here. > good recovery there. he was bragging. he said gather alexander is the best goffer tennessee has ever had and he saw winfield dunn sitting there and he said since winfield dunn. quick recovery. i would like to speak for a few minutes. this is an important subject. i would like to talk to the teachers of america because this is about teacher evaluation. i have talked about 100,000 public schools. 50 million students. there are about 3.2 million teachers and we're talking about evaluating their performance and relating that often to student achievement and in some cases, relating their pay to how that

evaluation works out. so whenever just as senators begin to pay attention as election time comes around and we get ready to be evaluated, teachers pay a lot of attention about their evaluations. my amendment will do two things. one is it will amend the democratic proposal to encourage, not mandate and define teacher evaluations and two, it will eliminate the highly qualified teacher definition, which has washington defining what makes a good teacher. and transfering that responsibility back to states up l be encouraged to set their own teacher and principal evaluation systems. now it is very tempting for me to come to washington and say i worked very hard to get to be a

senator and i hung around long enough to get to be a ranking member and so what i want to do is make sure everybody has the same kind of teacher evaluation that tennessee pioneered 30 years ago. i remember and i mentioned here before and forgive me for mentioning here again, it was 30 years ago that as governor at the beginning of my second term, i proposed that our stateback became the first state to pay teachers for teaching well. at that time not one state paid one teacher one penny more for being a good teacher. i remember my mom put me in one first grade instead of another first grade in tennessee. i don't know how she was able to do that because she thought one teacher was better than another. we know some teachers are extraordinary teachers and some are not as good. we also began to understand the more we think about education, there were two factors that make

a difference, number one parents and number two teachers and not much else matters. it seemed pretty simple. i found out 30 years ago it is not simple at all. the process i went through, i had a year and a half brawl with the national education association. they won the first round. i won the second round. we sent up a master teacher program and 10,000 teachers voluntarily went up a career ladder. we had group s of teachers who defined how you went through that process. i won't go through it all. and it began a process that included relating student achievement to teacher performance, yet when we looked around the country to figure out how to do that, we found out nobody knew how to do it. so a professor named sanders at the university of tennessee

figured out a way to do it. that is controversial. our state has used it and other states have too. ever sin then we have found ways to honor outstanding teaching. first you to figure out who is an outstanding teacher. the teacher incentive fund which president bush began has given grants to a variety of school districts which i support to let them try different ways to do this. the teachers unions have gotten involved to some degree going from opposing to supporting. we're coming to realize in my iew that the holy grail of improving public education, k-12 and reward outstanding teaching financially. but it is not easy to do. we talked back and forth among with us secretary duncan about how to do that.

we all agree on its importance. i'm not just speaking for myself. i know senator har kin thinks that and many others think that. house republicans don't necessarily agree with what i'm about to say, but my view is that important as i think it is, i don't think i ought to come to washington and say i have got a great idea. it was good for tennessee. we know how to do it. let's make everybody do it that way. the way it is done in minnesota, north carolina, georgia, iowa, may need to be different. almost certainly will be need to be different in one school district or another school district because so much of its success depends upon teachers buying into the process. so the conclusion i have come to is is that the better way to move forward in the next five years, the way to encourage this holy grail of teacher performance is to move away from adequate yearly -- from the federal definition of what a good teacher is, we call that

highly qualified teaching, and encourage states to -- to move ahead with their own plans. and then let the secretary call attention to that and honor the governor who is do it. after five years, see how far we have gotten. expand the teacher incentive fund so there will be more school that are working on a five-year plan. to implement this kind of thing locally. so the amendment proposes repeeling highly qualified teachers and allowing states, if they wish, to create principal and teacher evaluation systems related to student achievement, but by their own definition. they have to report they are doing it, but the secretary o education may not define it and may not order it. that is the best way to get the best long-term

result. to create higher standards, better accountability systems. there have been pioneering systems to create new teacher evaluation systems. now the democratic bill takes a different approach, and i can understand it, but i disagree with it. it orders states to set up teacher-principal evaluation systems. we ordered them to set up professional development systems which entitles them to money and they did a lousy job of it. if you order things there is no guarantee that does anything. people have to come to grips with these things themselves. so the democratic bill says to 15,000 different school districts, you have to set up a principal-teacher evaluation system, and it says how to do it. i'm not going to read it all but it defines it. feedback to teachers number one.

multiple categories of teacher and principal performances. number two, evaluate with research and best practices. number three, directly align with professional development activities. number four, teacher and principal involvement. number five, giving the union what is they want, which says if there is collective bargaining, that has got to be approved. training for evaluators responsible for conducting classroom and observation. for principals a similar list of things. now there might not be anything wrong with that list of criteria. but we did that ourselves in tennessee. i mean groups of teachers did it. for the state. then they went around district by district and said here's what we did and here is why we did it. the local teachers had a hard enough time. teachers don't like people coming in and evaluating them

anymore than we like being evaluated every day. we say states do it and the democratic bill says you must do it. you have to do it according to these prescriptions which are carried over from the waivers. and once you done that, you have got to send it to washington and you have to have it reviewed. we're going to find a bunch of smart profeort what you have done and well, we don't like what tennessee did and that happened to tennessee. had spent 30 years on a evaluation system. they had to send their system up here to get a waiver and it was reviewed and they sent it back and said do it this way instead of that way. i just don't know who up here in the peer review community, i don't think we need their extra judgment about that. and then the secretary has to approve it. you have to conform with the statute. the peer review has to review it and the secretary has to approve it and then you can go ahead.

i would say to my colleagues there is no one here who cares more about moving along teacher-principal evaluations than i do. but i do not believe that it is any help at all to have the statute, the peer reviewers and the secretary looking over the shoulders of teachers in tennessee or any state who are working hard to develop a teacher-principal evaluation system, which most of them are doing now. and this is hard to -- so i would say to teachers across the country, if you're listening, that what we're saying in the alexander amendment is take that $2.5 billion that we now spend in title 2 and allow states to develop state and local teacher and principal evaluation systems. and then states define it. don't do what the democratic

bill says which is you must do it, you must do it this way, you must let the peer reviews agree with it and you have to negotiate with the secretary to approve it. i just think that's one more bad example of a national school board. if i may finally, the second art of the amendment talks about -- talks about adequate -- highly qualified teachers. that's become another one of those washington definitions which in my opinion don't do much good and doesn't work the right way. powell middle school in knoxville, special education in middle school, that teacher must have, according to the federal definition, teaching license, bachelor's degree, certified as a special education teacher, and demonstrate competencey ineach

of three reading, math and science subjects. either by having a college degree or passing a state test. that's an awful lot for seventh grade teacher have to do and hard to find someone who can teach special education and do that as well. i think it's much better to rely on our state and other states to ove ahead with their principal-teacher evaluation systems, find fair ways to evaluate middle school teachers, and create an environment for that. the environment we can create in conclusion, mr. chairman, is two things. we can put in our bill, as our amendment does, for the first

time you may use all of their $2.5 billion of title 2 money. in tennessee that's $43 million a year, $45 million, something like that, to develop these systems and that helps a lot. and the second thing is we would recommend the teacher incentive fund which is a federal grant and you apply for it. you come in and say our union and we want to work on this for five years. if you don't have a union, as athens, tennessee, does, we want to work for five years to develop this, get the teachers to do it. we don't need washington looking over the shoulders of tennessee teachers when they're working hard to figure out ways to evaluate themselves so they can get rewarded and paid more. i respectfully suggest this amendment to amend the harkin bill. >> mr. chairman, i want to speak in favor of the alexander amendment for a second and i want to relay a couple of personal experiences to talk about how enthusiastic i am about this. no child left behind has been trashed by others for not doing a lot of good things, but it did some good things. it also did some things that those of us that wrote it, so i'm raising my right hand and confessing, realize over time a.y.p. would be a problem because schools get better and better and better and it became harder and hardtory meet it. this aggregation was a very important step forward and we have preserved that. the chairman's preserved it.

we preserved it in the alexander substitute. but one of the difficulties with high-stakes testing which is pretty much prescribed by no child left behind in reading and math, some unintended consequences took place and one of them happened in atlanta, georgia, because of a teacher evaluation. i know the chairman and the ranking member are aware we had a major scandal in terms of cheating on tests by teachers and changing grades for pay for performance in their income. in other words, there was a motivation to change the grades of a student to make it look like the student was doing better than they were in return for compensation for the teacher. that came out of an overly printive dictate from washington which had a perverse motivation, we never considered what happened. i personally think that cheating is a moral failing. it's not a failing of someone writing the law. we have to recognize that our tates have to be more involved in establishing the parameters for teacher ooh valuation and that we tie them to high-stakes testing or federal mandates, we're liable to get ourselves in trouble.

new york, chicago, the district of columbia and atlanta all had problems with this. in atlanta we have 36 teachers under indictment for rack tearing and conspiring to change grades in order for compensation. that's not a good thing for public education. it's not a good thing to have happened and it's one of the consequences of high stakes testing that took place. what senator alexander is talking about here is requiring the states to have an evaluation system and letting them use fight 2 funding to develop that system so they can have a good system of evaluating the teacher and that they involve the families, they involve the students, they involve their parents, they involve professional educators and they involve everybody in the school process in determining what those parameters are. i just want to say that senator alexander is right on target when he was the chairman of the national board of education or the department of education when he was in tennessee, what they did in tennessee, it's all best from the bottom up, not from the top down because when you get the top down you have unintended consequences that cause problems.

and in terms of teacher evaluation, that's precisely what's happened. i think the alexander approach is the right approach and i support it wholeheartedly. >> thank you, senator isakson. first, i might just respond that -- well, in a number of ways here. i don't know where to begin. first of all we have 37 state waivers now. those are all grandfathered in. those evaluation systems are all grandfathered in to this bill. what we've basically said to the other states, you have to come up with an evaluation system and, again, the parameters that we had set forward in here was those parameters that were set as a result of a very large study, the met study done by the

gates foundation. $350 million study. what are the best parameters, best practices? and so that's where we're at. we didn't just pull this out of the sky. this was because of a very large scale intensive study that was one on that project. so, yes, we do make it mandatory that they have an evaluation system. we set parameters. we didn't exactly say how exactly you got to do it but we set up certain parameters. i might also add, i don't need to ask my friend from tennessee, i don't think we have a peer review mandate in there. there was' peer review in the state waivers that they've gotten but i don't believe we mandate a peer review in his. but they were in the waivers?

they were in the waivers but not in our bill. and, again, what our bill focuses on is, again, on professional development rather than punitive measures. again, it's not using evaluations as a way of disciplining teachers but a way of how do you develop personal development in teachers, a very positive approach on that. i have not mentioned anything about highly qualified teacher provisions. i just would add these are the same provisions that we had in the esea bill two years ago in 2011. but, again, keep in mind that the highly qualified teacher provision we have is for entry level, baseline for skills and knowledge for all teachers ationwide. nationwide.

so it is a standard entry level baseline for all teachers. now, again, if we eliminate highly qualified teacher requirement, it will remove the requirements that teachers pass a rigorous content examination. it will create even more varying kinds of standards for teachers across the country than what we have and it would remove the requirement to be knowledgeable in the content areas in which hey teach. now, again, this was added in the last bill, and in this bill because the studies showed the state certification and licensing requirements were not enough. many of our advocates, especially in the civil rights community and disability community urge us not to go backwards on this provision. so that provision is the same in

this bill. we did add the evaluation in this bill. that is true. but, again, it was based upon, as i said, on that met project study, and i understand, i'm told that chairman kline made it the same in his bill in the house, that it was mandatory evaluation. and again we repurpped the teacher incentive -- we repurposed the teacher incentive