the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: may i inquire as to the time available? the chair: the gentleman has two and a quarter minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. a lot of analogies come to mind, slippery slopes, camel's nose under the tent, syria is an extremely serious matter. and the role of the united states in the serious issue of syria needs to be fully vetted by the congress and the senate. we are debating, giving 10 minutes of time to this issue, plus perhaps another five minutes in the committee hearing to this matter of what is the role of the united states in the syrian issue. slippery slope.

red lines. military aid. nonlethal aid. what does it all mean? where is the house foreign affairs committee on this matter? and how did this slip by the requirement of dual referencing? it did. we're here. 10 minutes. 10 minutes on a matter that could very easily suck the united states into another war in the united states. we need time. we need to debate this. we need to understand all the ramifications. the language in this particular section is really serious language. it's far more than has been stated on the floor. put it aside. understand what all the ramifications are. i would like to yield to my colleague from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

>> i rise in support of the amendment and i'm using this time to express my regret that the resolution that i presented to the rules committee requiring the congress to decide on whether or not we should send arms and troops to the rebels was denied an opportunity to be heard today. this is a september try's-old conflict and we have no friends in this fight. i have lived in the middle east. i have done business in the middle east. i have studied the language and the culture. we have no friends in this conflict. the rebels, make no mistake about it are affiliated with al qaeda. they fought us. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 3 1/2

minutes. mr. lamborn: i have total respect for my colleague and friend from new york who authored this amendment but i believe on this one, this amendment is misguided and we should defeat it. this does not call for a declaration of war or any kinds of i think exaggerated responses i have heard in favor of this amendment. this says that the president should have a course of action. the president earlier stated that there are red lines concerning weapons of mass destruction. and i believe that if the news today is correct that maybe there is a step toward recognizing that and taking some action for red lines. just in the last few hours. we have been working on this amendment and debated it in the committee, because up until now and even going forward, i'm not sure how much there hasn't been

very much planning. there hasn't been a stated plan or course of action by the administration. we need to have that in place. we can and should and will debate this further. but the administration, i believe, has been lacking in leadership. too much leading from behind, as we have seen in other places. so there needs to be leadership. this is a volatile area of the world. there's no question about that. that doesn't mean that committee can be disengaged. just can't throw our hands up and withdraw and put our heads in the sand. we have allies, especially israel. israel needs to be defended. we need to take a role of at least planning for what's happening. that's what this sense of congress language does. section 1251, the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from new york, would strike the language. so i would urge a no vote on

this amendment. let's have some planning for once by this administration on this important issue. madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new york is recognized. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, will be postponed. the chair: it is now in order to

consider amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the derk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: i'm proud to be joined by representative polis, griffith and blumenauer in offering an amendment to move away from our cold-war posture to meet the challenges of the future. this bipartisan amendment will end the permanent basing of the

second cavalry regular meant in germany and return that combat team to the united states. without any permanent placement. there is no reason to maintain our current troop numbers in europe. this will leave one combat team and one aviation team in europe. nothing in this amendment removes our rapid response forces. should a crisis occur, it is not the b.c.t.'s that will be called to respond. in fact, just last month the u.s. marines moved from a crisis response force in italy in anticipation that it could be needed to respond to growing unrest in libya. in an emergency, forces such as the marine corps and even the army 82nd airborne would be called to action, not the b.c.t.'s in germany.

only four out of 28 nato allies spend even the required 2% of their g.d.p. on defense. u.s. spends 4.7%. our allies take for granted that we will guarantee their security. this is unfair burden to u.s. taxpayers. we should reprioritize our commitments while meeting our security obligations to our nato allies by utilizing rotational forces. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment to deal with the strategic challenges of the future. the chair: the gentleman from colorado resevers. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. davis: i yield myself two minutes. first of all, this is, first of

all, a very dangerous, dangerous amendment. i am a member of the nato parliamentary assembly and vice chairman of the science and technology committee of nato and been a member of nato for 11 years. i get to travel across the world two or three times each year into this region. mr. scott: i can tell you firsthand that this is a dangerous amendment and it is very dangerous at this time. now you mentioned about some of our nato colleagues and yes we are having a challenge. each nation is going through economic challenges. but let me tell you they are increasing their input and financial resources each year. one thing that's for certain. the wrong message that we should send to them now and to encourage them to contribute more is for us to cut and run

and contribute less, and that's exactly what this amendment that you are offering, will do. now, the other point about this of why it is dangerous. it's dangerous that we would sit here in congress and force the hand of president obama or for that matter, any president or future president, to force that president to publicly state that he's going to remove a contention of a brigade like the second calfaly regular meant in germany and return that brigade to the united states and not put anything in its place. europe and the mediterranean and the middle east, there is no more volatile, unpredictable at the sames planet

time, there is no place on this alignes.at we have the nd with that, i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado? crolvecrolve we have experience in nato. -- mr. coffman: we have expense in nato and in the very unit we are talking about today. and that unit was designed to defend the border between what was west germany and the czeches and forces that were on the other side, that border no longer exists. the wausau pact no longer exists. there is not a unit to do the

things that we are talking about. we have the capability to move our forces when needed over there. when i was in europe during the height of the cold war protecting the very border in the same units we are talking about today that we did -- the exercise on an annual basis where u.s. forces would come over to europe in about the middle of western germany to reinforce our positions and push those pact forces there. mr. scott: yes, you are absolutely right. but what did they do in europe when we asked them to stand with us in afghanistan? they stood with us. what did we do when they asked wein iraq, all i'm saying is

have an obligation today and in the future. mr. coffman: i certainly -- i reclaim my time. nothing in the nato charter that says we have to maintain permanent bases in europe. i certainly support rotational forces. i support our involvement and our obligations to the north atlantic treaty obligation. doesn't say we have to have a unit in the middle of europe protecting a border that no longer exists. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: i would like to two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, my dear friend, mr. mike turner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: this amendment is anything unlike you are going to see because this is not a function of congress. the amendment says the president

shall end the regular meants from germany and bring them to united states. there is no where you will find any provision. in 10 minutes we shouldn't have a debate about where troops should be. these troops are not like the troops he served in. these troops are active, defending the united states and allies and absolutely necessary for forward deployment. need the three to five days to go to israel, middle east. it would take 20 days from the united states and here's the most important thing. gentleman says that these troops need to be reduced. we have reduced troops. the gentleman served in the early 1970's. we have already drastically reduced them and down to 1/6 of where they are. 30,000 troops in 2015.

you have to think about what it is they do. they do regional security and international cooperation and partner-nation training and part of our support in afghanistan and part of nato cooperation. these troops are active. if you meet with any of our troops that are in europe, they are active in our operations now. no one since the 1970's has been staring down the soviet union. they are protecting the united states' interests and active men and women in uniform and they are forward deployed and they deliver forces and our men and women to the important areas where there is conflict sm the general, the european commander said, this is as far as we can go. and he opposes this. congress should not specifically be telling the commander in chief where troops should be and how to move them. this is wrong.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado has minute remaining. >> i did apply for a job at d.o.d., i served in nato in the 1970's and 1980's. the mission as changed. times have changed. we need to change. mr. coffman: we have a unit there that has no tactical purpose at this time. it's not an expeditionary force that can be readily moved. it would have to be moved to a railhead and a port facility and brought by ship in the most effective manner. we're at a time when we have excess capacity in the united states in terms of the united states army. the last report was in 2004, 20% excess capacity for the united states and the administration wants to do another base realignment and

close commission. we ought to bring that unit hope to the -- home to the united states. it can deploy as needed, where needed, and not be in a country that's spending less than 2% of when .d.p. on defense we're at 4.7%. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has one minute remaining. mr. scott: how things change. as we speak, just a at our most recent nato meeting, we were able to get 27 nations out of the 28 nations of nato to pass a resolution supporting the united states and israel's position against iran acquire agnew clear bomb. that's how relevant we are today.

mr. that, i yield to bridenstine. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bridenstine: bive been part of unit -- i've been part of units that deploy and rotate. when units rotate the training we get with our allies is less robust and it's just not as good as if you have a perm feint -- permanent presence to integrate with the nato allies. it is true we are i want grated with our nato ally bus it is also true these troops are for nato command. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the sque on the amendment offer wid the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 1, further proceed

thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postpone. - postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. 270 -- 260, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will dez igthate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number five consisting of amendments 86, 100, 90, 91, 98, 99, 112, 03, 104, 105, 109, 115, 119, 121, and 142 printed

in house report 113-108 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california mr. mckeon and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. larsen: i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc all of which have been examined by boast the -- by both the majority and minority. at this time i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i rise with an amendment that will be considered later tonight, that creates one-year ban to implement the arms trade treaty unless the a.t.t. completes all the requirements needed to take domestic effect including passage of legislation. over the last year i have been

joined by over 140 bipartisan members of the body to express united cerns with the nations arms treaty. first, united nations arms trade treaty interferes with our right to keep and bear arms. in imposing a responsibility to prevent national arms diversion, opening the door to new gun control measures. the gun control treaty undermine ours sovereignty by imposing vague rirles on the united states and inviting united nations led investigation into what u.s. policymakers knew or should have known. regarding arms transfers that allegedly violate the united nations arms trade treaty. ultimately, the united nations arms trade treaty will stop the good from doing good without stopping the bad from doing bad. as then secretary of state hillary clinton once said, the

u.s. maintains the gold standard of arms export controls. my amendment upholds our current policies as well as our enduring values. i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for including this amendment in the en bloc amendments. thank you, mr. speaker, i urge adoption of this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: i urge my colleagues to support of this en bloc and i want to now yield three minutes to mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, madam speaker. also allow me to thank the ranking member and the chair of the committee. this graphic i have in front of you, madam speaker, is taken a few years ago now when the people were peacefully demonstrating to overcome the mubarak regime which had oppressed them for so many

years. they're holding up tear gas, it says made in america on it. when our government transferred those anti-riot materials to that government, i believe we didn't have any reason to know that it would be misused by a tyrannical regime to oppress and down press peaceful demonstrators. but i proposed -- i propose, though, when our government has reason to know that there is a tyrannical regime use regular pressive techniques to put down their peaceful demonstrator, that our government should withhold exports of that nature. the fact is is that this -- the tyranny that people lived under under mubarak was not made in america, it was made by hosni mubarak. but we should not be implicated in that kind of oppression if we know about it and therefore i think we should have the authority in our government to withhold those transfers when they come to our attention. so the young man holding up

this tear gas canister that olice fired at pro-democracy protesters says made in america. mubarak oppressed his own people but we should not be implicated in this. this is not the message we should be sending whether it's being sent deliberatery or not. it's not the message we should send to the people who are seeking nothing more than what we want in the united states which is a democrat -- which is to democratically control their own country. it's not in our interest and we should have the tort to stop it this united states should not supply tear gas to governments that use it to prebress -- repress democracy and my amendment helps taos move to that goal. i yield back and urge support. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: we have no further speakers. if the gentleman has none --

the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, madam chair. we yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i ask that all our colleagues support this group of en bloc amendments. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. 260 i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number six consisting of amendments mbered 106, 108, 110, 116,

129, 18, 120, 127, 128, 138, 139, 34, 136, 140, and 145 printed in house report number 113-108 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california mr. mckeon and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i urge the committee to adopt the amendments enblock -- en bloc, all of which have been examined by the majority and the minority. at this time i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague the gentleman from georgia mr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes.

mr. gingrey: madam chairman, i thank the gentleman, the chairman, for recognizing me. rise in strong support of the connolly-granger-diaz-balart-gi ngrey-cy russ-carter amendment number 185 to h.r. 1960 included in the en bloc amendment number six. as a former co-chair of the congressional taiwan caucus, i believe this amendment embodies the spirit of the taiwan relations act of 1979 in providing assistance to taiwan for its own defense. through the taiwan relations act, we are able to conduct arm sales to taipei. over the past 30 years, we have done this time and time again. unfortunately, this obama administration has failed to proceed on taiwan's top request, the f-16 aircraft. taiwan has an aging fixed wing

aircraft fleet and with the growing military gap across the taiwan strait, it is critical that we sell them this aircraft. our bipartisan amendment does just that by requiring the president to move forward on the sale of no fewer than 66 f-16 c.d.'s. i urge my colleagues to uphold our commitment to taiwan and upport the connolly-granger-diaz-balart-gi ngrey-carter amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, madam chair. reserve the plns of the time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: at this time i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague the gentleman from ohio, mr. bridenstine. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bridenstine: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of amendments number 116 and 158 in the en bloc package. my first amendment requires the department of defense to

annually assess military and security developments involving the russian federation. to be quite frank the obama administration's so called reset policy with russia is in shambles. moscow has been intransigent on iran, continues to supply syria with weapons, occupies georgia, has repeatedly threatened -- has repeatedly threatened our nato allies with nuclear strikes and continually seeks to undermine the political independence of former soviet satellite states. vladimir putin announced plans to spend about $750 billion to modernize the russian military. the putin buildup envisions modernized and robust nuclear space and cyberforces. by the way, madam chairman, not too long ago, putin called the soviet union's collapse, quote, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe for the century. russian military modernization

concerns us and our allies and our friends, particularly those in eastern europe and the caucuses. it is imperative that we understand the implications of russia's military buildup for our bilateral relationship and regional stability. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, madam chair. we can't continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: how much time do we have left? the chair: the gentleman has seven minutes left. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two nutes. mr. broun: i thank the chairman for yielding. i'm pleased to support this en bloc amendment, which includes important language to put a stop

to the practice of using drones to kill americans and prevent any administration in the future from doing so as well. the only exception would be if a citizen is actively engaged in combat against the united states, not plotting, not suspected, but currently engaging in combat. attorney general eric holder made it perfectly clear in a recent white paper that the administration that is the right to be judge, jury and executioner of any and all american citizens. my amendment would correct this dangerous overreach and defend americans' god-given constitutional rights. this will curtail the threat of drones, i'm disappointed that another of my amendments was not -- in order to address the to address another overarching

issue. i sponsored an amendment to sunset authorization for use of military force in afghanistan, a rovision that that has outrageously expanded the powers of the federal government. it has engaged in detention, targeted killing and warrantless surveillance and wiretapping activities in the open-ended expansion of military operations abroad. if we need additional war authorization, they should be narrow and clear as our founders intended. it is time to end this abuse of power. i will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to meet that goal and restore liberty in america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from calf reserve. the gentleman from washington.

mr. larsen: we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my good friend from georgia, dr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: i urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendments and one of the enblock amendments to be considered tomorrow that active duty military personnel who are stationed in washington, d.c. should be exempt from district of columbia firearms restrictions. the district has had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the nation even after the victory in the ruling in the supreme court. with approximately 40,000 servicemen and women across all branches of the armed forces

either living in or actually stationed on active duty within the washington, d.c. area, these individuals are subject to the very laws of the district of columbia that make the lawful possession of firearms nearly impossible. madam chairman, my amendment would recognize that the d.c. handgun law, especially in regard to trained servicemen and women, punishes individuals -- if the gentleman would yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. gingrey: my amendment would recognize that the d.c. handgun law with regard to servicemen and women, punishes individuals well equipped to protect themselves and others while embolding perpetrators of violent crime. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: we have no further speakers. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: with that, we yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. mr. mckeon: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment --ered by the gentleman from the question is on the amendment enclock offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. 260, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendments enclock. he clerk: number 76, 92, 93, 135, 141, 5, 1231, 155, 162, 48, 151, 167, 168 and 169, printed in house report 113-108, offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california plrks mckeon and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. committee: i urge the to vote. and we have no speakers on these amendments. the chair: the gentleman from

california from california reserves. mr. larsen: we have 10 minutes on this side? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. larsen: we have no speakers. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the en bloc amendments are agreed to. mr. mckeon: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1960, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that has the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1960 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i move we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore:

follow the house live on c-span when members gavel back again tomorrow at :00 a.m. eastern. -- 9:00 a.m. eastern. some of the key amendments you are watching? to see theing housework through over 170 amendments,, more than last year. house aides tell me they think they can wrap up on friday. we'll see how late they stay and what they can get done. we see amendments on everything

on the size of the defense ,udget to afghanistan policy drone policy. we should see a couple of shiftings calling for the drone program from the cia .ntirely to the military we're going to see a couple of iran amendments as well. the weapons amendments will be, i think, just tinkering around the edges. the members are not going to call for canceling programs as part of the process. >> what does this say about the drawdown in iraq? >> it does not say much about iraq. there is the iraq war is over and it is more of a diplomatic effort at this point for the most part. on afghanistan, we will see some fordments that would call

the ending of the war immediately. these are democratic amendments. there is a bipartisan amendment that would call for wrapping up the afghanistan war faster than , thedent obama wants to end of 2014, his date. these are mostly democratic amendments and they just don't have the votes to pass. a the democrats were denied couple of amendments dealing with sexual assault in the military. what would those amendments have done? why were they denied by the rules committee? would've taken immediate commanders out of the decision process for whether alleged perpetrators of sexual assault, if charges were brought up. the republican rules committee sided with defense secretary chuck hagel and senate armed .ervices chair carl levin

what hagel and levin have decided is taking the commanders out of the decision-making process would make the current .rocess worse they feel commanders should be directly responsible and make the decision on whether charges are brought. they say would hurt unit cohesion and it would undermine the commanders authority within their own unit. as a side note, what levin and people in the house who agree with him say, they're going to put more pressure on commanders to change the culture of the military. they oppose these because they think the commanders are actually central to correcting the problem of military sexual assault. >> and authorizes $52 billion in spending above the sequestration levels. how do supporters of the bill justify that?

>> they point to the president's own budget request and has a broader federal budget request, which also does not account for sequestration. the are budgeting through house budget resolution from chairman paul ryan. what everyone is doing here is put forward a plan that could be enacted if a grand bargain gets past sometimes this year. a grand bargain would address sequestration and significantly less in the defense cuts or place with other deficit reduction measures. they're hoping that a grand bargain will come together at the end of the summer. >> what has the administration said about the spending levels? more broadly, what what do they think of the bill? veto the bill at

the current level of dod funding. they want the bill to be brought down to whatever eventual authorization bill that goes to the president's desk, they wanted at levels that were said in the same august 2000 11 law that created sequestration, the budget control act come has domestic spending caps and the white house has said that congress, as they work through a final defense authorization bill, they need to bring it down under those caps. >> where was the senate with their authorization bill? >> they're still marking up their bill. it's unclear when that would come to the senate floor, but by the end of the week on the they should be finished with their version. but john bennett, senior congressional correspondent with defense news. we appreciate your being with us. moments, members of

the house and senate intelligence committee speak with reporters about closed door meetings they had today with the head of the national security agency. and in 40 minutes, a briefing on reducing gun violence marking the six-month anniversary of the shootings in newton, connecticut. >> the c-span video library has reached a milestone since its online launch in 2007. there are now more than 200,000 hours of original programming, public affairs, and books all totally searchable and free. a public service created by a private industry, america's cable companies. nationalad of the security agency briefed members of the house and senate intelligence committees on thursday on the agency's data correction program. this is 40 minutes after the closed door session.

>> i just want to make a quick statement. what we did today as we had a .earing i had a chance to inform the committee more about these programs, our oversight committees. themwe wanted to help understand in a classified environment is what we are doing in his programs, what the impact it has been in stopping those dozens of terrorist attacks, what we are doing to review each of those to get more information out to the public so that they can understand the value of these programs in saving american lives. we need to get the information out there about us listening to american phone calls that it is incorrect. tos is a meta data row gram

help us stop terrorist attacks. wanted to talk about how carefully it is done and overseeing by congress, the administration, and the courts, and also how important this is to our nation. finally, we are working with the committees to provide damage assessments led by the intelligence community about the damage that these leaks have caused not only to our agency but to this nation and the and then a path forward. we have pledged to be as transparent as possible in this case and we want to do that. we want to provide the american people with information. i think it's important you have that information. we don't want to risk american lives in doing that. we're being very deliberate in in this process so that we don't terroristsing a attack by giving out too much

information. that is the deliberative process that we've had. i've been working with this committee for the past several years. they are very good about asking all the questions and providing tremendous oversight, as does the court and administration. this is not a program where we are out freewheeling it. it is a well overseen and very focused program. what we owe you, the american is some statistics. i think when the american people hear that, they are going to stop and say -- wait. the information we're getting is incorrect incorrect. i would just tell the american take a steplet's back and look at the oversight and compliance and then have this discussion. i have to run to another hearing. thanks, gentlemen. click the general is late and needs to scoot off. i probably kept him longer than

we were supposed to. first of all, thank you for taking a few minutes. this is a long series of a very sensitive program. i just want to talk about the damage assessment quickly, which is important. the more we know, the more dangerous the situation becomes. it exposes our allies, we think, with the exposure of this program and the changes we can already see being made by those who wish to do us harm and our allies harm, number one. thatwe are very concerned it might equally make it more difficult to track the bad guys trying to harm united states citizens in the united states. , thatkey points, i think we have gone through and the ranking member and i have added. we have ratcheted up the timeframe for the classification of certain events about the american public can see the full

spectrum of the success of these programs while protecting civil liberties and privacy. you can do both. we think the program does both and we think it is certainly in the advantage of people who truly want to understand the value of the program to get these cases out. we hope to have it next week, as a matter of fact. lastly, this is very important. there has been so much information about what the program is. there are no american names in that lockbox. this is really important. this has been so misrepresented. there are only numbers and that lockbox. the business records that are obtained from the companies have no names, no subscriber .nformation this is critically important. the only uses very limited when they actually have a reasonable suspicion, which is hard for me to say today, that the phone number is tied to an overseas

organization. that's it. when they get an answer back from the lockbox, it does not have a name attached to it. it's a phone number or a series of phone numbers that then, if they believe it has a domestic connection, it is turned over to the fbi for further investigation. exactly the kind of protections you would want and need, especially when talking about the boston bombing. by the way, they use this program to try to identify other people who might be in the united states tied to a terrorist event in boston. over the next hopefully week or so, we will be able to get a declassification of information that i think will allow the american public to better understand. to word this as strongly as we can. the nsa is not reading american e-mails. they are not collecting

americans e-mails by either of these programs. i've heard it repeated by members of congress and the senate. i've heard it repeated in news outlets. it's absolutely incorrect. very, very important as we understand the value of these protect and how best to americans privacy. hopefully, as i said, we will have the opportunity to share more examples. dutch. going to communicate as much as we can that it will not hurt us if we do get .nformation we created a system of checks and balances. we have the administration, congress, and the courts. we also have laws. all that has occurred in this program is pursuant to american law. we file a law, we follow the constitution, that's who we are as americans. we have to educate the public and members of congress who need

to know more about the program. the more that we can get declassified, the more that we can give to you in the next few weeks, the more the public will that we do follow the constitution and protect national security. at this point, i think we can hasat least this program thwarted 10 possible terrorist attacks. , specificsurances assurances, have you been given that there is not someone, some employee, subcontractor -- some contractor who is looking at this data and is doing what mr. snowden has done? wholehave a counterintelligence operation and it is designed to catch things just like this. talked about was what was missed. did he go beyond what he had access to?

he was attempting to go beyond what he had legitimate access to. all across, they are taking serious review of those types of information. they were not doing the espionage itself. they were not analyzing that information. it was a person that had been recruited into the organization. this level of, candidly, a fairly low level of individual because of his position in the i.t. system had access to certain pieces of information that, candidly, he did not understand or have the full scope of what these programs were who decided on his own he would release the information.

those kinds of people obviously raise concerns and i think there is a thorough scrub today to make sure that all of the protections are in place continue to happen. i'm sorry? >> are there concerns on the point that mr. snowden could be trying to defect to china? to share what information he had with them? >> he has already done serious harm. he is also sharing things that, candidly, are not correct. we're going to make sure that there is a thorough scrub of what his china connections are. there are a lot of questions there that need to be answered. it just seems unusual that he would be in china and asking for protection from the chinese government giving press conferences to the chinese media. we will investigate the situation and we will report hopefully when it comes out. [indiscernible]

>> they said that there is a lot more to these programs. is that accurate? irresponsible. again, we are asking those members to come down. we are making the committee space available. it's important before you make a public statement on what you believe the program is that you understand exactly what it is. this is one of the most overseeing programs by all three separate branches -- court, congress, executive branch -- and then multiple checks and oversight and side the executive branch itself. it is really heavily scrutinized and used sparingly. .y the way, it's not a name

it's a number, or a direct e- mail. every query only punches back out another phone number without an americans name attached. it's critically important to understand that. i think americans think there is a sweep of data we have about their conversations. that's not happening in this program. >> it's also important to let the world know what the cyber world is about. there is a lot of cyber vulnerability we are seeing. tied toe some attacks the chinese government. there have been critical in saudi arabia knocking down 30,000 computers of saudi aramco. we are doing with sophisticated technology. we're trying to attack the country from terrorist attacks. we have a lot to educate the public about the threat of

cyber and how we, as a country, will protect the country from the threats and follow the law and constitution of the united states of america. is the u.s. government collecting and monitoring computers in hong kong? >> obviously we are not going to talk about any international program that could be available to many of our intelligence agencies. , i think,e understandable for the american people to think the collection of foreign intelligence is an important tool to keep america safe. it started when george washington sent nathan hale into new york city to find out what the british were up to. history ofeen a long that and it is done in the history of -- interest of .rotecting these notions are all of the

wrong word. surveillance, monitoring. you shouldn't try that from your military -- your vocabulary. they collect the business records which is something called metadata which is only phone numbers and phone numbers. again, no names attached. no addresses. the closest thing you might get is a region of the country based on an area code. that is the closest you would get. if you are going to connect the dots in anything like the boston bombing to find out if there are other co-conspirators, if you are going to connect the dots on a 9/11 style event are predicting an event, you have to in order to the box connect. all this is is just that little bit of information that might need, a phone number to a phone number with no names attached. if it goes beyond that, it has

to go to the fbi for what we would understand is a normal investigative route that would require a warrant. >> when you talk about the information being released over the next week, [indiscernible] kind of details can the american people expect? >> we have had a long conversation today about promoting the release of the cases that have been disruptive. we believe that is important for the americans to understand, that these programs have awarded a real terrorist plots, not only against americans and -- have thwarted real terrorist plots. that this is really important that we get that information.

>> it is because we are dealing with perceptions and the average american does not understand what we know, and we need to get out as much public information as we can that will not hurt our national security. we had that conversation with bill alexander. " we can show the american public, we are not violating any constitutional rights, and number two, that we still need to protect our country so that we do not have another boston problem or another 9/11 problem. >> they are being very, very careful in every case, to make sure that somebody does not say, given number and is 10 less later and not accurate. don't forget, we are also -- we are working with our allies. we have allies that work with us and we work with them.

we help them thwart attacks like that help us. be hopefully talking about is how we thwart attacks through our allies throughout the world against the terrorists who are trying to kill us and attack us. >> are you worried about the vulnerability in terms of penetration from an individual or the main frame? >> we have counterintelligence folks to look at every vulnerability we have every single day. obviously it is not perfect, but there is no stone of vulnerability that will not be turned over in this event. >> if there is any corruption anywhere, i have confidence in our law enforcement that we will find that out. there is no allegation that there is any leaks or anything from the courts.

there is a damage assessment and it is clear that he attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go. try through the others,the nsa and determine what exactly what information he may have gotten, if any more than he has now. candidly, no one really knows the answer to that today. i think we'll know the answer to that shortly. >> what questions do you still have open now that you feel like still need to be answered? >> i think it is very important. he has not decided he wants to relay information about collection -- on 4 entire collections, which goes beyond his stated intention.

there is a long list of questions we have to get answered about, does he have a relationship with a foreign government and is there more to the story? there are questions that have not been answered on that. we are looking at internal controls to make sure that if something was missed, how we make sure that something does not get mixed in the future. we are using this as an opportunity to make sure we are better prepared to stop something like this in the future, even though we have made big strides in this kind of thing. this is incredibly damaging, and there should be no notion in anyone's mind that this person is a traitor to the united states of america and he should be punished to the full extent of the law. >> some people are saying he is a hero. he has broken the law. we have lost in the united states for was " reject or -- for whistle- blowers. he is protected. a he chose to go to china,

country that is taking billion dollars of american business data and yet there are people out there that are saying that he is a hero. he is not a hero, based on the evidence that i have. he needs to be held accountable for his actions and go through the proper process. we hope that hong kong and china will work with us to bring back someone who has broken all and could put us at great risk and the lives of our allies at great risk. i hope we don't decide that are national security interest is going to be determined by a high-school dropout who has had both academic and employment troubles. we need to ask hard questions about who he is and what his motives were fully and what access he had to information before we draw the conclusion that this guy was doing something positive.

>> [indiscernible] >> that question goes well beyond both programs. be an e-mail address for a foreign person believed to th.on foreign soil, not an this is not targeted at americans. the other program is a business record. this is not your individual record for your phone. it is your business billing record that does not even have a name attached to it. is this series of literally hundreds of thousands of phone numbers and that is it. it is kept in a lockbox with the

only access, which is a fraction of a fraction of a percent, for the access for this. they have to have a counter- terrorism nexus. it can only be used and accessed by a counter-terrorism nexus. of phone numbers comes out. that raises concern because those numbers are connected to known terrorists overseas, then it gets turned over to the fbi. so this is very, very narrow. days and reviewed by congress. a programimes you get that is reviewed both by the court and the congress, and internal reviews. that is what is missing in this discussion. [indiscernible]

>> he clearly has over inflated his position and has access. he has even over inflated the technology -- what someone to d. it is impossible for him to do what he is saying he has done. remember, that access he had was not the full panoply of programs are processes or reviews. it was as a systems administrator. he would see some things because of the nature of the work that were certainly sensitive and classified, but he would not be able to do what he said he could do, because the program does not even allow for that to happen. we need ask a lot more questions about his motive, his connections, where he ended up, why he is there, how is he sustaining himself while he is there, and is the chinese government fully cooperating.

ford not say he was a spy china, but you did. i have to go. >> i was very aware of prism prior to what happened last week. we had had extensive briefings in that regard. last thursday i understood the details of that. i cannot imagine in the united states senator sitting through briefing like we just had and not feeling thankful for the efforts that nsa and others put forth. at the same time, there's no question that to keep these things in balance, the senate has to do a job as it relates to oversight. i cannot imagine anybody could have left the briefing i just left and not felt more

comfortable and thankful for the efforts that are under way. i've got to go. [indiscernible] >> the privacy of americans is protected under these procedures. misunderstood that americans private information, telephone calls and e-mail, are being rummaged through by the government. that is not true. only when there is probable:, given with a court order by a federal judge, can they go into the content of phone calls and able to in order to be disrupt a terrorist plot, that

probable cause has to be proven in a federal court that is set up to handle this secret information. just amazed ton see, the misunderstanding that people have, that they think that americans private information is open to the government, only through the checks and balances of the three branches of government weighing in in order that we protect our privacy. >> i have to catch a plane, so this will be very brief. we have had a classified hearing, 47 senators were present. we were briefed by seven people including the former chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, director

clapper, general alexander, the , soty director of the fbi's there were several -- seven people breathing and members are asking questions. that is the statement. >> is a court order necessary to query? i don't know what you mean by a query. to search the database, you have cause toeasonable believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group. you may not like it, but i will answer.

query the numbers. the only numbers you have, there is no content, you have the name and a number called, whether it is one number or two numbers. that is all you have. in you can get the numbers. if you want to collect content, then you get a court order. that is why understanding. alexander characterized the attacks that were presented. when he says dozens, was he talking 24, 50, 100? >> what are you asking again? alexander characterize the attacks that were prevented. he said there were dozens. is he talking 24, 50, 100? he wants to be exact. there are more than you think.

we should have that shortly. he said monday. [indiscernible] what he wants to give us or the cases where this has stopped a terrorist attack, both here and in other places. he wants to be exact about the details, so we should have that monday. >> what happens next? >> what will happen next is [indiscernible] clapperasked director to consider the program, to present some changes if he feels it necessary. we will consider changes. we will certainly have legislation which will limit or prevent contractors from handling highly classified

technical data and we will do some other things. i have said what i said. thank you. >> obviously you all know who we had here today. the gentleman i thought made a very good presentation and great detail about how the respective sections of the vice act work. they talked about some practical aspects, gave some examples of how things work, and i feel like everybody got their questions answered. >> did you really think about the u.s. investigating [indiscernible] >> no, we did not discuss that.

>> if the nsa or the obama administration wants to start declassifying plots as early as monday? >> we would like to declassifies much information as we can about specific instances, but the problem you have is that declassifying almost always ofds to acknowledging sources and methods. if we devolves sources and methods, we give a lot of -- the enemy a lot our information that we used to watch them. the white house is not told us exactly what they are going to do but i can tell you based on what we heard again today they are going to be very careful in making a decision on it declassifying any information. >> chairman rogers was saying --

>> as a result of what mr. snowden has already disclosed, the bad guys are already changing their methods of operation. we knew that was bound to happen. as i have set on a couple of occasions, his disclosures are ultimately going to lead to us being less safe in america, because bad guys will be able to figure out a way around some of the methods that we used and that is likely to cost lives down the road. was their concern that china is aiding snowden or that there is a link between him and the chinese government? >> he is in hong kong, so obviously we are concerned about it, but we have no indication that he is connected with the chinese at all. if what we need

to do needs to be done legislatively or not, but it is clear we've got to do a better job of making sure that our top- secret clearances go only to those individuals that deserve it, and that we monitor all those people who have a top- secret clearance from time to time and review their cases to determine whether or not there's any reason to suspect that they may have compromised u.s. intelligence in some way. so i think there are some changes we are going to look at, but i don't know that it needs to be done legislatively. news is breaking about a no- fly zone inside of syria. >> i have set for several weeks that doing nothing, continuing to do nothing is not an option. we know now that in excess of 100,000 people have been killed inside of syria and the united states has sat by and watch that

happen. the president said a red line was the use of chemical weapons. we now know that chemical weapons have been used for almost a year by the syrian regime, and we have done nothing. i think it is time we acted a very serious way. if a no-fly zone is what they decide to do, i am sure our military has taken the right preparations for carrying out a successful operation, and i will support that. >> is that based on information you are getting today? >> not today, we have had that information. thank you. library hasn video reached a milestone since 2007. there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span programming. a public service created by private industry, america's cable companies. >> and a few moments, a briefing on reducing gun violence to mark

the sixth month anniversary of the shootings in new town connecticut. in about 40 minutes, more about the new town shootings from members of the house of representatives. >> i do think what we are doing does protect american civil liberties and privacy. the issue is, to date, we have not been able to explain it because it is classified. so that issue is something we are wrestling with. how we explain this and still keep this nation secure? that is the issue we have in front of us. you know that this was something that was debated vigorously in congress, both the house and the senate, within the administration and now with the court. when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the covers. this is what we are doing on behalf of all of us for the good

of this country. now, what we need to do, i think, is to bring as many facts as we can out to the american people. i agree with you, but i just want to make that clear because the perspective is we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we are not. span, theeekend on c- senate appropriations committee u.s. intelligence agencies secret data collection programs. also on book tv, covered from the publishing industry's annual trade show, saturday at 1:30, and on american history tv, lectors in history, from the end of slavery to separate but equal, sunday at 1:00. >> friday is the sixth month anniversary of the shootings in the lead down, connecticut. -- in newtown connecticut. this is 40 minutes.

>> the following people were killed on december 14 due to gun violence. agelotte, age 6, bolivia, 6, at dillon, page 6. 6, kathryn hubbard, age 6, jesse louis, also age 6. emily parker, 86, jack pinto, age 6. , age 6. carolina, age 6. jack -- jessica, age 6. benjamin we are, age 6.

allison wyatt, age 6. joseph deane, a seven, case, 7, 7, gracie macdonell, age victoria soto, age 27. 30,el, age 29, loren, age mary,arie murphy, age 52, age 56, all killed in the sandy hook massacre. now speaking, my sister, jillian soto. >> on friday, june 14, it will mark six months since my older sister was brutally murdered in her first grade classroom. my sister vittori went to school that day to teach her first

graders and was faced with the situation that she could have never imagine. a situation that most people will never have to face. a.m., an armed man walked into sandy hook and openedschool and kill took 26 people within the school. were 6 and 7-le year-olds, and six educators. one of those educators was my older sister. i am here today to remind congress what happened to my family, to remind them of what keeps happening in america. 5000 more americans have died due to gun violence since december 14. and there still hasn't been any federal action to protect us

from gone violence. just last week, more people were murdered in santa monica because a man who had access to a gun that was meant to kill. congress cannot continue to allow guns to be in hands of these madmen. now more families are going through the pain that my family is going through. forgottenhave not what keeps happening. i would like to thank the brave representatives to stand behind me and who stand with the 90% of americans who support universal background checks legislation. newtowne today with action alliance and supporters who are in the process of delivering a letter signed by over 80 gun safety organizations across the nation representing over 10 million americans in support of universal background

check legislation. i urge congress to listen to the 90% of americans who support universal background checks and take immediate action. in action is unacceptable, as is the loss of so many innocent lives. thank you everyone who came out and everyone who is listening. we will not forget what happened to us. we will continue to fight until congress stands up and does something to make us safer from gun violence. now it is my pleasure to introduce senator harry reid. >> the work that you are doing on this issue is very important.

sometimes people have very, very short memories. last to coming here, my meeting was with the group of workingho are .ationally to prevent suicide there were a mother and father there from nevada with the others who have lost their son to suicide, a 21-year-old young man. the reason i mention that you is that those of us who experienced suicide in our lives understand how important it is to remember. my dad killed himself with a pistol. he was a relatively young man, especially as i get older. we have to remember what took

place in connecticut at that little elementary school, and can never take those names out of our minds. and sixe boys and girls educators. your responsibility is to make sure that the american people do not forget what happened there. i could see the tears out here ,s the names were being read and i am here to tell you as the other members of congress who are behind me that we are not going to give up the fight. when republicans voted against this legislation on the senate floor, they voted against 90% of the american people.

the fight is not over. it is just beginning. i am hard-pressed to find another issue where 90% of the american people think it is the right thing to do. this is the issue. feelf the american people that someone who has mental problems, severe mental problems, and is a criminal, should not be able to buy a gun. no wonder 9% of the people think this is the case. -- 90% of the people think this is the case. but i want everyone here to understand, the writing is on the wall. the republicans who voted against this, the writing is on the wall. and the democrats, the handful who voted against this. in the senate, 90% of the democratic senators agreed with 90% of the american people.

the republicans did not even get 10%. the writing is on the wall. background checks will pass the united states senate, it is only a question of when. i want to be very clear, though. in order to be effective, the bill that passed the senate must include background checks and not a watered-down version of background checks. we are not going to let the forces of an extreme minority water down and damage the content of this bill. the force against this bill cannot hold out forever. we are close. there are conversations going on. they cannot stand in the way of 90% of the american people. so i say to each of you today, don't give up. we are not going to give up. the fight is right and is one that we are going to win. never forget the 26

deaths, but sadly, there have been thousands of others since then. people identify with what happened at that little elementary school in connecticut. is my pleasure to introduce -- we throw this around, my friend, but i am going to introduce my friend. we are forever friends, someone who has served sold -- shoulder to shoulder with me, and people who want to get something done in this country. i have had the good fortune to serve with a number of speakers and i am a student of history. as far as i am concerned, we have never, ever had a better speaker than nancy pelosi. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for your generous introduction, but more importantly, for your strong

commitment to making sure that we honor our oath of office to protect and defend the american people and our constitution. your stronger words and determination are ones that we and my colleagues who are here and those in the senate will be hearing from know that what you said is music to our ears. , and it is asic humbling experience to be here with some of the families of newtown. the soto family and how eloquently and beautifully they spoke about the tragedy and how determined they are to go forward. lauren russo.

on earth has to begin with us, in our hearts and in our communities. so i thank the families returning your grief into action. the grief is still there, but the action is essential. your unimaginable loss, turning that into unsurpassed determination to carry on. their agenda is non-partisan. we are not backing down. this is not over. in many ways we have begun another face on this fight. today the 5000 victims of gun violence since the newtown tragedy, these families and supporters are sending a clear

message. let's honor the memories of every victim by ensuring that no other family is forced to endure such a terrible tragedy. for six months we have talked about a response to newtown. now we must act upon our promises. we must take inspiration from he did movingnd words of the sandy hook promise. our hearts are broken, our spirit is not. we must pass legislation in the house and in the senate for gun violence prevention, most notably now in the form of the background checks. it is something that will have a tremendous effect on safety, to protect and defend as what the newtown families are asking of

us, that is what we must do in congress, and that is why employees to present to you a champion for this calls, senator blumenthal of connecticut. [applause] >> thank you, speaker pelosi, and thank you for your leadership over many, many years on this issue. reid, who hasarry been an unshakable champion for this cause. i have been with him over these past months and years, and not only is his mind, but his heart is in this cause. thank you most importantly to town in thes of newo community, who have relived their grief, that unspeakable sadness, and made this calls it their mission. they have come here and demonstrated through the power of the courage and strength what it means to speak truth to

power. i just want to urge all my colleagues in congress, and most especially in the senate, to please agree to meet with the newtown families. some of them have closed their doors or turn their backs. listening to them today in this forum, how could they refuse to hear out and meet with the newtown families and community? i urge them to do so. tragedyecember 14 transformed america. unstoppable an trajectory toward gun violence prevention. there is a lot of talk these days about losing momentum, diminishing passion. we are here to say the momentum is not diminished.

the passion is stronger, if anything. we lost the first boat, but we are going to win the last vote. the one who wins the last vote is the one who wins. [applause] eikenberry we will have another vote, and i believe that we will win it. we don't need converts among the american people. we need converse in the congress. the continuing mobilization an organization that door group are doing will turn the tide and carry the day. because they will convert our colleagues who still have doubts or reservations and we will overcome those doubts and reservations. those conversations are on going right now. there is no need to transform this bill to achieve background

checks and transform america and make it safer. i believe that we are within votes,just a handful of and we are moving forward in that effort. was a day of a searing sadness, but april 17 was a day of shame. here but iard believe the american people feel, in action is unacceptable, not only because of the 26 beautiful lives that were lost on that day, but also because of of the almost 5000 who have perished since then. they may not have been in the headlines, but the sadness for their families and loved ones and friends and neighbors is as palpable and important as it is for anyone.

so i think today we should make no mistake. we had 55 votes in april. 55 votes ordinarily is a majority. we are going to win with 60 votes, but the 55 votes reflect the 9%, and it is a bipartisan 90%. there is nothing republican or democrat about saving americans from gun violence. that calls will be bipartisan and it will enable us to continue to stand up and speak out. make no mistake, the nra and special interests have been the schoolyard bullies here. they have ruled. six months ago, this issue was thought to be untouchable. now our calls is unstoppable. we stood up to the schoolyard bullies. we will continue to stand up to them, and eventually we will

beat them. in part, it is because of my colleagues who are not here myay, and very importantly, colleague, my friend and partner in this effort, senator chris murphy. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. the shortage commencement address that was ever given was given by winston churchill. it was this. never give up, never give up, never give up. we have a message to the nra, to the gun lobby, to the proponents of the status quo. we are never going to give up. until never going to rest we have done everything within our power to make sure that

another community, another family does not have to go familieshat newtown are going through today. we are never going to give up until we have an answer to the 5000 families across this country who have lost loved ones to gun violence since september .4 of last year there are some encouraging but fruitless discussions happening on the senate floor to try to revive a bill that passed but because of the senate rules did not make it to the house of representatives. why is that happening? why are we going to get a second chance on the issue of gun reform when very few other issues get a second chance on the floor of the senate? we will give you two reasons and and i will pass along the microphone. one reason is standing behind us today. it is the indomitable spirit of

, whoamilies of newtown have refused to take no for an answer. it's unconscionable that there are members of the house and senate that will not meet with these families. have the courage to look these families in the eye and tell them no. if you hear their story and hear their plea, they are about rigid there will be something unlocked in your heart that will get you to yes. that is the first reason why we will have a second chance at this. the second is that serious for the first time ever a political infrastructure built around gun violence reform that never existed before. an election to play in a back in. no longer. members to cast the wrong vote in april will bear political consequences at the ballot box next year. it is this political infrastructure that has grown out of this tragic incident that

will force people to do the right thing later this year. with myglad to be here former leader in the house and my present leader in the senate. i have just been so proud every minute of my time in both chambers to be able to serve under their leadership. there is no one who has shown greater concern for the families of newotwn than they have. i am proud to introduce someone who was with senator blumenthal and me that awful afternoon who has spiritually and symbolically never left that place, the congresswoman placenewtown, elizabeth's esty. >> thank you to my friend, my colleagues, and my neighbor and to richard blumenthal and to

nancy pelosi, who has done so much to encourage us in the house and to senator harry reid for his leadership. i particularly want to thank you, those of you here, the wonderful soto children, to the , anotherher of lauren one of the educators who was cut down on that fateful day and to the action alliance for your leadership, your courage, and efforts. that is why we are here today. i am so honored to represent these people. i am so honored to represent the .rave people of newtown mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, siblings, friends, neighbors -- a community that has endured unimaginable tragedy and unparalleled loss,

and who have responded to that loss, not with anger and hate, which we could well expect, but with courage, with hope, and with love, and i will say, with resolve and resilience. a community of people who have stepped up and advocated for common sense laws to prevent gun violence, to save other communities in this great nation from the pain they are suffering. you have inspired me and encouraged me and you have inspired people all across our country. you have driven change in hartford, where a bipartisan package, a comprehensive gun reform was enacted to prevent gun violence in this country. you are driving change in state capitals across this country, including colorado, with some of my colleagues here today. washington you have

encountered inexplicable political cowardice. in the six months since that terrible day when we lost 26 lives in new town connecticut, nearly 4800 fellow americans have been cut down by gun violence. in that same time, the house of representatives has not held a single vote on common-sense efforts to reduce gun violence. not even a vote on enhanced background checks. 46 senators blocked an up or down vote on that same bill in the senate. this is a reform that the families and members of the newtown community have asked our elected leaders to support, a reform supported by more than 90% american people. yet in the face of this shameful obstruction and misinformation, you, and you, and you have refused to give up. that even though tomorrow we

mark if the fat and terrible day, the six-month anniversary of that day, seeing all of you here today -- even if we mark day, iteful and terrible am filled with renewed conviction that we must get this job done. no elected leader should be able to look jillian or anyone else across the country in the eye who have lost a loved one to gun violence if they are not willing to step up, without saying to them, we have met our obligation. we have met your call to action. and the call to action of the american people. forget andies cannot will not give up. neither can we. neither can the congress. it is time for us to take action on common sense gun laws. it is time to hold an up or down vote in the house and in the

senate on enhanced background checks. i want to thank all of you activists and passionate americans here today for everything that you do. i am so honored to stand with you and support you, and as representative for newtown in congress, and more importantly as a mother, i can assure you i will never give up. i will never surrender. as long as it takes, where every texas across this country. for those in newtown and nose last week in santa monica who are paying the price for continued political inaction, you have strong supporters and we stand strongly with you. now it is, honor to introduce my friend, colleague, and leader, congressman mike thompson. >> thank you very much for your

leadership and work on this and to all my colleagues behind the, i could not be prouder to serve with them. they are that committed to making sure that we change the laws to do everything we can to prevent gun violence, and thank you to all of you who have shown the courage to stand tall and work on this issue to make sure that we do our job. i wish we were not here. this is an anniversary that i don't think anyone wants to celebrate. would have it never happened, but the fact of the matter is, it did. it was a terrible, terrible chapter in the history of our country. it was so painful to so many. since that terrible day, a couple of other terrible things have happened. i believe some already mentioned, nearly 5000 people,

5000 americans have been killed by someone using a gun. 5000. and the other tragic thing is, the house of representatives hasn't done one single thing to to and bring about an end this type of massacre, of tragedy. that is shameful. we need to do something. the senate took their vote, sadly, as has been pointed out, they did not have the 60 votes necessary. i was as flat as all of you were when that happened. but anti pelosi reminded me, she said just remember, you promised you would want through the gates of to make sure we had background checks before people could buy guns, and i think you heard that from everybody here who is in this for the long haul. we will not quit and we will not give up. it is our hopes that the house

bill will help provide the courage that senators need in order to pass a background check bill. it is a bipartisan bill. i want to personally shout out to peter keane, republican from new york, it is my co-author on that. we have 182 members of the house of representatives who are co- authors of that bill. [applause] it does something to prevent gun violence. it is pro-second amendment and anti-criminal, anti-terrorist, anti-anyone who is prohibited from buying a gun from getting a gun. and it should be passed. right now, you can buy a gun on line, you can buy a gun at a gun show, and you can be a criminal, a terrorist, a spousal abuser, and you can still buy that gun,

because there is no background checks for purchases of that type. this bill would change that. doesn't do everything. it will not solve all the problems, but it is the best step forward. against criminals getting guns, against terrorists getting guns, or against the dangerously mentally ill getting done, and at the same time be against background checks. it is our first line of defense, and we should be doing everything we can to strengthen that first line of defense. so i look forward to the day in the not too distant future when president obama signs that bill into law. [applause] is peter king here? it's probably still in the intelligence briefing, but i

appreciate the fact that his sponsorship is on that bill. >> if i just make acknowledge, ron barber who is here was a , congressman ron barber. congressman elijah cummings, a senior democrat on the government reform committee has championed these issues as well. [applause] courtney had to go back to committee, but i wanted to acknowledge that he was here, congressman joe courtney of connecticut, and congresswoman sheila jackson lee was here as well. and this one and to acknowledge the other cast members who were here. >> i have been told we are going to take some questions. happy to do so.

>> if you would be good enough to identify who you are so everybody knows. >> when you said you would not accept a watered-down version of the background check bill, what will you not let go? >> i will not accept a watered- down version of the bill. >> does that mean you will not let any kind of record keeping revision bill. at this stage i got nothing. we have had some discussions. they have been helpful, but they have not borne fruit, as i said before. >> you have any indication that the moderates who voted no last time will vote yes this time?

all of you kind of revel in this, we have 90% of the democratic vote. we lost four out of 55, a pretty good deal. so focused on the republicans. we have a couple local possibilities in the democrats, but focus on the republicans. -- he hasn barber this beautiful dimple on his it is from a gunshot. i am not going to have some watered-down version just to say we got it done. >> what are you waiting for, what has to be in place? >> we have to have the 60 votes.

>> are there any signs that republicans are starting to come over on this? >> no. >> would you say there is at least one republican who is a yes privately right now? >> we have been doing well with more than one republican couple. >> do you believe that mayor bloomberg's efforts have been helpful or not helpful in going after the democrats who voted against this bill? we have been friends for some time, and i remind him just as i reminded everyone here, to have republicans controlled the senate is a sure sign we will never ever get anything done. mayor bloomberg is a man of passion. he is fixated on this and i admire him for doing that. he is going to make some

decisions on this. i gave my input. that is where raw with mayor bloomberg. spirit, andf a free a very rich one. >> the question is whether he should try to educate people on this bill. he is doing that and we'll do more of it. hope that while there is talk about seeing people at the polls, that we could do something much sooner than that. and that a lot of the energy that is out there is really to persuade people who are in office now so that the issue can be served that we can pass legislation to make the people safer, starting now, rather than waiting until after an election. the ballot box has consequences, there is no question people will

speak. our boats are our voices there. are our forces there. hopefully the energy of everyone focus now on having people, elected officials see the strength of support in their own district and state. president lincoln said public sentiment is everything. the public is there, 90% of the public, and almost impossible figure of agreement. to translate that sentiment into public policy is what we want to do. we always want to shorten the time between what is inconceivable to the gun lobby but inevitable to us, shorten the distance. we would like to do that now and not wait for the election. the focus is on the senate with the leadership of mike thompson. sponsors.83 co-

many more say they will vote for the bill even if they don't co- sponsor it early on. we want that to be the message to the senate, if you have the courage to take the boat, it will go someplace. there is a life in the house. i think it is important to focus on getting as many supporters in the house on the bill so that the senators don't think they are taking a political risk, which they should do anyway, for a bill that is not going to see like in the house. hopefully many of you will focus your attention on the house as well because we are making great progress there as well. [applause] >> this is a half-hour. our hearts are broken, but our spirit is not.

that is the sandy hook promise. tomorrow marks six months since the tragedy in newtown, a tragedy seared into the minds of every person across america. indeed many, millions across the world. like the anniversaries of the shooting in tucson and arizona and oak creek, and so many other communities, tomorrow arks a anniversary of shock, uncertainty, violence, horror. tomorrow marks another solemn reminder of the persistent plague of gun violence in our society, and the ongoing challenge to end it. over the past six months, many words have been spoken to offer our love and support to the community of newtown and to the students and teachers of sandy hook. from the start we have known that words of comfort would never be enough.

it would be no substitute for the action that we must take, that would be a truly fitting memorial to the 20 children and six teachers and administrators lost that day. yesterday we had visits from the families, brought pictures of their loved ones who were lost. david gordon, lauren, ben, enjamin wheeler, mary, dylan heartbreaking photos of these children and family members who were lost. i don't know how much more note vation we need than to see -- motivation we need than to see the tears in oiler eyes and the resolve in their voices to use their grief as a source of

strength to help save other people. that would start with a vote on bipartisan legislation by congressman mike thompson, congressman peter king, and 180 sponsors to expand and strengthen our background checks. no one knows better than the people of newtown, men, women, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters who lost their loved ones on december 14, 2012. since that dark day, the families of newtown and their supporters have turned their sorrow into strength, pain into perseverance, unspeakable loss into unmatched courage and determination to carry on. yesterday these mothers and fathers met with both republican and democratic leaders, yet they had come with no partisan agenda. they come as americans who wish to spare their fellow parents and family members the

mourning, fear, and terror they felt six months ago. their message is clear, honor the memories of the little children, of these educators by helping to ensure no other family is forced to endure such an unimaginable tragedy. it had been unimaginable. now we have seen it. now our task is plain. we must restore confidence in the safety of our communities by taking clear, effective steps to prevent gun violence in our schools, homes, and neighborhoods. i just read the names and showed the pictures of a few, of a few of the people who -- whose lives were lost that day. for them and for others and lives we want to save, again i mention the bipartisan thompson-king, king-thompson legislation. that means that using this anniversary certainly to memorialize the victims of

newtown, but also answer the call of their families to give gun violence prevention legislation a vote in the congress of the united states. six months ago in newtown, a lone gunman took the lives of 26 americans. we all know that. emblazoned in our minds and souls. since then nearly 5,000 more americans have fallen victim to gun violence. 5,000, mr. speaker. if now in congress we must summon the courage of the new town families from the kurds invested in to turn their grief into action we must heed the loving words of the sandy hook promise, our hearts are broken. our spirit is not. as we mark this anniversary, we must uphold our most basic responsibility. the oath of office, to protect and defend, protect and defend

the constitution and to protect and defend the people of the united states. mr. speaker, i thank our colleague, congresswoman esty, and our colleague, congressman mike thompson, for their leadership in bringing us together this morning so that we cannot only remember but that we can have the courage to act. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i rise to join the eader t i rise to join congresswoman esty and congressman thompson in recognizing this sad anniversary. mr. speaker, it is with sadness that we mark the six-month anniversary, tomorrow, of the

tragic shooting at sandy hook elementary school in newtown. on that day as has been repeated and must be remembered, americans were united in shock and grief at the senseless murder by a crazed gunman of 26 innocent people. 20 innocent first graders and six courageous school staff members who took -- tried to protect them and help save the lives of others. since that day approximately 4,500, the leader mentioned 5,000, but a figure in excess of 4,500 americans have died as a result of gun violence, according to the newtown action alliance. mr. speaker, this is not just a tragedy. it is a epidemic.

one that congress has a moral responsibility to address. when nine out of 10 americans support stricter background checks to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals, and those with mental illness, there is no reason why congress shouldn't be able to take swift and decisive action to enact tougher protections. i was deeply disappointed, mr. speaker, that the senate failed to move forward with legislation to protect americans from gun violence by enacting effective background checks that safeguard the constitutional rights of responsible owners and safeguard americans. the american people are demanding action, and the house now has a chance to succeed where the senate failed. demonstrating that commonsense proposals to reduce gun violence can indeed command

bipartisan support. democratic representative mike thompson of california, who chairs the house democratic task force on gun violence, and my friend, republican representative peter king of new york, have joined together to introduce legislation in this chamber similar to that which was blocked in the senate. there is not a single provision in their bill that should be worrisome to those concerned about our long-standing tradition of protecting second amendment rights. not a single provision. it will help us keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous and mentally unstable individuals likely to do harm to others or themselves. will they keep all of us safe all the time? it will not. we know that. it that is the tragic fact of life. but will it help?

it will. and if we can help, should we? and the answer is an emphatic yes. this proposal contains commonsense proposals that i strongly support and that most americans have supported as well. congress has the opportunity to get this right by considering the thompson-king legislation in the house and senate, and get to the senate for consideration. i congratulate congresswoman esty in particular, as well as congressman thompson, for their leadership and efforts in this regard. after the backlash, many senators received for opposing expanded background checks, i suspect that a number may be ready to reconsider. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to come together as representative thompson and king have done to advance this bipartisan solution to this pressing challenge facing our nation, not just for congress, but every american.

it should not take, it must not take another tragedy such as newtown for us to act. we have a responsibility to keep our neighborhoods and our schools safe, and i urge speaker boehner and majority leader cantor to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote. the speaker often says he wants to allow the house to work its will. that's why the people of newtown sent congresswoman esty to congress. that's why the people of my district and every district represented in this house, people sent from -- them here to vote on policies. policies to make their country better. policies to make their country more safe. the memories of those two, the memories of those teachers, the

memories of those 26, yes, the memories of those 4,500 plus who since the newtown tragedy have lost their lives to gun violence, their memory, mr. speaker, demands and deserves action by their representatives. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty, for five minutes. ms. esty: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, six months ago tomorrow the town of newtown experienced unimaginable tragedy and unparalleled loss. that loss, the painful loss of sons and daughters, spouses, siblings, and friends is still

very raw and will always run very deep for the people of newtown. and yet in the face of that unimaginable tragedy, on that day and on the days since, this small community that has been through so much has inspired our nation with tremendous courage and resilience. americans have been inspired by the six brave educators who gave their very lives to defend their -- and protect their students. americans have been inspired by the brave first responders who arrived on the scene to save others and live with the trauma of what they saw that day. americans have been inspired by the sandy hook families who, despite living with the pain that one can only begin to imagine, have responded to loss not with anger or hate, but with unbelievable love, strength, and courage. they have taken their call to action to hartford where a

comprehensive set of commonsense gun laws passed with bipartisan support. they have taken the call to action to state capitals around this country, and they have taken that call to action here in washington. but here they faced inexplicable political cowardess, in the six months since that terrible day, since we lost 26 precious lives in new town, nearly 4,800 mernts have also lost their lives to gun violence. during that same time this house has not held a single vote on commonsense gun reform to reduce and prevent gun violence. not even enhanced criminal background checks. 46 senators brought an up or down vote on enhanced background checks. this is a reform that the families and members of the newtown community have asked our elected leaders to support. it is a reform supported by over 90% of the american people , and it is shameful that we

have not yet had a chance to vote. and yet in spite of that obstruction and misinformation, these families and this community have refused to give up. on tuesday, i was honored to again meet with several of the newtown families as they traveled here to continue to lead the push for commonsense honored that 'm several members that have community of the newtown alliance are with us here in the gallery today. in meeting with the families i was given pictures of their loved ones that they have been handing out to elected officials from across the country. this photo of school psychologist mary sherlock reads, one of six educators who on december 14 became first responders equipped with just their lives, can you show the same courage with your vote? . this photo on this card -- sorry -- we need to make sure

with dylan card hochuli. stand -- dylan hockley. stand up for change. here is a picture of dylan hockley. the picture of 6-year-old benjamin wheeler asks, what is worth doing? mr. speaker, these words, these faces, these lives mark the call to action for newtown. they mark the call to action in hartford and aurora, chicago and santa monica and every community torn apart by gun violence. and the sad truth is that this congress has not met this call to action. this congress has not shown the courage to pass commonsense gun reforms. but the good news is that it is not too late for this congress to do better.

and now is the time. we must do it for mary. we must do better for dylan. we must do better for benjamin and for charlotte, for daniel and olivia, for joe is he a phone, for anna and for madeline, for kathryn and chase and jesse, for james, for grace and for emily. for jack, for noah and for caroline, for jessica, for allison, for rachel, dawn and ann marie, for lauren and victoria. we can and we must do better. these families cannot forget and will not give up. neither can we. the speaopmrq:dtegt-n4 my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to associate myself with the remark of my dear colleague from connecticut, elizabeth

esty, who's done such a remarkable job in representing that district and especially the families of newtown, connecticut, in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. now, mr. speaker, the time for us to act is long overdue. the hard truth for the united states congress is, as congressman mike thompson pointed out, that since newtown 5,000 americans have lost their lives at the point of a gun. 5,000 americans since newtown. the united states congress has the responsibility to act and

do its constitutionally get this esire to bill passed. now, whether you believe this is the correct course of action or not, as the president said in his state of the union message, you still have a responsibility to vote. this is a democracy. every day that we delay a vote on this bipartisan bill, .ongress is complicit ngress is complicit in the deaths of those american action as o wait for more s sits by as 5,000

of a s die at the point gun. i commend the families of ewtown and the whole world was heartened. mark barredin stepped out into the rows garden with the president of the united states and reiterated a phrase that has held them all together that their hearts are broken along with those of the entire world as we looked on as this tragedy, but their spirit is not and they are undaunted in their determination, driven by the memories of those teachers nd administrators and students who died so tragically.

they -- they, both students and teachers were willing to stand in the way of violence, and the united states congress can't do its constitutionally responsibility and stand up and vote? all of us watched as the united states senate, with families in the gallery, voting on background checks that 91% of the american people agree with voted it down. no teacher in america could explain the next day how the . te was 54-46 and it lost citizens all across this country take heed. do not give up. continue to fight this fight. fight what's wrong with

congress, about not taking votes when they should and about a system in the senate where a majority prevails and a vote goes down because of the cloture rule, an arbitrary rule in the united states senate. the outrage has got to start outside of this building because here in this building, people remain complicit and the acts will only continue to take place if congress does not take action. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, for five minutes. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow we observe the sixth month anniversary of the senseless and tragic murders at sandy hook elementary school. we will never forget what happened in newtown, connecticut, on december 14,

2012, just as we'll never forget what happened in tucson, in oak creek, virginia tech, portland, milwaukee and columbine. and as we remember the precious lives lost, we must also renew our determination to work together to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again. as a survivor of the tucson shooting that took place on anuary 8, 2011, as the grandfather of children the same age as those who were slaughtered in newtown, and as a member of congress, i'm committed to taking the reasonable action to make sure that we prevent future deaths and injuries from such mass shootings. after the awful shooting and deaths in newtown, the sunday

following i was reading a newspaper about the tragedy and i saw a photograph of one of the children that was killed and as i looked at that photograph of this little 6-year-old girl looking back at me from that page with my granddaughter the same age, i have to tell you that i sobbed along with my wife. i think no grandparent and no parent in this country could have had any other reaction. we must take action here to make sure these mass shootings never occur again. while there is no single answer to preventing mass shootings, we do know some things. we know, for example, that untreated or undiagnosed serious mental illness has been a factor in many of these tragedies. it's important to note as we say this that more than 95% of people with a mental illness

never will commit a violent act. they're far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. the young man who killed six people in tucson and wounded 13 of us had displayed symptoms of mental illness for many, many months before the tragedy, and he never received either a diagnosis or treatment. he ended up getting a diagnosis and treatment when he was imprisoned. i believe this and other mass shootings could have been averted if the public was more aware of the indications and symptoms of mental illness and how to get help. we must do more to reduce the stigma of surrounding mental illness. we must invest in the early identification of mental illness and treatment programs. 60% of people living in this country with mental illness are not receiving the care they need. we must do better. it is clear we must expand mental health services and awareness for 100% of the individuals with mental illness

in the country. that's one of the reasons i introduced the mental health first aid act earlier this year with strong bipartisan support. this legislation would provide training to help first responders, educators, students, the general public how to identify and respond to signs of mental illness. this is just but one of many actions. you've heard of -- from other speakers before me today. there are many things we can and must do but congress must act. i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me and the families of newtown and of tucson and all the other places where there have been mass tragedies, shooting tragedies in the last two years and take action. we must act. we must do it now. the families of newtown, oak creek, aurora, tucson and across this nation are waiting for our answer. will we answer?

since its alma mater in 2007 there are no more than 200,000 hours of original programming, public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books. >> on the next "washington journal,"we will be joined by mark zandi to discuss economic indicators, including unemployment numbers, home sales, and gross domestic product. we will also look at the census bureau and population estimates. alexas guests will be cohn.and d'vera

>> they are very optimistic operationally because we believe he has got the situation he needs. on the evening of june 27 he has a conversation with one of his subordinates, actually, isaac trimble, who is a long as an officer with no command, just going along with the army. trimble, they will come up, talking about the federalist, probably through fabric. -- frederick. when they come into pennsylvania, i showed an overwhelming force on their advance, crushing them and following up success, and by successive repulses and surprises, before they can concentrate, create a panic and destroy the enemy army. >> one of the scholars you could watch during our full day of

coverage commemorating the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> now a bipartisan center discussion on immigration policy with former republican governors jeb bush of florida and haley barbour of mississippi. this is one hour. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the bipartisan policy center. i am the director of immigration policy. i want to thank you all for coming. we are excited to have our fair distinguished guests here to talk about immigration reform, state and local impact, republican politics, when everyone to talk about. we were founded in 2007 by former senate majority leader's

howard baker, tom daschle, bob dole, and george mitchell, as a place for risk analysis and respectful dialogue. we have multiple projects here where we try to combine political account policy-making with strong proactive advocacy and out of reach. it was cochaired by condoleezza rice. with our immigration task force we can deal with some of the issues that need to be resolved. need to host many more of these events like this went to foster conversation between advocacy groups, politicians, and hopefully congressional members on immigration reform.

we look forward to receiving many inside today for their unique perspectives. over to the author who will moderate the discussion. thank you for being here today. >> thank you, and thank you for joining us today. the guests need no introduction, and it is true, but i will keep the introduction brief. you have these bios, and you know them well. bush served as governor of the state of florida. he is the son of a president, ,he brother of the president

and we believe he could pull that off himself someday. i would like to introduce the gentle man next to me who is handy to have at the helm if your state encounters the worst natural disaster in history as my home state did. he held offices as the governor in 2012.sippi now he is back doing what he does best as a lobbyist and heading up the immigration forrm, so thank you joining us. i would like to go to them for a .ery brief opening >> we are going to talk about

local reform, but i want to set ourstage about why immigrant heritage is important for renewing america's i think our country is the only mature country that can grow at three or four percent a year for the next it is a row doing it dramatically with the climbing rates. all of society's changes taking place make it imperative to have immigration reform as a key element for economic strategy for sustained growth. i do not you immigration as a problem. i view it as embracing opportunity for our potential

as a nation. it is within our grasp to do it now. i think delay would be inappropriate because roads will not allow us to deal with pressing problems we face. we will be overwhelmed by our problems if we do not grow economically. without immigration reform, i do not see how we can do it. >> as you know, i cannot say hello in three minutes. his points are the kinds of things that have made me very interested in this. america is in a noble battle for capital and labor. if we are going to grow at

historical rates, we have to have more flavor. -- more labor. we have to have more high skilled labor like science and math. critical to increase the number of visas and to start doing a better job of raising masters kids to get and phd is in engineering and physics, but in the short term and midterm, a lot of this labor has to from other countries. our country ised a magnet for the best in the world. when a kid gets a phd in engineering from mississippi state, we ought to staple a .reen card to his diploma

if not, he is going to go to where if we let him he is more likely to stay in .emphis and help people we have other essential labor that is not phd's. we have got california, the biggest agricultural state in america. more than half the farm labor is here illegally. four percent are here on these special visas. bade is probably some policy. jeb is right. if we are going to grow our economy at the rate we can we need to remember gdp growth is productivity multiplied by the number of workers. major, but iath

can tell you if the number of workers stays the same, essentially the same number of people are working in the united states that worked in the united states five years ago. it is hard to get gdp to grow that will sustain our children and grandchildren which wete we enjoy can continue with energy changes. am focused on this policy and the right policy for our economy is to have comprehensive immigration reform. .> thank you are you talking about the mumbai in alabama or the mumbai in india? >> i would like to talk about why.

do you believe they would even be considering immigration reform if it were not for what happened in the fall? if the gop was not tanking with one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the country? >> i think we need to do immigration for good policy. now becauseing it of all it takes. >> we are doing it now because obama did not do it in the first year of his presidency as he was supposed to. this should not be up partisan issue. for thisns need to be because it is good policy. democrats need to be for this because it is good policy. it has not come up, but now it

has come up. i think you are going see a lot of bipartisan sub or. bipartisan support. i used to work for ronald reagan. policyused to say good is good politics. if you do what is right you get good results. when you get good results you get reelected. that is the reason we ought to be doing it. >> i would say the canary and the coal mine politically would be asian-americans. and didere a pollster not have a knowledge of american politics and you were told, here is a group that has more

entrepreneurial, higher than average incomes, higher graduation rates, and they support president obama's wouldtion, 75-23, that be surprising. asian-americans are the canary in the coal mine for republicans if we have lost conductivity to emerging voters not because of our policy but because we are not engaged in issues important to them, then we pay a price. promisingcannot keep to do things and not trying, so i think all parties are focused on this, and when you have a window of opportunity you need to engage. egg structural problems. there are a lot of things that need to get done, but here is a place where the process seems to and we should not

be critical of that. we should be celebrating that democracy can work when people build confidence, do not think there is an effort to try to outdo one another and forge a consensus, which is the ink done right now. -- which is being done right now. the efforts are underway, and it leads me to believe there is a good chance there is going to be an immigration law that will allow us to take advantage of the a nation.we have as >> i know it is surprising when you write a book and you are surprised by the reaction, and then you say, i wish i had written something a little bit differently. i wish i had changed it. i wish i had described my position a bit differently.

you would dohing differently? are you surprised at the reaction? >> i am not surprised. think everything is viewed from a political lens rather than policy. people who were critical of my book had not read it. i just assumed they would understand the substance of the proposition before they were critical, but i am not surprised why it. we are living in a hyper partisan world. the book we wrote last year has restrictions eerily similar to what was in the house. you could probably get it at a deep discount on amazon. , butis totally off-topic we wrote the book kind of old-

school. is the problem. here are some elements that are significant. here are some light fixed eerie incidents of immigrants -- some life experiences of immigrants. the publishers said, you have to put the recommendations in the first chapter, which i thought, why? i do not normally read books from beginning to end, but apparently you have to have it all at once. you get to the conclusion first, so if you do not have time to read a full book, the book will give you the recommendations in chapter one. .> it would not change anything weis an undeserving reward cannot afford to ignore -- you would not change any of that? >> no, if we end up with a law

that takes 13 years where people have to do the same thing we recommend in the book, where you have to learn english, you have to pay a fine, you cannot access federal government transfer payments, and it takes 13 years, i think that satisfied the concerns of having the right talents with respect to the rule of law and embracing our immigrant heritage. , the issue is my guess is the majority of people who will hopefully get legalized status is they will not even apply for citizenship. if the amnesty lip -- amnesty list was an example the majority did not apply for citizenship. i think it miss reads for a lot

of people. they want to be treated with dignity and respect. they want to work hard to pay for the needs of their families. many of them want to come back to their families. people do not always leave their country of origin because they hate them. they leave because they have no other option, so the proposal we made was geared towards trying at a time consensus -- when we were writing this book i had no thought we would -- aswrong as we are, long as we are, but i do not find either one incompatible. we solve them, and that is what we need to do. >> what are your thoughts? >> i thought it was a good start. the fact that it is bipartisan and they have worked hard on it. i do not think it will

ultimately pass. i think the senate is like you to amend it. the house is likely to pass a bill that will not be whetherthe same, and they passed several small bills or whether they decide to pass one big bill, i think we will go to conference with bills that will have substantial differences that will have to be worked out, and that is the way the process works. i am hopeful we will get an immigration reform that we can immediately after passage. for me no immigration reform is the worst outcome. if you are concerned about securing the border, doing

nothing, we will have another 10 immigrantsegal coming into the country. immigration reform is the critical element needed for border security to finally enforce visa expiration dates. -- of the country people who are ill legal entered the country legally. they stayed. no administration has ever tried to do anything about it, has ever tried to go find them, so if you want to secure the border, much less if you want the economic growth our country ourapable of to maintain growth, then immigration reform is essential, and not having it is going to lead to more results. >> i was wondering if you were

concerned with the amendment. harry reid has called it a poison pill. a couple of measures would require 100% monitoring along the southern border before granting not citizenship but simple legal status. >> i am not going to comment. it is a work in progress. that is the only comment that is encouraging, that sausages being made rather than talked about. our democracy does not work when we are just on the sidelines. it works when people are engaged in good faith to find consensus. i would say a key element of border security, controlling the border is an essential a legal but creating system is a key element of border security.

i think the fact is if you make legal immigration easier with less pain, less risk than a legal immigration, you will not have as much illegal then it illegal immigration, you will not have as much illegal immigration. one thing that is embraced in the senate bill and likely in the house bill is to redefine narrow family petitioning back to what every country and the along the something lines of a spouse and minor children. whatever the case is, if you narrow it down, you open the door for economic benefits, and you can create a program that is robust, and you can expand visas and create additional visas that are at the high-end and low-end of the income scale.

border security has to be first and foremost simultaneously with that, there has to be a system -- when you say get at the back of the line, if you are a filipino, the back of the line is 165 years. unless we have a massive change where life expectancy is dramatically changed, there is not a line, so creating a system of openness for people to have a chance to come legally is critical. >> i think jeff's point about more of the people who come here legally come here because of and work for our economy. i think he is very right. i think it is fair to

understand there are people concerned about are we going to be serious about border security. he will tell you what was the ?rincipal failure we were going to support the border, but we never did. it is clearly understandable that this time the american people want to have some certainty we are going to have border security, because the last time they took the government at its word, and i do not think they are prepared to do that again. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. >> this measure is moving through the senate, and we expect it to be taken up by the

house. even if immigration reform makes it through the senate, everybody thinks it is going to be an uphill battle in the house, and there is an interesting analysis that found while the election is growing increasingly diverse, the average republican district is getting whiter and whiter, so house you persuade those lawmakers to vote for immigration reform, particularly when so many of their constituents do not want it? they found 60% of opponents would not support a candidate who voted in favor of the past four -- the path for status. >> we have polling. if you miss one there will be another in 10 minutes. it will go in a totally but thet direction,

question, let's just take it at face value. those districts are largely rule. those districts have a huge dependency on agriculture. agriculture in america has a huge dependency on immigrant labor. was talking about california. mississippi is a substantial agricultural state. the number one commodity is not taught in. it is chickens. we process two-and-a-half billion dollars a year worth of poultry. you go to a chicken processing plant anywhere in mississippi, and you can find someone who speaks english, i will give you $100. for work.ll here they are willing to do nasty, dirty work where every day they come home covered in blood and guts and feet and feathers.

>> we got it. >> i will tell you how bad it is. there is an idea that it is a willit is a job americans not take. in mississippi we have a vast correctional's department. recidivism is about half the national average, but inmates when they get to a certain security level, we let them work, and they can get paid, they get what a savings account is for. the inmates will not stay two days. they would rather be in the penitentiary than work in a chicken plant. that is the literal truth. congressmen you are talking about have huge constituencies who are dependent

on this labor. of their economy, they are going to have those constituents saying saying, please vote for immigration so we do not have to have people here illegally, so we can get labor to build the economy and support families of your district. there is going to be a lot of that, and there will be other examples one after the other. >> most of the polling shows for the broad support reforms being discussed in congress right now. the implication is every decision is made purely for political self interest in and it isoday, probably survived by the fact of being cognizant of the fact we cannot go way out of the mainstream of your district. is not ase district out of whack with what we are doing right now.

i was on the other streetcar going the other way i guess, and i think there is a broader question. you change the conversation from the question of a legal immigration, and you move it from how do you create economic strategy of sustained growth, and the whole strategy changes. my advice to members of congress was, change the conversation to how do we restore our greatness of the nation i sustained economic growth, and if you can tell me we can't do this with an older and older population --t is less prone to give, less productive, unless you tell me everyone of our kids and and grandkids is going to have four or five kids, there is no way we can have based on labor out foot -- labor output and economic activity that we can

grow for a sustained amount of time. we have to change our policies. they are broken. message. winning >> it was conservatives who shut down your own efforts in 2007. think?you >> it was not just republicans. that was the wrong premise. a lot of people ran on both sides. it was a must vote, and then people got scared, and they went from 61 people to 62 people supporting the bill to 39 or 40 in the end. >> what is different now? as an issue oft great opportunity. realize weh parties have to do something for and that theposes

policies need to be implemented. the american people are generally supportive of the initiatives being proposed in congress right now. i am not sure in 2006 if you did polling, i do not know if it was as popular as it is today. >> one minor observation, the american people are not prepared to accept the low level of economic growth we had in recent years. 1.8%, twoy grew point one percent. after the last recession, in the 1980 possibly even deeper recession in terms of unemployment. 7.4%, four .1%.

americans are not willing to accept two percent growth, and this is part of the equation for getting us back to the kind of growth we are used to that we can have and that our kids and grandkids deserve. >> are you concerned about the report claiming that immigration $.2oing to cost three trillion over the next six years? many say we are not taking into account the benefits of immigration reform. it is already mentioned on the floor. >> everybody knows it is .olitical it was designed to be a political document. there is a reason we do not expect the government to make reductions about spending and taxes for more than 10 years at the congressional budget office.

the idea we are going to predict 50 years in the future is silly.sion we cannot do that, and people know we cannot do that, but it is a political document the heritage foundation has been an ally of mine when i was chairman of the party, governor of mississippi. they helped us with lots and lots of things. my wife does not agree with me on everything. of the matter is it is a political document. it is not a serious piece of work. you do not fire people who do your top study, your most important political document.

the next week, you do not fire the guy who did it. >> yes, you do. take audience questions, i want to ask one more thing. " we must embrace and champion immigration reform. our party appeal shrink."inue to strengthen da what happens if it does not get through congress this time? if the republicans are seen as being responsible not passing immigration reform. will beink the system blamed, not one party or another. i am pleased that rather than saying no for principled reasons, but say no

to what might be proposed by democrats, the old-school way has been applied, which people of good faith quietly have gone about their business to forge a consensus. now it is on the floor of the senate. it validates the civics books. the process ignored what they had written about how was supposed to work. ,he political aspects of this because of engagement, i think we are in pretty good shape. it would be hard to imagine if republicans in the house passed and you cannot forge a consensus in the conference and someone could be blamed politically. there will be efforts to try, but making a good-faith effort

with sincerity and believing in the other side's views can have a conversation about it is very helpful. that youggest issue are bringing up is if it does not pass, the news media has already decided it is the republicans fault. if it fails because of border security, the democrats say that it is a poison pill. the liberal media elite is prepared to say, it is the republicans fault. who want republicans immigration reform as bad as anybody else. to predetermine that if it does not fail, it was the republicans fault, that is something we have to work on. hopefully, we will get a bill passed both houses. if we do not get it, republicans have to make sure that if they

try to support a bill they could not get past the cousins and it would not take it or the -- get past because the senate would not take it or the president would not sign it, there is a predisposition. the heritage report is flawed because -- the heritage foundation, i was on the board and i admire their work. in the forefront of advocating dynamic scoring. that assumesort this constant trendline is creditand not giving any for any of the economic activities that every shoddy shows that immigrants bring to the equation -- every study that

shows what immigrants bring to the equation. why do we assume that? it is not part of our history. why do we assume it will be that way because it currently is that way? i would argue that republicans win when we are positive and hopeful and aspirational and we draw people towards our cause will we do that. if we just lay the game to we are for less government -- play the game that we are for less is notent, that message aspirational. it is not very hopeful. it is not optimistic and we could lose. my guess is the messaging will change and we could garner significant report amongst immigrants from africa, asia, latin america. it has been that way pretty regularly and my guess is that

it will continue to be that way. if we do nothing, we will have they areunification, not necessarily as aspirational as those if we would've created a strategic approach to this. if you believe this is all about politics, republicans are doomed. i would disagree with that. >> let's go to questions. who youyour name and are affiliated with. thank you for holding this. i am the congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook on higher education. the press keeps saying the republicans and

hispanics do not like republicans, but hispanic republicans are driving the debate right now. there were five new hispanics selected into congress and they were all republicans. the press has to get off this message that hispanics hate republicans. it is not true. >> keep talking. [laughter] i have a little thing about that because it makes me mad. immigration was absolutely not an election issue. nobody cared about it. it was number four and five on their list of concerns.

why is it suddenly obama's legacy? >> because it will continue to get worse. that is broken. it does not work. it does not serve the purposes this country needs. there is an appetite now, so go get it. that is my view. when you've got something broke, fix it. >> when it is an opportunity, seize it. they are more entrepreneurial, they said it more businesses, they buy more homes, they are more family oriented. they work in jobs that are jobs

missing opportunities to invest back in our own country. every time you make that decision, mumbai and other places benefit. i have a confession to make, i do not live in washington. i live in miami, where half the people in my vibrant beautiful place are born outside the united states. when i finally make it home on a friday afternoon and i get to spend the night with my lover, it it is my wife who was born outside the united states. , when i getn days to be with my granddaughter, her mom was born in canada. is one that we

should not ignore. that is the unique american experience at a bio had the blessing to be a -- that i have had the blessing to be able to experience that has a tremendous amount of vitality in my life. it is something no other country has done as well as we have done. why can't that be what the debate is about? why can it be about the bigger things that make us a better country? my lover was my wife? [laughter] just in case, there are a bunch of cameras here. memo to file. >> world magazine.

i have a question about -- he played a key role in house negotiations and he said he joined the group in part because democrats made some concessions and agreements that he says they have now gone back on. illegal immigrants, is coverzed, would have to the cost of their own health insurance. he dropped out of the group. how do you see the healthcare issue coming down? are you concerned there may be bait and switch negotiating going on in the house? lex i do not know. .- >> i do not know the concern about the healthcare issue is is there may tosome executive authority waive parts of the affordable care act or something. that is one of the issues.

i believe there is a senate amendment to deal with that. it might alleviate the concerns. this is sausage being made and this--there is a lot of give and take. it seems to be done outside the light. it has been done in a quieter way more than most bills. let's see what it looks like two weeks from now or three weeks are now. let's see what happens after the senate passes a bill. >> the gentleman right here. >> thank you. i live in maryland and i'm a business owner. as an immigrant, i came here in 1999. i started a business in 2004.

i have hired almost 200 security personnel. >> i rest my case. --i believe the abolition immigration of citizens will unfairly affects legal immigration from africa since going to beare africans. this is very unfair. it will break our family fabric. i want a comment from you. >> i think the definition of family ought to be the traditional one in our own country where the only country -- and our own country. we are the only country that has the broadest definition possible. no other country has that. tore will be opportunities have a legal immigration system. we should eliminate the

diversity lottery. narrowing the number of people that come through family petitioning creates hundreds of thousands of positions open for people who aspire to come here and work. i am not suggesting narrowing the total number. in fact, the proposals may increase the number of legal immigration. we are a big country. detroit would do real well if we started repopulating it with young aspirational people, people like yourself who have built a business. i do not consider it discriminatory to have a policy that is similar to that of the rest of the world. >> i have another question. i am the national immigration correspondent for the new york times. yournor bush, i want to ask

to clarify your position on the citizenship issue because this has become quite central in the discussion, both the senate and the house. there are discussions underway in the senate that would make it complicated for immigrants to obtain some legal status and go on and become citizens eventually. this has become a central issue in the house as well. i am wondering, do you think it is not central for immigrants who have been in the country illegally to have a path to citizenship? how would you describe what you think the purpose and goal of citizenship should be for those people? >> the senate bill that requires 13 years, 10 years to get a green card, 13 years in an accelerated path from green card

status to citizenship status with gates you have to go somegh as it relates to clear statement that our borders are secure based on some objective means. where you learn english and you do not access government benefits. that reaches the pop -- the proper balance. the bigger issue is getting people out from the shadows, the majority of which may not want to be citizens. for the dreamer's sake and for other people, we have all these people in limbo, hitting a bill passed to improve our laws is a very valid deal. where you could become a citizen over a shorter jury out of time, i would have opposed it -- a shorter period

of time how much i would have opposed it. i applaud marco rubio's work on this to be able to bring a consensus to right and left. i trust him to reach that proper balance and i hope the democrats will stay with this. >> you support the path to citizenship? >> i support the senate bill that takes 13 years. >> thank you for clarifying. fromhave supported that the beginning. >> the gentleman right here. >> thank you. president pro tem of the utah senate. what role should the states play? through federal action and , states are mandated

with writing healthcare and education and benefits, and yet we have little tools to dress that. in utah, in 2005, we started down the road at the state level. in 2011, we passed comprehensive immigration reform. support bipartisan immigration. 74 -- 64% say they are more likely to vote for a elected official who supports comprehensive immigration reform. need to fix our broken immigration system. i know people are shocked at left-wing utah supporting

immigration reform. >> [inaudible] there are five democrats out of 29. 24 out of 29 are republicans. [inaudible] [laughter] the purpose of your question .s very important to governors when the federal government fails to do its job, we get the products of that. we have people here illegally and when states try to take action to do something about to protect their resources, the federal government often stops you from doing it. a lot of people have lost track the initiative in california

back in 1994. whatever it was. it was all about illegal immigration. it was not about legal immigrants at all. it became politically symbolic that the california republicans were against immigrants, which is not the truth. california was trying to deal with what you are talking about. they were being flooded with healthcare costs because the federal government failed to do their job. the federal government does not pay the law enforcement bill. the federal government does not pay the incarceration bill. when somebody gets taken away by ice, they do not even tell us what they did with them. they will not tell us, they are not very good partners. they have a hard job and if we

could get a good immigration reform, it will make the federal government's job easier and it will take these burdens off of us because the federal government will not be failing. you do understand why some people think, let's see them do it first. we have taken this on faith once. let's get something and lace. -- in place. >> i would like to pay tribute to utah. its international heritage, a lot of the residents have embraced the outside. utah is a very forward leaning state. the policies you adopted in 2011. no attention, should have gotten a lot of attention because it was a nice counterbalance to a reaction in the neighborhood that has been adjusted over time.

utah is a fantastic place and the quality of life is enhanced by this embrace of diversity and the rest of the world. as it relates to the state and local responsibilities, by law, state and local law enforcement are prohibited from being partners in this. it was not that long ago, i was , i got briefed9 on the federal law enforcement presence in the state of florida and there was one border patrol agent between palm beach and jacksonville. , you are reaction kidding me? it seemed ludicrous to me. the law was that someone came across, which they didn't pretty --whichy which backs

they did pretty regularly by boat. if it did not work out that well, which was 99.9% of the pull theu had to person in the car for a discrete amount of time or release them. maybe what we ought to do is go up to washington and see if we can get some kind of agreement with the justice department where our guys could be trained to be the eyes and ears of the federal immigration order patrol to extend the reach. we goto around, rejected. the attorney general was a great floridian, janet reno and she did not see how this would work. we got the deal done and other states have done that. state and local law enforcement

are significant. whether then create conflict, it seems state and local law enforcement could help the federal government enforce its laws. with proper training, protocols, just as they do with legal citizens and residents of our country, they could do the same for people that are not here legally. it would solve much of the law enforcement problem that we have. there is huge resistance to that in the federal government right now. >> i am afraid we will have to cut things off. , about 10rted late minutes late. 15? we will take one more. >> my question is, both of you have been dismissive of the politics behind immigration

reform process. both of you are politicians. what is the biggest threat to reform efforts at this time? there is fearde, we will and fear that not have sufficient border security. from their side, the unions are very cautious about this. also, how much border security is the right amount from the democrat side? border security could be a place for both sides could be concerned. finally, work versus family unification is a potential issue. the unions want less workers

coming in. that could affect some democrats. most of the republicans think this is a very important way to grow our economy. ask the greatest political risk is that people look at this through a political lens. the minute that happens, we go back to the old way. dissipates. if it is focused on policy, there is a higher probability it could pass. >> thank you for joining us. i am sorry we could not take everyone's questions. [applause] >> governor bush will be signing some books in the lobby in a few minutes. there are some for sale there as well. >> [inaudible]

you want to continue the conversation, join us on twitter or go to the website. thank you very much. >> several events to tell you about tomorrow morning. our coverage of the faith and freedom coalition continues on c-span3 at 9:00. speakers include jeb bush and paul ryan and allen west. the house energy

and commerce subcommittee on health holds a hearing on the -- prescription drug abuse. the c-span video library has reached a milestone. since 2007, there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span programming. a public service created by private industry, america's cable companies. in herary clinton says new role at the clinton foundation, she will focus on women, children, and job creation. she spoke in chicago and was introduced by former president bill clinton. this is half an hour. this last six months for our foundation has been an interesting time. for the last couple of years, chelsea has been spending half

her time on the foundation works. she just got back from asia visiting our projects in malaysia and cambodia and visiting the efforts of procter & gamble in myanmar, where our foundation is also slated to do a lot of work. i am very grateful to her for all of our forces in one place. when the third member of our tiny family said she wanted to come into the foundation and resume her work. i learned all about in geo-work from hillary when we were going out, she was already active in many kinds of nongovernmental activities.

when i was governor of arkansas, oath in our state, america, and around the world. she had been doing this a long thatand i am really glad she is going to come into the foundation with her own priorities and projects. since they bear a real impact on where we go over the long run and in the short run in this country, i would depart from our normal rules that nobody gets to give a speech and let her give a fairly brief outline to you about what she will be doing in the clinton foundation, which has been renamed with hillary and chelsea as part of it. i can see this coming as i move, my job will be to find people who know what they are doing, which i am very happy to do.

i ask you to join me in welcoming in her first -- she has been that many meetings in the past, but never as a principal in the clinton foundation, former senator and secretary of state, hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] good morning. .hank you to be herea pleasure in chicago participating as a

private citizen, as a cohost of cgi and a representative of what we are officially renaming the bill, hillary, and chelsea clinton foundation. [applause] i am thrilled to fully join this remarkable organization that bill started a dozen years ago and to call it my home for the work i will be doing, some of which i will outline today and also we will have an exciting announcement tomorrow as well. i listened to my friend hawk games.he black cock

my father and brothers and i were great fans. three overtimes? really? i can imagine there is a sense of euphoria as well as exhaustion affecting many of our chicago participants today. i hardly endorse the mayors call to go. i want to take a moment of personal privilege to the knowledge -- acknowledge the imaginative visionary work that bill has done with the foundation. he hasnally believe given philanthropy and problem solving a new paradigm and we have seen already this morning starting with the reports of the commitments following with the mayors what that means, to

really look at solving problems through partnership and collaboration. i am very proud of what he has accomplished. i am very proud mother because chelsea's role is expanding and this is truly a labor of love for our entire family. in just a few short years, she widenlped the foundation our reach to a whole new generation of young people through cgi university held at washington university in st. louis. we are bringing together or than 1000 innovative students from around the world to work on tough challenges, many of them are inventing products, creating new approaches to problem solving and chelsea has been our leader. she has also begun the foundations day of action program to organize community

service campaigns across the country as well is working on the range of our health initiatives from childhood obesity to other health disparities. i was thrilled when she was in myanmar delivering the 6 billionth leader of clean water liter ofof the cgi -- lee terr clean water. [applause] this is my first time at cgi in america. i was fortunate to attend the annual -- the annual meeting in new york speaking on behalf of the administration. i want to thank the terrific

staff and all of the sponsors and a longtime friend who was -- whose exciting commitment you just heard. people have really really made this conference a destination. it is not surprising that it would be held in chicago, since the conference itself began as an effort to put our heads together about renewal in america and chicago has long taken its inspiration as the rising phoenix. that is absolutely appropriate. as someone who was born in the city and has spent so many wonderful years growing up here and coming back and visiting, it is exciting to see what it looks like, what it is doing.

i appreciated the mayor telling us about all of the other tasks that are being undertaken to ensure that chicago is a global destination and a competitive city across the world. there have been more than 2600 concrete .ommitments to action at cgi world quite extensively the last four years and one of the lessons i took away is that this model of partnership and commitment is at the heart of what we need to do to meet the challenges of the 21st century. world is increasingly interdependent and interconnected, all the problems that we face from climate tonge to financial contagion

nuclear proliferation are too complex and cross cutting for anyone government or for governments to solve alone. what i call smart power in my time at the state department included reaching out to tap the andgy and the experience expertise of the civil society, ,cademia, the private sector anyone who was working to solve problems and wanted to collaborate with others who felt the same way. i even named a special representative for global partnerships because i wanted to encourage our diplomats and development experts to view public-private partnerships as one of their most important problem-solving tools. today, it is even more in portland that we do that here at home -- important that we do

that here at home and around the world to unleash the talents of the american people and catalyze the investments that we need. we understand that you cannot look to government to solve all of our problems, you cannot trust the market, we need those partnerships that bring public servants and private leaders together. that is what you will see here at cgi america. we have a lot of work ahead of us and i am excited to be putting my efforts into it. i wanted to briefly describe to in myat i am going to do new role at the foundation. ontainly, i will be focused applying lessons learned from around the world and building across ourships entire portfolio, but particularly in three broad areas that have been close to my heart my entire adult life.

childhood development, opportunities for women and girls, and economic development that creates jobs and gives more people in more places the chance to live up to their own god-given potential. i will start with early childhood development and i want theegin by thanking foundation for leading the way on this critical issue. it may surprise some that early childhood development was adopted as an issue at the very first cgi america gathering. people do not necessarily equate babies and toddlers and preschoolers with competitiveness. andously, healthy kids loving families need no economic justification, that is what everyone should want and work for, but ask yourself, if

we do not apply what we know to helping prepare our kids to the best of their abilities, to take their roles in our country and the world, are we really going to be able to maintain the american journeyman? are we really going to be able to provide that upward mobility that has been the hallmark of america's journey? do not take my word for it, ask yourself this. why is it that china is committed to providing 70% of its children with three years of preschool by 2020? why did the united kingdom decide in the late 1990s to invest in universal 3 -- free preschool, community-based children's centers and encourage businesses to provide workplace flexibility for

parents? in the united states, only half of our children receive early childhood education, some of it very honestly is not of high quality. very few parents, whether they are in a two parent family or a single-parent family, have the kind of flexibility that enables them to do the most important job in their life, parent while doing their job, ringing him the income that keeps her family going. -- bringing home the income that keeps their family going. there are huge economic implications and how our kids are prepared. the new brain research that bill was referring to tells us that what happens in the first five years of life has a dramatic effect on later development. neural connections are

formed every second, laying the foundation for learning, behavior, health, and all of the other things we need to grow up as productive adults. right year in chicago, the nobel hase-winning economist pioneered research into the broad benefits to our society and our economy from early childhood development. he has proven time and time again and he will tell any group willing to listen that every dollar we invest can yield savings of more than seven dollars down the road by improving school achievement and graduation rates while reducing problems like teen pregnancy and crime. some of the answer does lie with government. proposalident obama's to expand access to high-quality preschool.

but there is also a responsibility that has to be ,et by parents and families businesses and communities who are at the center of this challenge. i want to applaud the and the waysogress he is going to be modeling, along with goldman sachs and other partners, new ways to finance early education for some of our most vulnerable children. the so-called social impact bonds can be an important innovation for the early learning community and the broader impact investing community. i also want to recognize the commitment by the david and laura maras foundation and its partners to create networks of child care and early learning providers that will pool resources, share best practices,

and create economies to lower costs and improve quality. the my early days at children's defense fund working on behalf of special-needs children who were being denied access to education, to bringing torogram from israel arkansas to give parents support and guidance, to hosting the first ever white house conference on early development and learning to working and expanding early head start, this has been a core cause of my life and it will now be a growing priority at the clinton foundation building on the work that we are already doing. [applause] committed to rigorous measurements and evaluation. here in chicago, we will be

engaging with the cgi early childhood working group and with leaders and advocates who are here, including sarah cap and tomorrow, the foundation will launch a major new partnership in collaboration with the scientific advocacy communities, i cannot give you the details today, but our goal is to help parents, teachers, businesses learn from it and apply the latest brain research to take meaningful and manageable steps to improve the lives of their kids in the first five years. some of it sounds so simple, you ask, why would we be even talking about it? spend timearents to reading and talking with their children, especially their infants? we know what stimulates cognitive development.

how do we make sure parents know freeit is an absolutely way of helping to prepare their children for school? how do we make sure pregnant ,omen, particularly poor women understand the nutrients they should take to support their own and their babies health? how do we inspire more businesses to ease the work related burdens parents of young children? i look forward to talking and working with many of you. those of you already in the early childhood development community, but also expanding this conversation to the private government officials, to everyone who connects this direct line between what happens in those early months and years to whether or not we will maintain our standard of living as a nation.

secondly, it will not surprise you that i want to work to create your opportunities for women and girls. i made this the focus of american foreign policy because it is not only the right thing to do, it is the great business of this century and it is also something that will enhance our competitiveness. research shows that when women participate -- [applause] when women participate in the economy, everyone benefits. they should also be a no- brainer. when women participate in peacemaking and peacekeeping, we are safer and more secure. when women participate in politics, the effects ripple out across society. [applause]

american women went from holding the 37 of all jobs 40 years ago to 48% today. the productivity gains attributed to this increase account for more than $3.5 trillion in gdp growth over the last four decades. , when the economist magazine recently published a glass ceiling index ranking countries , the unitedtors states does not even -- is not even in the top 10. why? some of the factors they looked at, women still hold less than 17% of seats on corporate boards. in norway, it is more than 40%. research are the world bank and

the international monetary fund show that eliminating barriers to women's participation in the economy boosts productivity and gdp. i think that is growth we cannot afford to ignore. other countries are taking note. saidrime minister of japan he wanted to put women at the heart of his economic agenda to expand access to affordable childcare and parental leave and for businesses to appoint at least one woman executive. he said women are japan's most underused resource. he is right. women are the world's most underused resource. thell continue championing rights and opportunities of women around the world, but i do not want to forget women and girls here at home. making equal pay a reality, expanded medical leave benefits,

encouraging women and girls to .ursue careers in stem we heard a great presentation from the manufacturing community productivity.de we need more efforts like the cgi commitment by capital one to create a training program for women veterans. that is a wonderful idea. [applause] let me thank all of our cgi america partners, all of our cgi partners. i look forward to working with you. that brings me to the third area of my passion, which is very related. economic development that creates good jobs and opportunities for young people, who face an unemployment rate doubled the national average and for all of those left behind by

our fast-changing economy. there are important debates to be had about how government policies can best stimulate growth and increase economic and social mobility. be acannot just conversation about washington. we all need to do our part, and that is why the u.s. conference of mayors work on infrastructure is so important and such a good example. we have to prove to ourselves as well as the rest of the world that are public and private sectors can work together to find common ground for the common good. smart investments in infrastructure are important and over the next two days, we will be highlighting dozens of the commitments and partnerships to improve our countries competitiveness from boosting energy efficiency to expanding workforce training to supporting small businesses. we will hear from practitioners like a school superintendent

from texas who started a door- to-door counseling for young people in his district who have dropped out and the new vocational training program to prepare students for good jobs or the mayor of rockford, illinois, working with local businesses launching manufacturing co-ops that offer opportunities for residents of others whoing and often find every door closed. the head of the american federation of teachers who has brought together 100 partners from government, business, labor, foundations to revitalize a remote county in west virginia where more than one third of the residents live in poverty, two thirds of the homes are substandard, and only half the residents have a high school degree. this is not limited to one county in west virginia. into too many places in our own country, community institutions

are crumbling, subject -- social indicators are cratering and jobs are coming apart and communities face the consequences. the lifebly have seen expectancy, longevity for american women has dropped among women without high school education. into the data, researchers have concluded her were two main reasons. smoking and the lack of a job. the lack of connectivity, the lack of meaning, the lack of purpose. for both young men and young , we have to tackle these problems. in west virginia or anywhere else, the problems

did not start with the latest recession. there is no single investment or program that will turn things around immediately. ,chools, job, public health infrastructure are all connected. that is what cgi america is designed to do as well. to bring together the best ideas wherever they come from, to find the most innovative solutions, most committed partners, to take on our biggest challenges in integrated collaborative way. over visiting 112 nations four years, i am still jet lagged -- [applause] talking with people from every walk of life, i take away three basic lessons. i looked at all of the international polling data to try to figure out what people in the world really wanted because they have lives are filled with

stories. all the research made the same point. what people wanted was a good job. it did not matter where they lived, it did not matter their race or religion, they wanted a good job. havenments and business not been able to do that in many places in the world today. our country's greatest advantage lies in the values that remain at the heart of the american experiment, freedom, equality, opportunity. the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will prosper, you will be able to make a better life for yourself and your family. we cannot afford ever to lose that core belief.

i learned that lesson not far from here growing up in park ridge. one of my earliest memories is helping my father in his small fabric renting business in chicago lifting the silkscreen, holding the paint squeegee. a lot has changed since then. technology and globalization are remaking our economy and society, but our values inspire the world and they still can guide our way forward. finally, what this meeting is about and what i think we have to be about is working together overcoming the lines that divide us, whether it is partisan, cultural, geographic, building on what we know works, we can take on any challenge we confront.

i am excited to be here emma to be one of your new partners. thank you for participating in cgi america. part of there solution. thank you. [applause] >> numbers of the house and senate intelligence committees speak with reporters -- members of the house and senate intelligence committees speak with reporters. in half an hour, a briefing on reducing gun violence on a marking the six-month anniversary of the shootings and newtown, connecticut. tell youvents to about tomorrow morning. our coverage of the faith and freedom coalition continues on

c-span3 at 9:00. because include jeb bush, paul ryan, and allen west. on c-span two, the house energy and commerce subcommittee on health holds a hearing on prescription drug abuse. on c-span two, the house energy and commerce subcommittee on health holds a hearing on prescription drug abuse. >> i do think what we are doing does protect american civil liberties and privacy. ablete, we have not been to explain it because it is classified. that issue is something we are wrestling with. how do we explain this and still keep this nation secure? this wasthat something that was debated vigorously in congress, both the house and the senate within the administration. when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the

covers, this is what we are doing on behalf of all of us for the good of this country. now what we need to do, i think, is to bring as many fax to the american people. i agree with you, but i want to make that clear. the perspective is we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong. we are not. >> this weekend, also on book tv, covered from the publishing industry's annual trade show, saturday at 1:30, and on american history tv, lectors in history, from the end of slavery to separate but >> the sunday at 1:00. head of the national security group see read members of the house and intelligence

committees on the agency's data collection programs. general keith alexander and committee leaders spoke with reporters after the closed-door. this is 30 minutes. >> i just want to make a quick statement. what we did today as we had a hearing. i had a chance to inform the committee more about these programs, our oversight committees. what we wanted to help them understand in a classified environment is what we are doing in these programs, what the impact it has been in stopping those dozens of terrorist attacks, what we are doing to review each of those to get more information out to the public so that they can understand the value of these programs in saving american lives. we need to get the information

out there about us listening to american phone calls that it is incorrect. this is a meta data row gram to -- program to help us stop terrorist attacks. we knew wanted to talk about how carefully it is done and overseeing by congress, the administration, and the courts, and also how important this is to our nation. finally, we are working with the committees to provide damage assessments led by the intelligence community about the damage that these leaks have caused not only to our agency but to this nation and the impact of that and then a path forward. we have pledged to be as transparent as possible in this case and we want to do that. we want to provide the american people with information. i think it's important you have that information. we don't want to risk american lives in doing that. we're being very deliberate in in this process so that we don't end up causing a terrorist

attack by giving out too much information. that is the deliberative process that we've had. i've been working with this committee for the past several years. they are very good about asking all the questions and providing tremendous oversight, as does the court and administration. this is not a program where we are out freewheeling it. it is a well overseen and very focused program. what we owe you, the american people, is some statistics. i think when the american people hear that, they are going to stop and say -- wait. the information we're getting is incorrect incorrect. i would just tell the american people that let's take a step back and look at the oversight and compliance and then have this discussion. i have to run to another

hearing. thanks, gentlemen. >> the general is late and needs to scoot off. i probably kept him longer than we were supposed to. first of all, thank you for taking a few minutes. this is a long series of oversight on a very sensitive program. i just want to talk about the damage assessment quickly, which is important. the more we know, the more dangerous the situation becomes. it exposes our allies, we think, with the exposure of this program and the changes we can already see being made by those who wish to do us harm and our allies harm, number one. two, we are very concerned that it might equally make it more difficult to track the bad guys trying to harm united states citizens in the united states. a few key points, i think, that

we have gone through and the ranking member and i have added. we have ratcheted up the timeframe for the classification of certain events about the american public can see the full spectrum of the success of these programs while protecting civil liberties and privacy. you can do both. we think the program does both and we think it is certainly in the advantage of people who truly want to understand the value of the program to get these cases out. we hope to have it next week, as a matter of fact. lastly, this is very important. there has been so much information about what the program is. there are no american names in that lockbox. this is really important. this has been so misrepresented. there are only numbers and that lockbox. the business records that are obtained from the companies have no names, no subscriber information. this is critically important.

the only uses very limited when they actually have a reasonable suspicion, which is hard for me to say today, that the phone number is tied to an overseas terrorist or organization. that's it. when they get an answer back from the lockbox, it does not have a name attached to it. it's a phone number or a series of phone numbers that then, if they believe it has a domestic connection, it is turned over to the fbi for further investigation. exactly the kind of protections you would want and need, especially when talking about the boston bombing. by the way, they use this program to try to identify other people who might be in the united states tied to a terrorist event in boston. over the next hopefully week or so, we will be able to get a declassification of information that i think will allow the american public to better understand. i'm trying to word this as

strongly as we can. the nsa is not reading american e-mails. they are not collecting americans e-mails by either of these programs. i've heard it repeated by members of congress and the senate. i've heard it repeated in news outlets. it's absolutely incorrect. that's very, very important as we understand the value of these programs and how best to protect americans privacy. hopefully, as i said, we will have the opportunity to share more examples. dutch. >> we're going to communicate as much as we can that it will not hurt us if we do get information. we created a system of checks and balances. we have the administration, congress, and the courts. we also have laws. all that has occurred in this program is pursuant to american law. we file a law, we follow the constitution, that's who we are as americans.

we have to educate the public and members of congress who need to know more about the program. the more that we can get declassified, the more that we can give to you in the next few weeks, the more the public will understand that we do follow the constitution and protect national security. at this point, i think we can say at least this program has thwarted 10 possible terrorist attacks. >> what assurances, specific assurances, have you been given that there is not someone, some employee, subcontractor -- some contractor who is looking at this data and is doing what mr. snowden has done? >> we have a whole counterintelligence operation and it is designed to catch

things just like this. what we talked about was what was missed. did he go beyond what he had access to? he was attempting to go beyond what he had legitimate access to. all across, they are taking serious review of those types of information. they were not doing the espionage itself. they were not analyzing that information. it was a person that had been recruited into the organization. this level of, candidly, a fairly low level of individual because of his position in the i.t. system had access to certain pieces of information that, candidly, he did not understand or have the full scope of what these programs were who decided on his own he would release the information. those kinds of people obviously raise concerns and i think there is a thorough scrub today to make sure that all of the protections are in place continue to happen.

i'm sorry? >> are there concerns on the point that mr. snowden could be trying to defect to china? to share what information he had with them? >> he has already done serious harm. he is also sharing things that, candidly, are not correct. we're going to make sure that there is a thorough scrub of what his china connections are. there are a lot of questions there that need to be answered. it just seems unusual that he would be in china and asking for protection from the chinese government giving press conferences to the chinese

media. we will investigate the situation and we will report hopefully when it comes out. [indiscernible] >> they said that there is a lot more to these programs. is that accurate? >> i think it's irresponsible. again, we are asking those members to come down. we are making the committee space available. it's important before you make a public statement on what you believe the program is that you understand exactly what it is. this is one of the most overseeing programs by all three separate branches -- court, congress, executive branch -- and then multiple checks and oversight and side the executive branch itself. it is really heavily scrutinized and used sparingly.

by the way, it's not a name. it's a number, or a direct e- mail. every query only punches back out another phone number without an americans name attached. it's critically important to understand that. i think americans think there is a sweep of data we have about their conversations. that's not happening in this program. >> it's also important to let the world know what the cyber world is about. there is a lot of cyber vulnerability we are seeing. there are some attacks tied to the chinese government. there have been critical attacks in saudi arabia knocking down 30,000 computers of saudi aramco. we are doing with sophisticated technology.

we're trying to attack the country from terrorist attacks. we have a lot to educate the public about the threat of cyber and how we, as a country, will protect the country from the threats and follow the law and constitution of the united states of america. >> is the u.s. government collecting and monitoring computers in hong kong? >> obviously we are not going to talk about any international program that could be available to many of our intelligence agencies. it would be, i think, understandable for the american people to think the collection of foreign intelligence is an important tool to keep america safe. it started when george washington sent nathan hale into new york city to find out what the british were up to. there has been a long history of that and it is done in the history of -- interest of protecting. these notions are all of the wrong word. surveillance, monitoring.

you shouldn't try that from your military -- your vocabulary. they collect the business records which is something called metadata which is only phone numbers and phone numbers. again, no names attached. it does not said mike rogers called dutch ruppersberger. the closest thing that you might get is a region of the country. if you are going to connect the dots in anything like the boston bombing to find out if there are other co-conspirators, if you are going to connect the dots on a 9/11 style event are predicting an event, you have to have dots in the box in order to connect. all this is is just that little bit of information that might need, a phone number to a phone

number with no names attached. if it goes beyond that, it has to go to the fbi for what we would understand is a normal investigative route that would require a warrant. >> when you talk about the information being released over the next week, [indiscernible] what kind of details can the american people expect? >> we have had a long conversation today about promoting the release of the cases that have been disruptive. we believe that is important for the americans to understand, that these programs have awarded a real terrorist plots, not only against americans and -- have thwarted real terrorist plots.

we argue that this is really important that we get that information. >> it is because we are dealing with perceptions and the average american does not understand what we know, and we need to get out as much public information as we can that will not hurt our national security. we had that conversation with bill alexander. " we can show the american public, we are not violating any constitutional rights, and number two, that we still need to protect our country so that we do not have another boston problem or another 9/11 problem. >> they are being very, very careful in every case, to make sure that somebody does not say, given number and is 10 less later and not accurate. don't forget, we are also talking about -- we are working with our allies.

we have allies that work with us and we work with them. we help them thwart attacks like that help us. what we will be hopefully talking about is how we thwart attacks through our allies throughout the world against the terrorists who are trying to kill us and attack us. >> are you worried about the vulnerability in terms of penetration from an individual or the main frame? >> we have counterintelligence folks to look at every vulnerability we have every single day. obviously it is not perfect, but there is no stone of vulnerability that will not be turned over in this event. >> if there is any corruption anywhere, i have confidence in our law enforcement that we will find that out.

there is no allegation that there is any leaks or anything from the courts. there is a damage assessment and it is clear that he attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go. we are going to try through the work of the nsa and others, determine what exactly what information he may have gotten, if any more than he has now. candidly, no one really knows the answer to that today. i think we'll know the answer to that shortly. >> what questions do you still have open now that you feel like still need to be answered? >> i think it is very important. he has not decided he wants to

relay information about collection -- on 4 entire collections, which goes beyond his stated intention. there is a long list of questions we have to get answered about, does he have a relationship with a foreign government and is there more to the story? there are questions that have not been answered on that. we are looking at internal controls to make sure that if something was missed, how we make sure that something does not get mixed in the future. we are using this as an opportunity to make sure we are better prepared to stop something like this in the future, even though we have made big strides in this kind of thing. this is incredibly damaging, and there should be no notion in anyone's mind that this person is a traitor to the united states of america and he should be punished to the full extent of the law. >> some people are saying he is a hero. he has broken the law. we have lost in the united states for was " reject or whistle broker -- for whistle- blowers. he is protected.

if he chose to go to china, a country that is taking billion dollars of american business data and yet there are people out there that are saying that he is a hero. he is not a hero, based on the evidence that i have. he needs to be held accountable for his actions and go through the proper process. we hope that hong kong and china will work with us to bring back someone who has broken all and could put us at great risk and the lives of our allies at great risk. i hope we don't decide that are national security interest is going to be determined by a high-school dropout who has had both academic and employment troubles. we need to ask hard questions about who he is and what his motives were fully and what access he had to information before we draw the conclusion

that this guy was doing something positive. >> [indiscernible] >> that question goes well beyond both programs. there could be an e-mail address for a foreign person believed to be on foreign soil, not an american in america. that is critically important. i have heard this program described as everything but that. this is not targeted at americans. the other program is a business record. this is not your individual

record for your phone. it is your business billing record that does not even have a name attached to it. is this series of literally hundreds of thousands of phone numbers and that is it. it is kept in a lockbox with the only access, which is a fraction of a fraction of a percent, for the access for this. they have to have a counter- terrorism nexus. it can only be used and accessed by a counter-terrorism nexus. only a series of phone numbers comes out. that raises concern because those numbers are connected to known terrorists overseas, then it gets turned over to the fbi. so this is very, very narrow. it is a very article program that is reviewed by the court every 10 days and reviewed by

congress. very few times you get a program that is reviewed both by the court and the congress, and internal reviews. that is what is missing in this discussion. [indiscernible] >> he clearly has over inflated his position and has access. he has even over inflated the technology -- what the technology of the programs would allow someone to do. it is impossible for him to do what he is saying he has done. remember, that access he had was not the full panoply of programs are processes or reviews. it was as a systems administrator. he would see some things because of the nature of the work that were certainly sensitive and classified, but he would not be able to do what he said he could

do, because the program does not even allow for that to happen. we need ask a lot more questions about his motive, his connections, where he ended up, why he is there, how is he sustaining himself while he is there, and is the chinese government fully cooperating. i did not say he was a spy for china, but you did. i have to go. >> general alexander reached the senate intelligence committee in a closed-door meeting. they spoke with reporters for 10 minutes. >> i was very aware of prism prior to what happened last week. we had had extensive briefings in that regard. sir last thursday i understood the details of that. i cannot imagine in the united states senator sitting through briefing like we just had and not feeling thankful for the efforts that nsa and others put forth. at the same time, there's no

question that to keep these things in balance, the senate has to do a job as it relates to oversight. i cannot imagine anybody could have left the briefing i just left and not felt more comfortable and thankful for the efforts that are under way. i've got to go. [indiscernible] >> the privacy of americans is protected under these procedures. it is misunderstood that americans private information, telephone calls and e-mail, are being rummaged through by the government.

that is not true. only when there is probable:, given with a court order by a federal judge, can they go into the content of phone calls and e-mails, in order to be able to disrupt a terrorist plot, that probable cause has to be proven in a federal court that is set up to handle this secret information. what i have been just amazed to see, the misunderstanding that people have, that they think that americans private information is open to the government, only through the checks and balances of the three branches of government weighing in in order that we protect our privacy. >> i have to catch a plane, so this will be very brief. we have had a classified

hearing, 47 senators were present. we were briefed by seven people including the former chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, director clapper, general alexander, the deputy director of the fbi, so there were several -- seven people breathing and members are asking questions. that is the statement. >> is a court order necessary to query? i don't know what you mean by a query. to search the database, you have to have reasonable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group. you may not like it, but i will answer.

the new can query the numbers. the only numbers you have, there is no content, you have the name and a number called, whether it is one number or two numbers. that is all you have. in you can get the numbers. if you want to collect content, then you get a court order. that is why understanding. >> general alexander characterized the attacks that were presented. when he says dozens, was he talking 24, 50, 100?

>> what are you asking again? >> bill alexander characterize the attacks that were prevented. he said there were dozens. is he talking 24, 50, 100? >> he wants to be exact. there are more than you think. we should have that shortly. he said monday. [indiscernible] what he wants to give us or the cases where this has stopped a terrorist attack, both here and in other places. he wants to be exact about the details, so we should have that monday. >> what happens next? >> what will happen next is [indiscernible] i have tasked director clapper to consider the program, to present some changes if he feels it necessary.

we will consider changes. we will certainly have legislation which will limit or prevent contractors from handling highly classified technical data and we will do some other things. i have said what i said. thank you. >> obviously you all know who we had here today. the gentleman i thought made a very good presentation and great detail about how the respective sections of the vice act work. they talked about some practical aspects, gave some examples of how things work, and i feel like everybody got their questions answered. >> did you really think about

the u.s. investigating [indiscernible] >> no, we did not discuss that. >> if the nsa or the obama administration wants to start declassifying plots as early as monday? >> we would like to declassifies much information as we can about specific instances, but the problem you have is that declassifying almost always leads to acknowledging of sources and methods. if we devolves sources and methods, we give a lot of -- the enemy a lot our information that we used to watch them. the white house is not told us exactly what they are going to do but i can tell you based on what we heard again today they

are going to be very careful in making a decision on it declassifying any information. >> chairman rogers was saying -- >> as a result of what mr. snowden has already disclosed, the bad guys are already changing their methods of operation. we knew that was bound to happen. as i have set on a couple of occasions, his disclosures are ultimately going to lead to us being less safe in america, because bad guys will be able to figure out a way around some of the methods that we used and that is likely to cost lives down the road. >> was their concern that china is aiding snowden or that there is a link between him and the chinese government? >> he is in hong kong, so obviously we are concerned about it, but we have no indication that he is connected with the chinese at all.

>> i don't know if what we need to do needs to be done legislatively or not, but it is clear we've got to do a better job of making sure that our top- secret clearances go only to those individuals that deserve it, and that we monitor all those people who have a top- secret clearance from time to time and review their cases to determine whether or not there's any reason to suspect that they may have compromised u.s. intelligence in some way. so i think there are some changes we are going to look at, but i don't know that it needs to be done legislatively. >> news is breaking about a no- fly zone inside of syria.

>> i have set for several weeks that doing nothing, continuing to do nothing is not an option. we know now that in excess of 100,000 people have been killed inside of syria and the united states has sat by and watch that happen. the president said a red line was the use of chemical weapons. we now know that chemical weapons have been used for almost a year by the syrian regime, and we have done nothing. i think it is time we acted a very serious way. if a no-fly zone is what they decide to do, i am sure our military has taken the right preparations for carrying out a successful operation, and i will >> robert mueller testified thursday in the last oversight hearing before stepping down in august.

this is what yet to say about how the nsa's data collection program might have affected the 9/11 plot. you can see the entire hearing online at c-span.org. before 9/11, that was an individual who came to be one of the principal hijackers. he was being tracked by the intelligence agencies in the far east. they lost track of him. the intelligence agencies had identified an al qaeda safe house in yemen. the safe house had a telephone number but they could not know who was calling in. we came to find out afterwards that the person who called is an safe house is in the united

states in san diego. if we had this program in place at the time, we would have been able to identify that particular telephone number. >> i am almost other time. >> i understand but i asked indulgence to understand. it is a critical point as to why we have program and how important it is. if we had a telephone number from yemen, we would match to the telephone number in san diego and identify him. one last point. the 9/11 commission indicated that investigations of him once he was identified could have yielded best evidence of connections to other participants and 9/11. their detention could have derailed the planet any case the opportunity was not there -- derailed the plan. at any case, the opportunity was there. >> the c-span video library has

reached a milestone. since its online launch in 2007, there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span programming, public affairs, history and nonfiction books totally free. a public service created by private industry. america's cable companies. -- on the next washington journal, the chief economist for analytics to discuss economic indicators including unemployment numbers, home sales. we will also look at the policy implications that -- of the census bureau's annual population estimates. alexaests will be jones and d'vera cohn. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the six-month anniversary of the shootings in

newtown, connecticut. in washington today, some of the families and victims -- families of the victims talked about reducing gun violence. this is 40 minutes. >> the following people were killed on december 14 due to gun violence. [reads names]

[reads names] all killed in the sandy hook massacre. now speaking, my sister, jillian soto. >> on friday, june 14, it will mark six months since my older sister was brutally murdered in her first grade classroom.

my sister vittori went to school schooloria went to that day toteach her first graders and was faced with the situation that she could have never imagine. a situation that most people will never have to face. around 9:35 a.m., an armed man walked into sandy hook elementary school and opened fire and kill took 26 people within the school. 20 of the people were 6 and 7- year-olds, and six educators. one of those educators was my older sister. i am here today to remind congress what happened to my family, to remind them of what keeps happening in america.

5000 more americans have died due to gun violence since december 14. and there still hasn't been any federal action to protect us from gone violence. just last week, more people were murdered in santa monica because a man who had access to a gun that was meant to kill. congress cannot continue to allow guns to be in hands of these madmen. now more families are going through the pain that my family is going through. americans have not forgotten what keeps happening. i would like to thank the brave representatives to stand behind me and who stand with the 90% of americans who support universal background checks legislation. i am here today with newtown action alliance and supporters who are in the process of delivering a letter signed by over 80 gun safety organizations across the nation representing over 10 million americans in

support of universal background check legislation. i urge congress to listen to the 90% of americans who support universal background checks and take immediate action. in action is unacceptable, as is the loss of so many innocent lives. thank you everyone who came out and everyone who is listening. we will not forget what happened to us. we will continue to fight until congress stands up and does something to make us safer from gun violence. now it is my pleasure to introduce senator harry reid.

>> the work that you are doing on this issue is very important. sometimes people have very, very short memories. prior to coming here, my last meeting was with the group of people who are working nationally to prevent suicide. there were a mother and father there from nevada with the others who have lost their son to suicide, a 21-year-old young man. the reason i mention that you is that those of us who experienced suicide in our lives understand how important it is to remember. my dad killed himself with a pistol. he was a relatively young man, especially as i get older.

we have to remember what took place in connecticut at that little elementary school, and can never take those names out of our minds. 26 little boys and girls and six educators. your responsibility is to make sure that the american people do not forget what happened there. i could see the tears out here as the names were being read, and i am here to tell you as the other members of congress who are behind me that we are not

going to give up the fight. when republicans voted against this legislation on the senate floor, they voted against 90% of the american people. the fight is not over. it is just beginning. i am hard-pressed to find another issue where 90% of the american people think it is the right thing to do. this is the issue. 90% of the american people feel that someone who has mental problems, severe mental problems, and is a criminal, should not be able to buy a gun. no wonder 9% of the people think this is the case. -- 90% of the people think this is the case. but i want everyone here to understand, the writing is on the wall. the republicans who voted against this, the writing is on the wall. and the democrats, the handful who voted against this.

in the senate, 90% of the democratic senators agreed with 90% of the american people. the republicans did not even get 10%. the writing is on the wall. background checks will pass the united states senate, it is only a question of when. i want to be very clear, though. in order to be effective, the bill that passed the senate must include background checks and

not a watered-down version of background checks. we are not going to let the forces of an extreme minority water down and damage the content of this bill. the force against this bill cannot hold out forever. we are close. there are conversations going on. they cannot stand in the way of 90% of the american people. so i say to each of you today, don't give up. we are not going to give up. the fight is right and is one that we are going to win. i will never forget the 26 deaths, but sadly, there have been thousands of others since then. the american people identify with what happened at that little elementary school in connecticut. is my pleasure to introduce -- we throw this around, my friend, but i am going to introduce my friend. we are forever friends, someone who has served sold -- shoulder to shoulder with me, and people who want to get something done in this country. i have had the good fortune to serve with a number of speakers and i am a student of history. as far as i am concerned, we have never, ever had a better speaker than nancy pelosi. [applause] >> thank you very much.

thank you for your generous introduction, but more importantly, for your strong commitment to making sure that we honor our oath of office to protect and defend the american people and our constitution. your stronger words and determination are ones that we in the house and my colleagues who are here and those in the senate will be hearing from know that what you said is music to our ears. really sad music, and it is a humbling experience to be here with some of the families of newtown. the soto family and how eloquently and beautifully they spoke about the tragedy and how determined they are to go forward.

the father of lauren russo. peace on earth has to begin with us, in our hearts and in our communities. so i thank the families returning your grief into action. the grief is still there, but the action is essential. your unimaginable loss, turning that into unsurpassed determination to carry on. their agenda is non-partisan. we are not backing down. this is not over.

in many ways we have begun another face on this fight. today the 5000 victims of gun violence since the newtown tragedy, these families and supporters are sending a clear message. let's honor the memories of every victim by ensuring that no other family is forced to endure such a terrible tragedy. for six months we have talked about a response to newtown. now we must act upon our promises. we must take inspiration from the families and he did moving words of the sandy hook promise. our hearts are broken, our spirit is not. we must pass legislation in the house and in the senate for gun violence prevention, most

notably now in the form of the background checks. it is something that will have a tremendous effect on safety, to protect and defend as what the newtown families are asking of us, that is what we must do in congress, and that is why employees to present to you a champion for this calls, senator blumenthal of connecticut. [applause] >> thank you, speaker pelosi, and thank you for your leadership over many, many years on this issue. thank you to harry reid, who has been an unshakable champion for

this cause. i have been with him over these past months and years, and not only is his mind, but his heart is in this cause. thank you most importantly to the families of newtown in the community, who have relived their grief, that unspeakable sadness, and made this calls it their mission. they have come here and demonstrated through the power of the courage and strength what it means to speak truth to power. i just want to urge all my colleagues in congress, and most especially in the senate, to please agree to meet with the newtown families. some of them have closed their doors or turn their backs. listening to them today in this forum, how could they refuse to hear out and meet with the newtown families and community? i urge them to do so.

>> the december 14 tragedy transformed america. it put us on an unstoppable trajectory toward gun violence prevention. there is a lot of talk these days about losing momentum, diminishing passion. we are here to say the momentum is not diminished. the passion is stronger, if anything. we lost the first boat, but we are going to win the last vote. the one who wins the last vote is the one who wins. [applause] eikenberry we will have another vote, and i believe that we will win it. we don't need converts among the american people. we need converse in the congress. the continuing mobilization an organization that door group are doing will turn the tide and carry the day. because they will convert our

colleagues who still have doubts or reservations and we will overcome those doubts and reservations. those conversations are on going right now. there is no need to transform this bill to achieve background checks and transform america and make it safer. i believe that we are within grasp, just a handful of votes, and we are moving forward in that effort. december 14 was a day of a searing sadness, but april 17 was a day of shame. you have heard here but i believe the american people

feel, in action is unacceptable, not only because of the 26 beautiful lives that were lost on that day, but also because of of the almost 5000 who have perished since then. they may not have been in the headlines, but the sadness for their families and loved ones and friends and neighbors is as palpable and important as it is for anyone. so i think today we should make no mistake. we had 55 votes in april. 55 votes ordinarily is a majority. we are going to win with 60 votes, but the 55 votes reflect the 9%, and it is a bipartisan 90%. there is nothing republican or democrat about saving americans from gun violence. that calls will be bipartisan and it will enable us to continue to stand up and speak out. make no mistake, the nra and special interests have been the

schoolyard bullies here. they have ruled. six months ago, this issue was thought to be untouchable. now our calls is unstoppable. we stood up to the schoolyard bullies. we will continue to stand up to them, and eventually we will beat them. in part, it is because of my colleagues who are not here today, and very importantly, my colleague, my friend and partner in this effort, senator chris murphy. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. the shortage commencement address that was ever given was given by winston churchill. it was this. never give up, never give up, never give up. we have a message to the nra, to the gun lobby, to the proponents of the status quo. we are never going to give up. we are never going to rest until we have done everything within

our power to make sure that another community, another family does not have to go through what newtown families are going through today. we are never going to give up until we have an answer to the 5000 families across this country who have lost loved ones to gun violence since september 14 of last year. there are some encouraging but fruitless discussions happening on the senate floor to try to revive a bill that passed but because of the senate rules did not make it to the house of representatives.

why is that happening? why are we going to get a second chance on the issue of gun reform when very few other issues get a second chance on the floor of the senate? we will give you two reasons and and i will pass along the microphone. one reason is standing behind us today. it is the indomitable spirit of the families of newtown, who have refused to take no for an answer. it's unconscionable that there are members of the house and senate that will not meet with these families. have the courage to look these families in the eye and tell them no. if you hear their story and hear their plea, they are about rigid there will be something unlocked in your heart that will get you to yes.

that is the first reason why we will have a second chance at this. the second is that serious for the first time ever a political infrastructure built around gun violence reform that never existed before. the nra used to play an election in a back in. no longer. members to cast the wrong vote in april will bear political consequences at the ballot box next year. it is this political infrastructure that has grown out of this tragic incident that will force people to do the right thing later this year. i am so glad to be here with my former leader in the house and my present leader in the senate. i have just been so proud every minute of my time in both chambers to be able to serve under their leadership. there is no one who has shown greater concern for the families of newotwn than they have. i am proud to introduce someone who was with senator blumenthal and me that awful afternoon who has spiritually and symbolically never left that place, the --ngresswoman placenewtown, congresswoman from newtown, elizabeth esty.

>> thank you to my friend, my colleagues, and my neighbor and to richard blumenthal and to nancy pelosi, who has done so much to encourage us in the house and to senator harry reid for his leadership. i particularly want to thank you, those of you here, the wonderful soto children, to the proud father of lauren, another one of the educators who was cut down on that fateful day and to the action alliance for your leadership, your courage, and efforts. that is why we are here today. i am so honored to represent these people. i am so honored to represent the brave people of newtown. mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, siblings, friends, neighbors -- a community that has endured unimaginable tragedy