[shouting] >> [inaudible] invest 1.2 million pounds last year and it has understand and social care as we pledged to do. government made a crisis in a indie social care. >> we could start with the money from labour's tax avoidance. that money that should be going into the care system. that's money that should be going into the national health service. this government has put 12 points 7 billion pounds extra into our nhs. that's how we're supporting care. that's how we're supporting hospitals but she can have a word with a hadow chancellor and with her later and say pay the taxes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as we approach the 25th

anniversary of the piper alpha disaster, will the prime minister join with me in recognizing the challenges we face in concerned to bring oil and gas ashore from the north sea, the skills and dedication of those who do it and the paramount importance of safety in ensuring that we don't continue to exploit this very? >> i joined honorable friend in praising the north sea oil and gas industry. it is a real jewel in the crown of the united kingdom economy. i think what's encouraging is that this year we're seeing a growth and production as a number of new fields and projects come on stream buddies right to say that at >> you have been watching prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. question time airs live every wednesday at 7 a.m. eastern when the house of commons is in session and again on sunday nights at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific.

watch any time at www.c- span.org, where you can find video of hast prime minister's questions and other public affairs programs. on monday, british foreign secretary william hague told members in the house of commons recent allegations they tried obtain data from private citizens were baseless. he added it was subject to proper statutory controls and safeguards. following the remarks, mr. haig took questions from members. an fairly it has fully explored.

>> i will make a statement on the legal framework. i am responsible for the work and the secret intelligence service. the home secretary is responsible for in my five area did in the last few days there of leaks anderies questions about the role of it. the u.s. administration has begun a review and to circumstances of the leak with the u.s. intelligence community.

president obama has said that the area is overseen by congress and they are committed to respecting the civil liberties of its citizens. to maintain the security of our own country and by providing a partial and misleading picture, they give rise to public concern. it is been the policy of british government not to comment on the detail of intelligence operations. and the house will therefore understand that i will not be drawn into confirming or denying any aspect of leaked information. i will be as informative as possible to give reassurance to the public and parliament. what the the british people to have confidence in our

intelligence agencies. i also wish to be very clear that i will take great care in this statement and in answering questions to say nothing that gives any clue to terrorists among criminals, or foreign threats as they seek to do harm to this country and its people. three issues have arisen in recent days. first, i would describe the action the government is taken. i will set up how our intelligence agencies work. i will describe how the law is upheld with respect to intelligence with the united states and deal with specific questions about the work. the intelligence security committee has received information and they will receive a few -- a full report tomorrow. kissing can who chairs the committee -- kensington who chairs the committee is headed to the u.s. they will see what action needs to be taken in light of the report. they will cooperate fully with the committee. i pay tribute to the members on all sides of the house. second, the isc work is based on democratic accountability and oversight.

the use of secret intelligence and the uk which effective government has worked to strengthen. the intelligence service act of 1994 and the regulation of powers act of 2000. the act to allow other agencies to seek authorization for their activities. i received hundreds of proposals every year. the proposals are detailed. they set up the planned operations and risks and intended benefits of intelligence. they include comprehensive legal advice describing the basis. it requires a warrant signed by me or another secretary of state. this is no casual process. every decision is based on legal advice.

it is necessary and carefully targeted. we judge them on that basis. considerations of privacy are at the forefront of our minds. i believe they will be on the minds of our predecessors. we balance individual policy -- privacy to safeguard the u.s. and its people. these have been difficult. we do not approve every proposal. on the authorization that we give is subject to independent review by its omission or and interception of communications commissioner. both of whom hold judicial office and report directly to the prime minister. they review the way a beast

decisions are made to assure their complaint with the law. they have full access to the information they need to carry out their responsibilities. the reports are publicly available. it is vital that we have this framework of democratic accountability and scrutiny. i have nothing but praise for the professionalism and dedication of the men and women. i know from my work with them how serious they take their obligations in the uk and international law. in the most recent reports, intelligent service commissioner said it is my belief that gsq1 members have the higher levels of integrity. this combination of needing a warrant for one of the most top members of congress decided on legal device and sub -- subsequent review and laments --

implements of an ethical framework has been increased provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability anywhere in the world. i want to set out how uk law is upheld with information received from the united states and to address the specific questions about the role of gs q1. gsq and its american counterpart has had a relationship that is unique. this relationship has been and remains essential to the security of both nations. it has stopped many terrorist and espionage lots against this country. it is saved many lives. the basic principles by which that operates has not changed over time. i wish to emphasize to the house

while we have experienced a. -- period over the past few years, the general framework for exchanging information with united states is the same under previous governments. the threats from terrorists and criminals has only increased the importance of our intelligence relationship with the united states. this was the case in the run-up to the olympics. the house would not be surprised that our counterterrorism rose to a peak in the summer of last year. it has been suggested that gsq is used to get around uk law and obtain information they cannot legally obtain in the united kingdom. i wish to be absolutely clear that this accusation is baseless. any data obtained dealing with

uk nationals is subject to proper statutory controls and safeguards including the relevant sections of the human rights act and the regulation of investigatory powers act. it is subject to independent oversight. and to scrutiny by the intelligence and security committee. to uphold uk law at all times even when dealing with information from outside the united and him. the combination of a robust legal framework, responsibility, as courtney by the service -- scrutiny by the service commissioner should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended. this does not mean we do not have to work to strengthen confidence whenever we can while maintaining the secrecy needed for intelligence work. was strengthen the role through

an actor this year to include oversight operations and finances. with introduced the national security council -- we have introduced the national security council. to make information available including diplomatic reports. all this information is careful in deciding the overall strategy. mr. speaker, there is no doubt that secret intelligence including gsq is vital to our country. they helps us to figure out threats. to prevent serious and organized crime and protect our economy. they disrupt complex plots against our country such as when individuals travel abroad to get terrorism training. i support the work of our armed forces overseas and to protect the lives of our men and women

in uniform. they help to protect other country to build the capacity and willingness to disrupt terrorism in their country before it threats reaches the united kingdom area we should never forget the threats are launched secretly. new tact is our developed a secretly. countries who plan attacks do so in secrecy. what we used to combat these must be remain secret. they must always be lawful. the citizens of this country -- if this is of this country concede that care taken, and the strict controls in place to ensure that the law and our democratic values are upheld. if takeaway this is the integrity and professionalism of the men and women of our intelligence agency who are

among the finest service that our nation has, i believe they would be real short by how we go about his work. the british people can be confident in the way we keep them safe. would-be terrorists, those seeking to spy against his country, are those part of organized crime should be aware that this country has the capability and our new ship to protect its citizens against a full range of threats in the 21st century area will always do so in accordance with our laws and values with determination. >> next, a look at the operations of the fisa court. after that, a senate hearing into the duplication of federal technology programs.

then border security. , the center for strategic and international studies examines u.s. national guard capability and future operations. speakers include the directors of the army and air national guard along with the vice chief of the national guard euro, the head of the national guard euro will provide opening remarks. >> we think it is critical that any administration keeps in mind we need to be incentivized to continue to invest in the infrastructure that is the core of every product we deliver, and if we are going to be a world leader in the delivery of high-speed data, if we are going to have the most capable wi-fi access whites, it is key the

regulatory environment in which we operate actually fosters as opposed to inhibit further investments in that era get cracks should we have more options for consumers? that is something i think we are hopeful and have worked on. we have already got more than we have had ever before. and the question is the government's role in negotiation and my viewutors, is this is best served in business relationships, not in government laws and mandates, and we are very arrest that so. it is an important subject and one we want to be part of that dialogue. >> a look at the video marketplace with the leaders of two of the largest communications companies. >> now a discussion on the operation of the foreign intelligence surveillance court known as the fisa court.

this is wordy five minutes. >> we want to welcome the professor of law from georgetown university and the author of the cost of counterterrorism and liberty. thanks for being with us. let's go back to this law. >> it was a response to the abuses of the collection from american citizens. there were other projects they were developing. we had various agencies at the

congress and fisa was 's response to try to get a handle on operations and to prevent them from collecting wholesale intelligence from american citizens. host: explain how this works. guest: the chief justice of the supreme court of points initially 7, now 11 judges given to the court, drawn from around the country by seven different circuits, three have been revived within washington, d.c. because of the increased use of 9/11 emergency orders. it does have particular functions that a service, primarily reviewing applications

for four kinds of surveillance. the first is electronic, the traditional use. the second is typical searches, when the government wants to engage in physical searches. there is something called a trap and trace that involves envelope information for telephone calls with orders and business records that were expanded under the act. when the government wants to engage, they apply to this court for orders to allow them to proceed. host: what do they need on an as needed basis? is there an informal session? guest: each judge serves approximately one week out of the 11, essentially there is one on col. sitting on session, the court has not been on until very recently and congress subsequently made it possible for them to be on, basically one judge will consider an application for surveillance. they will decide whether or not to grant it.

it does not function in the same way. host: all of that placed there by john roberts? guest: each judge serves for seven years and at the conclusion of which they may not serve again. they get one chance of sitting on the bench and after seven years they are essentially turned out and cannot serve again. host: as you look at the " -- the court and study the implications, what questions do you have? guest: murieta. the office is secret and until recently all of their proceedings were done in ex parte. host: which means? guest: secretly and without counsel. they will go into the court and look for in invitation for surveillance.

that information is not public. there is an appellate court that is part of the process but there have only been two opinions issued by that court in the history of the fisa, where we had the four intelligence court review. it is brought about by the chief justice in that quarter of you as well. host: general keith alexander testified this week with patrick leahy on information gleaned from an essay under the fisa

rule and the information that has been gathered and where that information goes from here. [video clip] >> these are dozens of terrorist events that the help to prevent. >> we have caught millions from the records on 215. dozens of them have proved crucial or critical, is that right? >> dozens here and abroad, disrupting for contributing to the destruction. >> they have been critical? >> that is correct. host: let me follow up on a

couple points, tomorrow we will get more information because some of these details will be declassified? when it comes to the fisa rule in the nsa, explain the process, how quickly can the court give a response and how wide can the ruling be? guest: one of the issues with your first point, the information being released tomorrow concerning these attacks, it is not a systemic reporting of what is actually happening. that is information released for a political purpose for the outrage being expressed across the nation, it is about their lives. my concern about this is a does nothing about giving information over time about non-motivated information's saying that this is the court is operating.

as a scholar you would be suspect of anything released regarding political pressure, you would want to get better insight into how it functions for accountability. one of the reasons for this is because this court in particular has a low rate of applications. to your second point the order was introduced under , so this isact what we have recently seen about verizon, the collection of disney's records, including calls of a purely local nature. a courtld have to apply order and grant a court order

for business records to be collect did. from what has what is extraordinary about that is the whole purpose of the foreign intelligence surveillance act was to prevent information from being collected on u.s. citizens domestically in some sort of mass operation. that was the point of fisa in response to the church committee in 1974. 1976, the hearings continued. then we have the foreign intelligence surveillance act. what is extraordinary is that the legislation design to prevent the wholesale surveillance of americans actually was then used following the patriot act and the foreign intelligence surveillance amendments act, it is now being used to do precisely that, to collect metadata under the tangible goods or business records provision. host: we are talking about the fisa rule. our guest is laura donahue of

georgetown university. this point -- is that too broad a generalization? guest: i think that is too broad a generalization in the sense that in order to prepare an application for the court, the government has to go through a number of steps. you have to have officers of the government, high ranking that sign off on this. i have to specify -- it is different depending on the type of surveillance -- electronic surveillance is a different kind of application then pen register, trap and trace, for which there is a much lower standard. understandably because electronic surveillance deals with the substantive conversations that are intercepted. you get the conversations themselves, not just the envelope information. it goes through the executive branch. it is not just one person. it is the executive deciding this has to be done.

congress dictates the procedures. then one judge does make the call. there are very few appeals because generally the government wins. there are very few instances where the foreign intelligence surveillance court has actually rejected an application before it. there are more instances where they have asked the government to go away and redo the application and come back to them. again you do not have any insight into this. we know earlier during the presiding judge -- the surveillance court has a presiding judge which acts like the chief judge of the court that it would in a district court system -- in one instance, the court expressed concern that in 75 of the applications misleading or information had been included. you do not have the details on that or how they came to that conclusion. you do see a shift depending on who the presiding judge is in the number of applications that might be flat out denied.

under judge royce lambert, you do not see many denied. under another judge, you see more denied. now we are in the new presiding judge that has recently begun. we do not know how many this -- we are talking about two or three or four out of tens of thousands of applications over time. host: you observe the fisa court. you have written about it. do you trust that the checks and balances that many people including yourself have talked about are in place? guest: the problem with the court is they do not see it as their duty. in one of the few opinions that has been released by the court in 2008, the presiding judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court made it clear that they will be more deferential to classification and to the executive branch's decision to classify materials. then it would be in the district

court, which already has a high standard of deference. we're talking about a court where there is no adversarial proceedings or very few. there are more that are allowed. again it is only at the margins where the executive branch ultimately makes the determination of what the programs are that it is good to be introducing. it is subject to very little oversight. even when senators and congressional members are informed, their hands are tied. we saw senator ron wyden expressing great concern about how the foreign intelligence surveillance act was being used, but he was unable to publicly elaborate on his concerns. to say that the foreign intelligence surveillance act, because it has an article three court attached to it and it is in accordance with legislation passed by congress, so that it adequately reflects the checks and balances, i think that falls

short of understanding how the process works. what we really see is a steady expansion in terms of executive power. host: president carter signed into law the fisa act which was passed by congress in 1978. under the provision of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, there are seven members of this court that are responsible for the issue of war and applications. there are 11 members of the court, and here is a list of all of them and their terms, when they expire. we will hear from beretta from new york city, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to find out whether or not we have any protection in fisa or under the patriot act to keep the police from retaliating against a citizen for some private grudge. also, whether or not fisa or the patriot act allows the police to shut your computer down, to shut it down and confiscate all your information and not give you the right to use your computer at all.

host: on those two points we will get a response. guest: the foreign intelligence surveillance act is an instrument for the federal government, not for local and state governments. local police forces, for instance, that is not their tool to use, and it is not their information that is gathered in this way. what happens at a federal level is the question becomes, what happens to the information once minimizationted? procedures that are adopted by the government are reviewed by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. these procedures are not public. they are classified. we do not really know what the minimization procedures are. prism appears to have been done under section 702. the court reviews only the targeting procedures. these are classified. we have no idea exactly what those are, what happens to the

information. we do know that a lot of information obtained from fisa warrants by attorney general guidelines issued by attorney general ashcroft just after 9/11, that that information can be kept and examined for further information, building up more information. this is in fact what the metadata is aimed at doing, which is you obtain the information and then you analyze it to look at patterns. we know that is happening. further in terms of what happens to that information, who sees it, how it is used, efforts to obtain that in court cases have routinely failed. even the procedures themselves are classified. host: we direct your attention to the "washington post." an extensive piece -- the one question that keeps

coming up is the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution -- is this unreasonable search and seizure? guest: i would argue that this violates principles of the constitution. it essentially bypasses the fourth amendment restrictions that have otherwise been applied, for instance, in criminal law. under criminal law, you have to have probable cause that an individual has committed or is committing or is about to commit a criminal offense in order to obtain a warrant, is issued by a disinterested magistrate or judge. the idea is that this protects our rights under the fourth amendment. national security has always been treated differently. in the sense that weaker standards have applied. under fisa, you do not need probable cause that an individual is committing a crime, but that an individual is a foreign power or an agent of a

foreign power, including the possibility of being engaged in international terrorism. you also need probable cause that an individual is going to use the facilities that are going to be placed under surveillance. it now includes data sets. instead of saying that this particular phone line can be put under surveillance, the argument is that this data set can be put under surveillance and mined to generate further information. in my view, that is a slight of hand that is an end run around the fourth amendment protections that would otherwise accompany our ability to go about our daily lives without undue interference or surveillance from government entities. host: all of that coming to various data centers, including this one in iowa. gathered by google, yahoo, microsoft and other silicon valley giants. this story on nsa surveillance

great we are focusing on the fisa act. archie joins us from ohio with attorney laura donahue. caller: hello, steve. you just took my question right out from under me on fourth amendment. my concern is that the specificity of the information under the fourth amendment specifically -- reasonable sources or reliable sources -- it does seem to be totally avoided based on what you said, based on what is in the fisa. i guess a side question that i had, and you referred to it a couple of times, was that very few applications have been denied. i read somewhere -- this was in "the new york times" or some other publication -- dozens of

applications have been approved over the 35 years of fisa, but less than 10 have been denied. host: stay on the line. let me put some figures on the table. you can come back and comment. in 2012, according to the justice department, there were 1856 requests made to the court -- the most requests came in 2007 with just over 2300. while 1005 requests were made in 2000, 932 were made in 2001. to come back to your point. caller: ok, laura, if you could confirm that and informing that less than 10 have been denied in the entire history of fisa, and thousands have been approved. if you could answer that, and i have a follow-up. guest: yes, that is consistent with my numbers. in total, fewer than 10 have been approved overtime, whereas

tens of thousands have been granted. host: fewer than 10 have been denied. guest: yes, whereas tens of thousands have been granted. one of the arguments for this that the court makes is that the justice department, when they come before them, they go to great lengths to make sure that those applications are sufficient. as well as the fact that often times the judges with whom the department of justice might have relationship, they say back, that is not sufficient anymore. they withdraw it and rework the application or drop the application altogether. there is an informal process at work. that is the argument on the other side, that this actually works. you do see some shifts that occur over time with some presiding judges issuing more, and you see more denials under their tenure than under other judges.

the fourth amendment point i would like to return to is the point you raised about caps -- that was in 1967, you had an individual entering a telephone booth, and the government attached a listening device to the outside of the booth. this was a fundamentally game changing case for the supreme court in the fourth amendment jurisprudence with the idea that the fourth amendment came to protect people, not places. people, as you referred to in your question, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that expectation is both objective and subjective. then there are fourth amendment requirements that attend. i would argue that in the case of all of our metadata, if you look at prism, google, facebook, all of these organizations, aol, these are the who's who of the social network of of the 21st century. it is very hard to live our lives without having interactions with these

entities. if you look at that and verizon and the other telecommunications providers, those cases that have been reported on, do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy that all of the things that we do online and all of the telephone calls we make, including local calls, that that information is not being collected and analyzed by the government? i think this goes to the heart of the question which is, whether these programs follow the fourth amendment. i would argue that at a certain point, yes, they do. they most certainly run contrary to the whole purpose of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, which was created and passed by congress specifically to prevent this type of activity. host: let me go back -- are you still on the line? caller: i still have some more. let's get specific. about one hour ago, it was said

that there was a brother overseas who was a muslim. he had a phone call with him. let's say it was an e-mail -- to me, that is a personal e-mail from me to my brother. i would expect that to be a private communication. if i am on facebook or twitter or something on social media, i understand how that could be in the public domain, a private e- mail between me and my brother, if he was muslim and in saudi arabia, i would expect that there should be the fourth amendment that could come into play, that would confiscate that or allow the government to confiscate that. host: we will stop you there. only 10 minutes left. we will get a response. guest: a couple of points in response to that. if you think about u.s. mail and the types of protections that are built up around u.s. mail precisely for the reasons that you note, or is a huge difference between that and how we seem to treating electronic medications.

part of the reason for that goes to the idea of third-party data, that we do have a significant amount of jurisprudence built up around the idea that if you give a third party information, that information, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. what you are arguing is that this case is closer to the u.s. mail and further away from the way it has been considered, which is as electronic data. in that case, then there are a couple of ways the court could proceed. it could proceed under a mosaic theory of privacy, a theory we saw recently under the case of u.s. versus jones. a shadow majority in that case expressed unease about the idea of gathering massive amounts of information on american citizens and what that would amount to. the mosaic theory of privacy. or you could look to the majority in that case, where justice scalia noted that there had been a trespass and placing gps chip on the alleged drug dealers, on his wife's car,

which is what that case related to. you could argue there has been a form of electronic trespass that has occurred. that offers ways to move forward. the last thing i would add is that under the fisa amendments act, section 702, it allows for the collection of this information when it is targeting non-us persons based overseas. if these programs like the ones outlined in prism, if these programs are actually targeted at non-us persons, based overseas, then congress specifically contemplated this and passed measures allowing the executive branch to do it. we end up in a position where the government appears to have been acting within the contours of the law, they follow the procedures, -- we do not have all the information yet, but given the benefit of the doubt that they did follow this, and

yet it still raises a very troubling fourth amendment thats really run contrary to the whole purpose of the statutes enacted in the first place. host: mike lee, republican of utah, and jeff merkley put forth a bill that would declassify a lot of this information. janet hook wrote about it this week, saying that a change is unlikely, quoting senator dick durbin of illinois, calling it "an uphill battle." guest: this is the same uphill battle that congress faced in 1978 good if you go back and read the debates then, you see a very cantankerous debate. arguing that that should be declassified and the information should be public. we have seen with regard to title, there is an extraordinary

array of information that has been produced by the government for ordinary search warrant's that gives us great insight into how that process works. in my view, there are many ways in which that could be done for fisa, which is -- which is not currently being done. congress could introduce new legislation to protect communications of american citizens and frankly of congressional members, because it is not just the other people that this applies to, but it applies to congress as well. host: our guest is laura donahue of georgetown university. linda joins us from utah, good morning. caller: i really appreciate your show. what scares me is, how can a court possibly be a balance of power like fisa? host: let's go to a tweet --

guest: the bush administration actually bypassed fisa and filed the terrorism surveillance program -- when that became public, there was an immediate response. in 2007, we saw reports that actually what happened was the government went back and got orders consistent with the protect america act -- that is one of only two review cases that have actually been released by the court of review. they say, not that you have gone back and gotten the order for this, this type of surveillance is acceptable. whether that is a balance of power, i would agree with you, linda. what we are seeing is a rapidly expanding executive power that is occurring in washington, d.c.. i think it is to our detriment not to put more effective oversight and more effective checks on that and to go back to the same concerns that marked

the introduction of this legislation in the first place, which is what happens to a society when you have wholesale surveillance made possible for the mass accretion of information on u.s. citizens. host: in addition to her work as a professor of law at georgetown, our guest is the director of the georgetown center on national security and the law. she has studied at dartmouth college and also at the university of ulster and northern ireland. she earned her law degree from stanford university. michael is next from west virginia. good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. i would like to make a statement, the federal information security act -- i work for the government for 30 years, and we are in the electronic age and things change. fisa is a very important tool for the federal government, for all agencies. when it is properly utilized and properly managed, it is a very

effective tool. yet very few applications are turned down because the applications are complete, accurate, and precise and they are applied for to a judge to get surveillance or to get an ex parte. it is very good. that is my statement. my question is, i worked for the government for 30 years, and i worked in the office of safeguards and disclosure. every single agency in the federal government has an office of safeguards and disclosure. what those offices are, when you are properly trained and managed, they are very effective tools that actually go out and review all federal agencies as to what they are doing. who has access? why do they have access? how many people have access? what does management do? who gives access to these people

to look at records and things of that nature? host: thanks for the call, michael. it is the foreign intelligence surveillance court. guest: the office of safeguards and procedures, those offices you are referring to you provide on important function within the executive branch itself. what you are suggesting in terms of the importance of fisa, michael, i would agree with you that it is terribly important that we are able to understand the types of threats we are facing and able to respond to these threats in an effective manner. it is also important for us to be able to understand what the government is doing, particularly as it impacts our citizens lives. for me, that is the basis of what it means to have a democracy. how can you elect a representative if you do not know what they are doing? the challenge lies in finding the right balance between those. there is little question in my

mind that the fisa process is opaque to the outside. it is very difficult to tell what is happening within it. when we rely on traditional oversight mechanisms like intelligence committees in congress whose hands are also tied in many regards, then when the court itself expresses an even greater deference to the executive branch, then other courts in the system, it does give one pause and suggests that maybe there would be other ways. these offices might be one way to do it within the executive branch. there might be other ways. there are ways in the united kingdom where they have numerous checks on surveillance authorities that we do not have in the united states. there might be numerous things that could be done to ensure that we can continue to operate effectively to counter what is a very real threat, but to do so in a way that is cognizant of the values that animate the country. host: can you highlight the difference between pre-2001 the

fisa act imposed and post-9/11? guest: there is an enormous difference. between 2008-2012, there were about 8600 applications, two of which were denied in whole or in part. that is in the last five years. we have seen this increase in the use of fisa. we saw twice the number of fisa applications in 2006 as in 2001. they doubled. if you look at business records between 1998-2001, there is only one order granted between 1998- 2001. that was following oklahoma city.

since 2001, -- actually since the patriot act -- we have seen the business records provision steadily expanding. there were only 13 in 2008. by 2011, there were 205 of these orders issued per year. in 2012, there were 212. anyone of these orders can obtain millions of records, as we saw from the order that was published in "the guardian." if that is accurate and that is the order, any one of these orders can obtain millions of records. the idea that we now have -- host: it is a wide swath. guest: the idea that we have hundreds of these granted per year -- congress ties the court's hands -- the court is required to grant these orders if certain criteria are met -- to talk about the court being a check somehow on the executive branch, all it does is make sure that the executive branch has marked the appropriate boxes in

regard to the collection of that information. host: if you were going after some person and you have a court order, how long does that order stay in place? is it unlimited or is there a time limit, six months, one year? guest: for electronic surveillance, there is a time limit depending on whether the target is a u.s. person or a non-us person. if it is a u.s. person or lawful person or corporation headquartered in the united states, that qualifies as a u.s. person. there are different time limits whether it is electronic surveillance or physical search or tangible items or pen register, trap and trade. they differ depending on whether the target is a u.s. person or a non-us person. host: laura donahue of georgetown university and the author of the book "the cost of counterterrorism: power, politics, and liberty." thank you very much for being part of the conversation.>>

tomorrow, a reporter round table with ian swanson and rebecca sinderbrand. deputy adviser for counterterrorism discusses nsa surveillance programs and the case against edward snowden. and daniel weiss for the center of american progress talks about the review of federal disaster spending. "washington journal," law that 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> next, a senate hearing into the duplication of federal information technology programs. then a house hearing on immigration and border security. after that, q and a with politico reporter patrick gavin. back as abigail adams and martha washington, you find first ladies played an

active role in the white house. in the campaigns it took to get there. abigail adams was basically a campaign strategist for her husband. she helped advise him on who to woo to win election. who he had to keep in his cabinet. they would talk incessantly about the politics of the day and the legislation that needed to be passed. which senators and congressmen he could count on, and what he needed to do to win support. >> john roberts, author of the book "rating the first ladies," takes a look at our nation's first ladies as political partners with their husbands rather than wives and mothers. monday night on c-span. a discussion on duplicative federal i.t. programs with chiefn van rogal, the

information officer for the office of management and budget. he testified before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee on tuesday. this is two hours. our next witness is a joining address ongoing withts to look at waste respect to federal information technology and the role chief information officers can and should lay in the process. our staff in putting this hearing together. thank you for coming. this hearing today because, to put it simply, when it comes to information technology the federal government needs to do a better job of managing its considerable investments.

just by quoting one of our colleagues. this is his statement. poor information technology management is one of the biggest threats to the government and treasury because it leaves government programs susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. tom coburnomething said or claire mccaskill said or i said. this is something that bill: said. he was a senator. those are the words he spoke in ,995 when he testified before i think this committee. when it was the committee and government affairs. he was testifying on behalf of legislation he introduced called information technology management reform act. 18 years ago. that bill, i have no doubt all the witnesses on this panel are quite familiar with it.

he created position of the agency -- it created the position at agencies of chief information officers. was ahen a blackberry fruit, a tweet was something only birds did, and google was only a very big number. today we live in aphones, and t. -- the morehange things change the more they stay the same. the chief information officers and the federal government waste and amount of money on i t -- when the in 1996 proposal became law, the federal spent $35 million per year on federal systems. today we spend $80 billion per year. i would ask today's witnesses, with all the money we spend on

information technology, are we getting what we are paying for? can agency management -- managers -- manage the taxpayers' dollars -- and effectively? i am afraid the answer to the question has to be no. frome many of the problems 1995. of information technology systems. wasteful and duplicative investments, billions of dollars on an outdated legacy system. seek --ts of agencies the existing options for other regions. and as i mentioned -- the more things change, the more they stay the same. to address the problems in 2004 -- there was a new initiative which required chief operating

officers across agencies to review other systems and eliminate areas of miscommunication. they met with each agency to discuss the potential systems and investments that would be aligned to the agency's missions. this has identified more than $100 million in spending reductions from 2013-2015. the chief ofo have information officer here with us today to tell us about the first version of the portfolio status. i understand that you have responsibilities -- the i am hoping that he will stay actively engaged in the portfolio process because i believe your participation in those meetings with the chief officer it is important to getting us the results that we want. one of the key takeaways is that

-- the manner in which many deal with the information technology investment. that arehe act -- frequently not recognized as distributors. the agency. many of them act independently. as a result of the departments are not able to take a view of their investments which results in duplication and missed opportunities. the interested to hear from panel. i know how to say your name. the panel.from and mr. bateman about their experiences at large. that finish my statement?

this is what he said. we must also understand the statute. this is half the battle and the other part is the management culture and agencies -- and the bureaucratic process. of agencyvel management must understand how this can change -- and the croats -- cultural changes critical in changing the way the government approaches their needs -- and this highlights the fact that -- our job is not finished once the bid but -- once the bill is passed. sleeves and up our do the oversight necessary on this committee and others to ensure that the law is being implemented properly. it is often congressional oversight that lets leaders know where our priorities lie,

breaking through the resistance. to turn to him for what ever comments he would like to make. therewelcome all of you, are four or five problems in front of us. ofing done this number solve we keep trying to the same problems. crux of it. you are well intentioned and we are well intentioned, but they're not doing what we ask the to do, and even then -- research and guidelines -- in four or five areas they will undercut the information officer and -- by allowing them to computerher than the

people in charge of the programs, this is the first problem i see. i will go into detail as we go through the questions. is -- wed problem, don't have real transparency, we do have this in one department. very rarely do we get the face, department of homeland security. but if you look at what they have done, they know what they are doing, they know how many that they have, and know how much money they have spent. you cannot do that anywhere else in the federal government. we like transparency. lack a good metrics. -- good metrics. the dashboard is a farce. at computered

programs, at the pentagon, and according to the dashboard, they are doing fine. this is the opposite of what is actually happening. half of the money that we spend goes through the pentagon. half of this is wasted every year. half of this is wasted every year. the dashboard and shows no problems with the pentagon's program. just like they show no problems in proper payments. they don't have any idea whether they have a problem, or if they have improper payments, which goes back to the pentagon -- you will never control the pentagon with numbers and accountability -- to get this done. the fourth area. this is the communication of what actually happens.

some represented here today actually know. but when you actually get to work on this, some of the secretaries and people inside the agencies don't like it because there is accountability coming. and they get thrown out. two of which, recently. and they were doing a good job. but because other priorities other than transparency and good management -- take precedence, this goes back to the first problem. you will not give them the authority to do what they need to do. have read the testimony and looked at all of this and hope to have a great discussion. but there ought to be changed out of this oversight committee, in terms of transparency, the authority that they need to make decisions. and create the transparency

associated with that, so this can be measured. my compliments to the department of homeland security for a time line. we can actually see the management. make isl point i would that we had these expected things coming out of the data center, those are not materialize because if we had we areg -- savings, spending it somewhere else and this is less than what we hope to achieve through the latest iteration of this. we're actually going backwards. of $80 billion per year -- which is a conservative estimate, at least one-third of this is not effectively spent. we can do better. this is $24 billion. this is 30% of the sequestered.

everyone talks about the sequestered. but there is plenty of money in this government. fraudillion in waste and and stupidity. we have to give you the ability to go after it and make smart decisions. of the the vast majority executives in our government. trust is congress to treat them -- and give them authority and hold them accountable. and hopefully we can make some steps and get some learning through communications that well -- david has been greater what he has done through the years, and almost every question i asked you are last him what he thinks about it. that is how we learn the best. big problems.

they are getting worse. the effort is being made. i am not saying it is not. job than a far better we are doing. i thank you for being here. thank you. -- int he has said context, the $24 billion was one-third of the money we have spent -- in the ballpark. this is in one year. this week we had a farm bill -- an overhaul of the agriculture. $24 billion over 10 years. this is the equivalent of doing that every year for the next 10 years. 1/4 trillion dollars in real money. say is ifhing i would

the department of health and human services -- if they can serve as an example -- the rest of us can, too. we have someone out there providing a good example. we're happy you are here to talk about this. ofcan i just have a moment disagreement with my chairman? we say this saves $24 billion. savings -- it will not be there as the profit goes down. politicians in washington put this out as fact. this is based on the hearings we have had all year, knowing how much they weigh. at the not even looking other departments. the efforts you are doing, we did save some money. but we did not come close to saving $24 billion.

they are the ones used for these things and we will see. to briefly introduce each of you. as the u.s.nted chief information officer in august 2011. prior to disposition he served in u.s. agencies for national development and the federal communications commission -- before joining the government. he has served microsoft corp. where he worked closely -- with bill gates. the next witness -- serves as the chief information officer of the u.s. department of commerce, and the department of cia. he is responsible for the portfolio across the commerce department. as theiously served chief operating officer of the

institute of technology -- and this is the chief information officer with the department of health and human services. where his emphasis has been on improvement -- comes the technology investments. house andthe white entrepreneur in residence, on assignment. and david -- is no stranger to our committee. he is the director of information technologies -- and the government accountability for a largeonsible portion of the i.t. investigations, in the public and private sectors. them and wet with look forward to your comments. we look forward to our questions and conversation. >> faq. good morning, chairman and

members. thank you for this opportunity to testify in the efforts to manage the federal government's investment in information technology. during my 20 years in the private sector i learned firsthand the power of technology -- and i have seen the impact innovation has on society. i focus every day on improving core services. while also cutting costs. acting deputy director of management -- i bring the same vision with me to drive innovation and the american accountabletering and transparent government with better service for the american people. current expectations underscore the need for efficiency in government though they make a small portion of government spending. these are across agencies and are central to everything that we do.

we must ensure that the government maximizes the return on investment and drives investment and establishes a trusted foundation for securing in protecting the assets and information and we must manage our investments to deliver results for the most important customer, the american people. data andagement is in incentives. ais is why in march 2012 in shaded the portfolios to identify common areas of spending to reduce duplication and lower costs. i conducted a series of face-to- face introductions with leadership -- and rather than the individual investments, which took a broad and horizontal approach. componentshe agency -- in the quantitative data, to benchmark the agency's against their peers.

nearly 100elded opportunities to consolidate or eliminate redundant investments. with savings for the next three years. reportedencies have $300 million putting us at of the target. as we expand the portfolio -- we expect the goals to expand and continue to drive the results. portfolioy had the -- streamlined the data collection and analytical capabilities with consistent reporting to hold the agencies accountable for the goals of 2012. the initial portfolio -- continues his work, focusing on providing agencies with tools managed with strategic investment. there has never been a more crucial time to make a smart data andt with big

mobile providing new opportunities for transforming how we live and function as a society. that provide opportunities to transform government and we show that there remains tremendous opportunity to improve the management of federal i.t. and we will continue the management of better service, and greater efficiency. i appreciate the committee's interest in -- and your support, thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you, sir. please proceed. the staff, i am happy to have been invited here today, on the ongoing -- department of commerce information technology and investment. i have been a chief information officer for three years, and for three years before that i was the ceo of the institute of

technology and in my years i spent much of my time working to improve education and the government organizations that i was supporting. taken a variety of steps related to its investments -- as well as improving the investments -- the efficiency of commerce. both generally and specifically in the area of i.t. congress has increase the oversight of these investments with the program evaluation and risk-management, with the i.t. board and the i.t. tech stat reviews. year, rebecca blank recognized the cio authority. of directed me in my role federal management policy, issued in agreement -- in june

of last year. i had a greater role with architectural standards, and the services with the i-team investments -- i.t. investments. they have provided new support for many initiatives i will be talking about today. this has led to a broad push of shared services. the written testimony includes several examples implemented within the bureau, and implementation of cross service and models is extended beyond individual services covering the services.i.t. they have continued their full services tof i.t. the department in my office.

the department level, the commerce enterprise and monitoring operations initiative is currently in implementation to the u.s. monitoring infrastructure across -- and we are expecting to establish the operation security that will provide national capabilities and improved our ability to respond to cyber security incidents. these shared services initiative and we have several bureau levels -- that have been closed and consolidated -- with all the occupants of the building. equipment thata belongs to the smaller bureaus that have been located in the independent manage facilities. congress has made use of the services to improve spending --

and we had over 100 contracts for purchasing personal computers. we replace those with a single contract to support the entire department, saving 35% for every desktop and laptop computer we purchase. sourcingof other vehicles have taken place and several examples were provided. the strategic source contracts go beyond cost savings, with significant improvement -- and staff resources. this allows the existing acquisitions staff to focus on the local requirements and the mission-unique requirements. rather than focusing on commodity investments and multiple or positions. in order to maintain a department wide focus -- on the portfolio management, my office and all of the commerce bureaus have been asked to do reporting

in the quarterly performance updates. the secretary and the deputy secretary cover these oriented measures including of dates on implementation shared services and strategic sourcing and improvements to security. and if so pleased to talk about the commerce -- we recognize that many more opportunities lie ahead of us, and we intend to aggressively pressed forward to pursue these opportunities. the benefits we have realized are merely a representative of more fundamental changes in i- team management in commerce. leadership works to take all of the greatest challenges, better empowerment and decision making for the efficiency to improve

the effectiveness of piety spending across all federal agencies. we have created a foundation for sweeping changes to how this is being managed. the result of these portfolio management efforts are just being realized and expect to grow over time. >> good morning, ranking member i am frank bateman. atm the assistant secretary the department of health and human services. the work of this committee is crucial for the management of government resources. information technology is deeply ingrained in the business of fhs. the department of health and

human services is a large, knowledge based organization, using fundamental knowledge to delivery with applied research and the regulation of drugs and devices, with the reimbursement of medical services. are managed by a distinct operating division. each division has its own officer. given the current structure. my goal is to have a holistic view of the entire department -- and my responsibility is to ensure this is being carried out across the department -- supported by a cost-effective infrastructure. i believe this affords me a huge meat -- a unique vantage to streamline operations. just as importantly, because we are a knowledge enterprise there is great value in collaboration and the labeling information --

forlow freely to others -- public health and human services. we have seen some notable exceptions with the infrastructure in our department. we announced the federal grant process, with an authority to operate. with the authority to operate, we can quickly and confidently use amazon services for our own business needs, knowing this means -- this will meet federal security standards. we have done a thorough job of a robust process and other departments replicate our approach -- so with this one project we have created real value for the entire federal government. as other cloud service providers are approved, we will create a

competitive environment that will ultimately benefit the american taxpayer. this is a good example of providing the infrastructure i spoke about. when it comes to streamlining operations, we are excited about the advances we are making, and most importantly is the recently across fhs.-- the majority of resources are and to our operating -- that is a key point i would like to emphasize, the best decisions are made when we collaborate with the executive ownership. these three committees bring together business leaders to take a functional view of health and human services, and administrative and management.

to provide functional oversight across some of these priorities we are driving at hhs but i would like to recognize the technology direction initiatives, including those i just described. portfolio staff is proving to be a valuable tool. as with everything i am talking about, knowledge and transparency are key to success. the first iteration of or folio made-- of portfolio staff clear that we share in a clear and consistent way. it provided a mechanism to drive a conversation within the about departmentwide consolidation activities. once our most comprehensive consolidation efforts is the higher to retire id program.

integrating a role and shared and leave functions. we are outsourcing a commodity activity and getting a better solution than we have in house today. by the completion of this effort, we will have at least 10 legacy systems and we will have consolidated multiple conflicting hr data sources into a single system of record. portfolio staff helped us push forward on this effort. we are evaluating the process of consolidating our sixth existing e-mail systems and moving them to a cloud e-mail provider, which we expect could have comparable benefits to the higher to retire benefit. we are looking at more opportunities like these across the department. there is an opportunity to improve the management of i.t. activity. that does not just -- that does

not necessarily mean that centralization is the right decision in every instance. these are often best driven by those closest to the mission. what is important to me at hhs is striking a balance so i can provide the support that i am expected to provide while not getting in the way of anyone accomplishing their specific mission. is to cio at hhs, my job make sure we effectively and efficiently manage our resources. to be successful, we need to leverage our new governing structure to identify similar functions that take place across the department through a strong business id partnership. -- i.t. partnership. with this knowledge, we can make decisions that reduce our administrative overhead and allow our programs more resources to accomplish their vital public health and human services missions. thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

>> thank you so much and thanks for coming and telling the story. >> we appreciate the opportunity to testify in the federal to savent's efforts taxpayers billions of dollars. the federal government spellings $80 billion annually on i.t.. the past few years have resulted in major improvements in transparency and the return on these investments. provides.t. dashboard an assessment of over 700 major i.t. investments. the information has been used to terminate and restart existing projects. it has resulted in almost $4 billion in lifecycle savings. the data center consolidation effort was initiated to improve low server utilization rates, estimated between five percent- 15%. this effort is to result in

closing 1000 centers and save $3 billion. despite great progress on these initiatives, much more needs to be done. the dashboard shows that we have 150 projects at risk, totaling $10 billion. these numbers are understated because we are reporting no red investments, when we all know it has many. on data centers, a report this month showed that the data center task force need to step up efforts to find metrics for those centers that remain to optimize performance. we are three years into the data center consolidation effort. the government still does not know how many centers it has. learnedt week, we about an additional 3000 data centers that are being reported, bringing the government's total north of 6000. this $80o duplication,

billion has many duplicative investments. before i comment on omb's efforts, i would like to provide numbers on the amount of duplication that exists. hundreds of investments providing similar functions across the government. these numbers are staggering. annually, the federal government has invested in 780 supply chain systems, totaling $3 billion. 660 human resource systems totaling $2.5 billion. 580 management systems totaling 2.7 billion dollars. again, these are annual expenditures. we recommend that the federal agencies make sure these are not duplicative as part of their annual budget. following that, we reported on our deeper look into investments at the department

of defense, homeland security, and energy. we look at over 800 investments in these three -- that these investments associate with human resources, i.t., supply chain management. we found 12 categories were duplicative. the air force has five similar contract management systems. the navy has 4 similar personnel assignment systems. addressing this duplication is important in the plan to spend about 1.2 billion dollars on these investments over a five- year period. recommendations to avoid duplication. if auditors could find this duplication within agencies, there is no excuse for i.t. investment boards not to do the same. the good news is that each agency has actions underway to tackle this duplication. omb initiated their portfolio

stat initiative to target duplicative investments. we have a review underway for this committee. eache investigating agency's plans to reduce duplication. therecent memo states that results so far has been significant and that there are nearly 100 opportunities to consolidate or eliminate you collective i.t. investments like mobile and desktop contract. this could result in savings of $2.5 billion for 2015. the latest initiative is promising if carried out effectively. i would like to offer more specific observations regarding it. number one, cost savings are much higher than $2.5 billion. agencies collectively are reporting $2.4 billion in potential savings. 4 agencieshout

reporting, including the departments of events and justice. cost savings are more than $3 billion, accounting for half of reported savings. metrics and transparency are needed to be successful. our latest data center report shows that the administration is doing a better job in this area. number three, cio authorities need to be instructed that many agencies are to carry this out. not all cios have authority over commodity i.t., which is not a very high bar. folio management needs to be expanded beyond commodity i.t. and include all i.t. investments if we truly want $8 billion effectively managed. in summary, many of the initiatives over the past several years have resulted in better management of large i.t.

acquisitions and technology operation. there has been some elimination of duplication. however, each agency needs more leadership and there needs to be more leadership out of omb if we are truly to do this right overtime. my statement. thank you for your leadership on this topic and i would be pleased to respond to your questions. >> thanks so much. i will come back to you and ask , in this room,go we talked about the legislation that would become the klinger of common law. think outlaw what -- loud what their ambition was. what was their ambition 18 years ago? >> there were two large ambitions. the vision was to give cios more authority, to have a seat at the management table. i do not think that has happened. the other big vision was i.t.

investment management which was to create a governing process on how we choose investments and managed those investments on an annual basis. steve islearly what doing with his portfolio staff initiative. we have some agencies who do a decent job. we took irs off the high risk list this year. they have a solid government ross s -- governance process. that was the vision, to have a strong leader to govern the investments. >> one of the things we do is legislate and tried to create a positive input. but we do not execute. that is the role of the how are theynch.

doing with respect to the vision laid out years ago. vision?eeting that are we measuring up to that vision? .here are bright spots this is not all doom and gloom. in terms of why significant have not been realized and what we need to do better, give us some good advice today. >> this goes back to many years when we were on the subcommittee. keys is transparency. it is essential getting an accurate list of projects to do something about it.

going back to the management watch list, that was not always transparent. we now have a dashboard. i agree with what is on there for dod not being accurate. >> i need you to say that again. dodt is not accurate what is currently reporting. they are reporting no red investments. in fact, they have read investments. we highlighted that a year ago and we think we -- we think something can be done about that. you cannot fix the problem on acquisitions if you don't acknowledge there is a problem. that tackledocess a lot of these investments. we need more of that. it starts with transparency. also, you need effective leadership. that needs to be followed -- there needs to be followed through. we have seen many good plans, but we never drive them to closure. >> i have been working with sylvia to try to help ensure

that we have a leadership team. forgot a guy that came out of this committee, he has been nominated by the president to be the deputy omb director lew -- the rector. omb director. in the month that she has been in place, there have been no writ -- no confirmed deputy erectors, no one confirmed to run the regulatory part of the house. , just huge leadership challenges. let me come to either of our

witnesses. , as governor, i should say to my cabinet time to time, i would say somebody in some state has faced this challenge and dealt with it effectively. our challenge in delaware was to find out who had done it and to go out there and see if that result, their methods were transferable, exportable. we can learn from them. commerce, you are doing something right. the reason why we ask you to testify is because we think you set examples for other agencies, certainly the department of defense, but others as well. what is it that has allowed you ?o stand out in the crowd here

>> i want to start by saying that i cannot overstate the importance of senior leadership support of anything that i could conceivably take credit for congress and over the past three years. i would not be able to do it without support run the cfo of the department, who left back in january, and the acting deputy secretary. the support from leadership at that level has been critical in not just changing policies, but really driving outcomes. our internal performance management process holds all the bureaus accountable from the senior levels of the office through that process and help ensure that the entire community, not just cios in the departmentwide i.t. community,

but senior career people, chief operating officers, chief financial officers, and euro chiefs have been strongly supported and aligned coming out of the office of the secretary. but it all starts with leadership. mr. bateman, go ahead. -- baitman, go ahead. >> microphone? >> it all does star with leadership. that is foundational. one of the things we are doing at hhs is the new governance structure that i -- that we are putting in place. we did not have an enterprisewide view and because of that, there was redundancy and waste. the new governance structure that we are putting in place, and we are right in the midst of doing that right now, will give us a view where we can sit down with business leaders and technologists and say, these are the systems we are spending the

money on. is there a better way of doing this? can we consolidate them and move to a better place as we modernize? it goes back to the issue of transparency. when you know what you have, you can actually manage it. at >> i think you have done a good job at omb and i appreciate you coming out of the private sector and kurt -- and serving the country. , as i said inn is my opening statement, how do we empower cios? i was really worried. the decision came out of omb cannot mandate that the cio was head of your latest program. we have five agencies where we did not make the cio head of the portfoliostat. we have five agencies where the secretary did not try to make the chief information officer

head of that. what we have done is disempower the cios in those agencies as we are going to do this. if you go back, leadership is the key. baitman has-- experience in key agencies. one of them is a mess. he one that is getting better, he had management behind him. could you comment on that ?ecision what you did was allow secretaries the capability to not utilize that. >> i am not really sure about fordecision, particularly folio stat. -- portfoliostat. two points. the first memo issued by my office when i got this job in 2011 was specifically on cio basicallys.

reminding agencies of their obligation to empower cios and other things. andecting the dots to today going back in the past, the clinger cohen act begins by the head of the agency shall --" it is very specific on focusing on the head of the agency. what i found when conducting these face-to-face meetings is how to run a private sector investment review board, how to get all the c level executives together in a room and understand, to meet the mission of their agency, to serve the american people, reduce duplication and save money, that is a motion across all of these directives. you have to have tight alignment with the human capital person thinking about

expertise, the acquisition officer thinking about how to make that happen and realize that the duplication drives that system. portfoliostat, i sat across the table from the deputy secretary and we had that discussion about how we were going to realize across the myriad of management issues. >> the vast majority of the agencies did use their cio. didn't,guidance, nfs treasury did not, doj did not, d.o.t. did not. you have statements were leadership matters. we give responsibility but we have also given authority to chief information officers to make a difference. and what you all put out did not

mandate that. so could have mandated it you would have empowered the cio everywhere. instead, you empowered it in 12 or 13 agencies. i know there are other ways to skin a cat, but my reference would have been to empower cios. let me go with my list. let me ask david, do you have any criticisms of having somebody other than the cio in charge of portfoliostat? i.t.en it comes to investment management, i think the cio should be the chief executive. the portfoliostat process being rolled out, what it did was it helped those cios get a seat at the table where

they did not have one. was ane's credit, that egg knowledge meant. a lot of them did not have that. acknowledgement. a lot of them did not have that. i think that was good. the key is now to follow up on that. 2.5 billion dollars, could be double that amount if you throw dod in there. , it wass testimony well in excess of $30 billion. the way you get rid of trillion dollar deficits is a billion dollars at a time. if we could execute this, you are talking $300 billion over the next 10 years and it is right. just a couple of little questions. that you areff

consolidating, is that a fixed- price timeframe? >> we are actually outsourcing it to another shared service provider in the federal government. the department of agriculture's national finance center in new orleans. it is basically a fixed-price contract in that you get charged for the number of seats they are taking on. >> so you know what the cost is. >> we do. we estimate roughly $6.5 million per year in continual savings. >> one other question. ofve, do you have the cios the different agencies come together and share some of the things that simone has -- inned in terms of other words, is there a learning process across the federal government so that they can take the good work that simone and frank have done and share it with other people?

>> we convened the cio council every other month and focus on cyber security specifically, the importance there. in the off month, we convened. i also host and executive committee that gets together the largest agencies with a smaller group. we work on a regular basis. next week, actually two weeks from now, we are hosting, i am hosting something we now call cio university, getting new cios in the government together. he do this at the national defense university. we sit down and bring in a marriott of nationals across to teach backgrounds these agencies best practices, to get them hitting the ground running on this. we have a lot of turnover. tohink it is important convene on a regular basis. part of this cio university cio- we shipped last year

opedia, a resource for them to learn and dive into best practices and take that forward as well. >> part of the reason we are having turnover is we cannot compete in the i.t. field? >> that is a big part of it. there is so much him and. >> is that something we should legislate on to give agencies more flexibility in terms of payments to be more competitive in the i.t. field? >> the uniqueness of the federal government is not necessarily pay. the incentive structure that exists in the private sector versus year, the thing we have in the federal government is the breath of the experience. if you come in at the department of veterans affairs, your ability to affect a large budget or staff is unparalleled

and will build skills and muscle you may be never had. i think we need to work on that. isvision of cio authorities the central cio should be the hub for all the commodity computing. there should be one e-mail system, one way to buy a computer, one way to get mobile. they should provide services to the cios sitting in the periphery. i want the cio of the federal aviation administration to wake up every day and thing about flightsafety and i want them thinking about flightsafety when they go to bed at night. i do not want them to think, is the e-mail up and running? going?blackberry we should focus on the mission at hand and rule out duplication. >> let me go back to one of the

points that dr. coburn was raising. whether or not federal agencies have the flexibility to hire the talent that they need. we had a tough time in state government in delaware. retaining i.t. personnel. we took them out of the merit system and said, hey people what you need to pay them to retain good talent. on tom'sualify question, is that a problem or not with the federal government? it sounds like it is not as much as i might find. >> at the top ranks, it is not much of a problem. we have a turnover rate of about 18-24 months, which is pretty average. we havelow that that some of the issues. if you look at cybersecurity in particular, the private sector is able to attract talent at a rate that is much higher than

the federal government. we are doing things to mitigate that, working on federal security to train the people that are on staff and to drive that forward. with technology jobs and the economy growing in the other category, it is putting a strain on the ability for us to retain talented people. andw into that for lowe's things like that that are causing other issues, -- furloughs and things like that that are causing other issues, i think that will drive the issue forward. >> we talked about lessons learned from the department of commerce, health and human services, the rest of the federal agencies. what about the private sector? what are some lessons we can take from them?

from the private sector that we have learned, that we are acting on. >> in the private sector, i was part of a team, my last job at microsoft, we were in the server division. theyou spun the team off day i left, it would have been a very large software company on its own right. at we had under the four or five years i was there 26 consecutive quarters of double-digit growth. we were doing things right. the amazing thing for me was we never grew our budget. our marketing and product development stay very flat if not declined because the dollars we were generating on the balance sheet were going to fund other aspects of the mission. businesses, emerging to expand the portfolio and the stock price. in government, if

you do the hard work to find savings and drive your cost down, that return on investment is not realize where you sit. it goes somewhere else. there is not an aggregate notion of the mission to think about. how am i driving value from my entire department who will deliver value to the american people? people put their arms around it and fiercely defend their --get or their ability to you know, you take things away from them. the current fiscal environment, we have to look at the force impacting on these groups. the current fiscal environment helps us a not -- a lot. the second thing is to think hard about the incentive structures. what incentivizes these groups inside these agencies to do this hard work, to provide better returns? there, because

to date it has largely been an ideology discussion, two people doing the same thing in the same department, they are never going to work it out on their own. we need a to. we need analytics. you need to be informed about who is getting the best results. how do we then create the right structures to eliminate that? portfoliostat its us part of the way there. a modest small-group inside my team to to get me data and analytics. that is what you now see in enhancements in the dashboard and the reports that come out work. portfoliostat the president's budget proposes a similar effort that i've proposed to actually stand the evidence gathering to programming brands. we can look beyond i.t. and real about how can we get data and analytics to understand what works. dollars into what works and eliminate duplication on things that are not working.

we have big potential there if we do it right. >> anybody else on lessons we might learn from the private sector? >> if you look at governance and how they oversee portfolio investments, you would never have a situation where you have this duplication that exists. the other thing, when their program is in trouble, they cannot let it linger for a long period of time. everyone knows that you have issues and you have to report accurately. --t goes back to klinger-: klinger-cohen. you tackle things incrementally. that is something i did in the late 1990s, going small on development. we do too many big bang approach is when we tackle these acquisitions. >> let me stick with that for a second.

get tof times, we will the end of the hearing and i will ask, what are the takeaways for us? things we need to be doing that we are not doing? we do quite a bit of oversight. maybe not enough, what we do a lot. what should be our takeaways from this? >> i think this is a good start. this portfoliostat process, there is great opportunity here. -- plus.ion loss i think this is a good place to start. we eliminate duplication here, but there are other things going forward. using the dashboard to tackle those troubled processes is needed. those are things we need to avoid. >> let's talk about the dashboard for a minute. a

techstat works. the fact that dod has no programs. everything is green for dod, on 20-30echstat worked programs that were in trouble. how do we fix that? >> because i am a very data- driven person and when personalities are involved or personal input or ideology is involved in assessing programs, i do not warrant that as a triggering event. we do not use red yellow-green as the event that says we should go text that. stat.ch ?e look at, are we on budget all of the things we used to look at in investments. asking someone to sell us their programs -- >> when is the last time techstat has been

applied to a dod program? >> i am very involved in the work -- the joint work between the health care system. we have meetings to talk about that. that is the most recent one. one of the things that the ,ystem was not reporting to me people have the ability to change their budget allocations on the dashboard. prior to my arrival, we had no visibility. thatu had something looked on budget, on schedule, it looked like everything was good. one of the features i added was this triggering event that would tell us any time someone went in rebaselined.

on this day, somebody reallocated their budget to this process. another key thing is we are a doing this team level of oversight. we partner a lot, thinking about broadening federal id, but we do not span the entire federal government. we have trained over 1000 people to conduct techstat reviews. what you are starting to see is that techstat has become a regular order of business. when things are going awry or triggering, they parachute in the techstat people to look at these investments and run our methodology. that being said, i still get involved with techstat and stepped in on ones that are important. >> one of the things i have noticed, three years ago, i outlined an air force program

and said we ought to cancel it. we did not cancel it. we canceled this year and paid $80 million in a cancellation fee. one of our problems purchasing t is when you have contracting other than fixed price, what happens is either the person who is making the decision or the company that is not performing, there are no consequences. , if yourivate sector contract for something, you hold them accountable. you either do that privately or you take them to a civil court and get money damages for not performing under a contract. do in thething they private sector is the person who made the blunder does not have a job anymore. you incorporate that and what you are trying to do in terms of guidance? i have a son-in-law that is very good at this stuff. he travels all over the country

for a big firm. he tells me that business is not much better than we are about this nebulous area of i.t.. they are held up in not knowing what they are going to get or maybe not knowing what they want when they start a contract. how do we get a handle on that? >> the other phenomenon you see is that we have very expensive three ring binders sitting on the shelf. people play landing cost 4. . use the football analogy you or i could easily throw a football to someone a few yards away. >> very few in my case. >> with a high level assurance, i could hit someone that close. there are very few elite quarterbacks who can throw a 50, 60-yard pass and hit someone on the move with very high accuracy.

of people who can hit the 90-date deliverable. we have very few product professionals who can hit the five-year deliverable. with any level of accuracy. the things we have been doing and the guidance i have been issuing have been to the goal 2013 mark the end of the multi-year, big, giant deliverable and break everything down. last year, the head of federal procurement policy and i issued guidance. how to break these deliverables down into a lower risk service. we are doing these big things that are likely to fail. so trying to get those down. we have been doing the open data executive order that just came out, the digital strategy from may 2012.

and all of the parts associated with that lead us to these small component that can be reused inside government. we need to build a community around that, don't riot sector flexibility. you are putting pieces in place to make small and modular today's point. you said we were doing in the late 1990s modular development. that needs to be the new normal in government. we can no longer do these five- year, $100 million. i go in and say, what is your 90 day deliverable. we are going to break this down. in the cases i have done that, they have turned out successful. >> that is called management. talk about dod and techstat. .e have this report how does congress know what is happening at dod if it is not a report? >> the unit report reports savings. comeked the agencies to

back and report against our initiatives. we pull this back in -- a change 2013e this year is in the portfoliostat guidance. one of the things i need to do is clean up my own shop. i wanted to understand what burdens we were putting on agencies, just compliance and omb guidance. agencies tong report over 30 times in a year. >> which consumes resources. rex a lot of resources. i asked the team to print that out and lay it on the table. that's understand your we duplicate our requests. we are down to three in 2013. they are basically an information resource plan, a strategic land, and i asked them to do quarterly reporting. they report on savings and metrics against the initiatives we have done. everys now ordered to

agency and we are starting that process. we got the plan on may 15. the quarterly reports we are going to start, dod will be one of those as well. >> time is pretty good. if you would like to jump in here, you are recognized. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the chairman and member for this important hearing. i would ask the witnesses -- i wanted to ask mr. szykman about the federal data centers. commerce has that been working to consolidate the data centers. i want to know how much of those consolidated centers are actually being used. the government buys a lot of servers for data and leave them mostly empty. as i understand it, in the 2009

omb report, the average utilization rate was between five percent and 15%. utilization is often 60% or 70%. are we paying for excess capacity and what is the average utilization rate? do i have that wrong? what are the metrics we are using? can i -- can you help me understand how much we are looking at this issue as we continue to invest in this area? >> i would be happy to answer your question. at the department of commerce, i would have to check on precisely what our utilization rates are. but i can tell you without checking the numbers that they are not where they should be in terms of the high percentage of utilization of our servers that we would like to have. we do have some initiatives pushing this forward. for example, in the census

bureau, they issued a virtualization first policy which requires establishing virtualized servers before creating physical servers. it is intended to drive up the utilization rate and low percentages to high percentages. i would be happy to call up with more details. in general, the issue of utilization is an important one. it is not just the number of data centers, but how they are being utilized. along those lines, the department of commerce has been supportive of where omb is going with the consolidation initiative, focusing on not just distinguishing between core data centers and non-core data centers, closing the ones that are non-core and optimizing the ones that are core. benefits will come from optimizing the equipment that is in existence, regardless of where that equipment is being

housed. we definitely understand the issue and we are working on , particularly in the utilization area. >> how quickly can you make this happen? , at would say, to be frank commerce, things take time because we do have decentralized structure within commerce. my office directly manages one of the departments data centers and the overwhelming majority of the data centers are being managed at the bureau level. aware of this is issue as well. they have been focusing on increasing utilization. most of our data centers are, they are working on a data center consolidation plan for these issues. there is so much in this whole area. ,e need metrics, we need goals

we need to have results because we all can sit here and say, wes is a problem, but until have -- i would like to see some metrics and how quickly we can meet them, what is our plan, what are we going to measure in terms of how we get this done. i hope that i can get some follow-up on that. that would be helpful to this issue. i also wanted to ask mr. vanroekel, in your written testimony, i apologize i was not here for your testimony, but you say that the cios should be empowered. which, iower them, want everyone who works for the government to be empowered, and we give them more power within agencies, i think that we also need to impose greater onigations on them to act

issues of duplication and consolidation as part of their mission. how would you, how would we accomplish that? when you talk about empowering them, and you may have covered this, what is it that we are going to ask of them to create actual ownership and responsibility for the issue of duplication and the , soolidation of programs much of it in the federal government? >> the empowering nature is to root out the duplication. that is why we would empower them. in the private sector, it is unthinkable for a company to run more than one e-mail system. you just have one and everybody is in the address look and you utilize this as a cost- effective of doing your e-mail. that is not the norm in the public sector. there are agencies that run 7, 8, 10. i have seen more than 20 e-mail systems in an agency. that should be unthinkable.

the reason they are not consolidated is often the cio is not given the authority to say the effective way to do this is to run one. beginsortunity here with commodity computing, things like e-mail. or should be one way to fight -- one way of buying a computer, one way of getting a mobile device. a couple of weeks ago, i established a family plan for government. we start to pool our minutes and things like that to save money on -- in the mobile space. all of that should be centralized under the authority of the headquarters and the cio. the next step is to allow the cio to provide mission capabilities to the periphery of the organization. comes tocio of the faa the transportation cio and says, i have an idea that will improve

flight safety. the central headquarters cio can say, great. here is a test environment. this is how we can help with this project. make rooting out duplication and providing these services the norm. it is how we get to be the most effective and efficient. to other opportunity is look at inherently governmental opportunities and root out duplication there. getting our payroll systems down streamlining financial management systems, doing those things that are very vanilla across the agencies and established sharing at that level as well. all of our policies have been in this motion to do exactly that. >> thank you. i look forward to the chairman and the ranking member for having this hearing. thank you for being here. i know there is much work to be done in this area.

i look forward to working with the leadership of this committee to address these issues. with that, thank you. >> thanks for joining us. we know you have a lot on your plate. good of you to come. theocused a fair amount on data center consolidation. i want to dwell on this for another moment, ask a question of david. in its recent portfoliostat guidance, omb folded the initiative into the portfoliostat process, shifted the goal of the initiative away from closing data centers and instead to have agencies optimized. i would like to hear your thoughts on omb is changed in the approach with regards to the data center consolidation initiative. >> i think combining the two makes sense and it is fine to

do it that way as long as you have the right metrics on data center consolidation. ooh your point, what remains, we need to get the average server utilization rates up. and all is said and done and we close these centers, let's go measure average server utilization and hopefully it is higher than five percent on average. >> how much higher? 60%-70% is industry average. we are nowhere near the goal. -- being said >> are we moving in the right direction? >> i think we are. there were data center consolidation plans. ,e saw the average server usage dhs was in the high teens. another was in the 30s. we are closing 1000 centers.

we found out about an additional 3000 centers. many of them are small, agriculture and dod. if the server utilization is that low, there are a lot of costs. hardware, networking, security costs. 570 $5 million in savings with data center consolidations in fy 2014.. >> who should we be looking to hold responsible? >> the federal chief administration officer. >> let's talk about budget control if we could. a couple of years ago, the budget for information technology was consolidated under the chief information officer for the department. this year, the administration's budget request for general services administration sought

to consolidate most information technologies under the cio. the consolidation of spending is one way to empower an agency cio. do you believe that it is toessary for an agencies cio have i.t. spending across the agency? are there better ways to empower an agency's cio? it is one way. there are a myriad of other things we have to consider and bring into play. it is not the only way. i.t.nk the essence of good management is one where there is coordination and you are watching the dollars flow and making sure there is not duplicate expenses, things like

that. you also need the oversight of senior leadership. we have seen the private sector go through this in the past 15 years. i.t. went from this discretionary thing, the ability to print or share a document or save a document to this very strategic thing, the way you connect customers, drive productivity, streamline your operations, control quality inventory, etc.. not gonec sector has through that transition yet. i.t. is a strategic thing and the way we change out comes and drive economic value and benefit and efficiency. as we go through that inflection point, it will take a lot of different people than just the cio watching the checkbook to make that happen. we need a coordinated effort. senator carper's comment about

the person not making the decision until the point of execution, we need the deputy secretary chief operating officer at the table, human capital people training the next generation of professionals in this space to make that happen. it has got to be a village approach. >> we have become interchangeable parts. that is a good thing. it is kind of scary. any other witnesses want to respond to the question? , the keyy perspective is not necessarily to centralize the entire organization's budget into a single budget management one individual. from my perspective, i think much of the benefit should be obtained by improving visibility and transparency and providing enough authority that the cio

can influence the right types of decisions across the organization. from the centralization perspective, the key is a focus on commodity i.t. agencies do not need to have well over a dozen e-mail systems, which the department had a couple of years ago. had 10 loansureau consolidated down to one and the rest of the department is moving to the cloud. that replication in commodities is unnecessary. at the same time, there is a lot of commission-related i.t.. noahld not argue that satellite programs should be run out of my system when the people who connect that to the weather services mission is not headquarters level. ,ne example i want to touch on in the census bureau, the 2010

census, a few years ago, the census cio was not directly involved in the management of the i.t. for the census program. the census program ran their own i.t. infrastructure. there are already written agreements in place for the 2020 that theat states program will run on the i.t. infrastructure managed by the census cio, not the program itself, from an infrastructure perspective. all the specific development will still be run out of the program. the other part of the agreements census cioovide the with authority over acquisitions coming out of the program. that is something that is new from how things have been done in the past. the key is to be able to know how many is being spent and how it is being influenced to be spent. we do not necessarily need to

be there to get the outcomes we want. >> i do not know if we will still be sitting here when you are doing the 2020 census. i hope that when it comes maybe have less of a problem. one last question. i like to come back at the end of the hearing, you gave an opening statement. i want to ask you to give a closing statement. something you want to reiterate for us to take away. that would be good. one more question and that will be it. i will step out of the room for a moment and then come back. >> i would just make a comment on the census. i am glad to hear those kind of decisions. we spend money on contracts that got us nothing on a handheld device for the senses.

nobody was held accountable. nobody got canned. the company did not perform. we did not sue the company for not performing. it was just, throw $500 million away. that is what happened. we held the hearings. everything we are doing you could have done on the iphone. with no contract. and makingtrols in people responsible and accountable is very important. not done20 census is online, we ought to shoot ourselves. we can save billions of dollars. if that is not the , all theation's plan money we can save doing an online senses is unbelievable. and you can incentivize people to participate, the same thing with the american community survey. it ought to be online right now. there is no reason it should not.

let me go to -- the one thing i did not hear from you in your senatory was metrics. i/o -- ayotte talked about that. do you now know where your inventory is?

qw@s@w@s

test.

that was 16 miles from the

and i know all 11.5 million eople that are illegal in this country are not criminals. but we want to identify those criminals and get them off of and put them in prison and return them to wherever they came from and get them out of this country. that's the obligation i have. >> thank you, sheriff. >> yes, sir. i know the answer to this question. what good purpose would be criminal n we deport aliens. e presume they're probably in charge of the local gangs. is that a valid conclusion? >> i'm sorry, i -- we deport alien riminals, how is that

helpingful with you as the high sheriff of the county. we can sheriff when remove criminal elements of our helps to improve them to get the criminals out. flow back top that and forth. right now, we're picking up tied in the mexican drug cartel in north carolina in y community, not just our community in north carolina either. we're concerned we see that activity travelling two or three across the border in our communities. without a good tactic on our secure it, lock it down, we're going to continue to have these problems even if we fixing the immigration system, we've got to fix our borders. ecause if we don't secure our borders in america, every heriff in america will be a border sheriff.

friend from our arizona. you discussed a secure border. border is vital to make sure people do not come here in what ion of the law, importance is robust interior enforcement that is away from the border? >> well, sir, i think it's critical because for the first is almost half of the people here illegally now did not cross our border. they didn't make an illegal entry. they never would have come in border patrol,s. they came in on visas. they wouldn't have overstayed visas. they came here legally. whose job is it to support those jobs? a lot of the individuals who came to our country engaged in have not activities crossed our borders. they have come here on visas. legally.come here we need to be aggressively enforcing our laws with regard to those individuals. but also, what i think we heard a little bit here today about is

element.inal there's a disproportionate number of criminals that's intoing borders and coming the country. again, that's our responsibility. jails are full of criminal ail yeps. of e are large number criminals coming in to our country with the limited deported we have, we 225,000 convicted criminals last year. 225000. that's half of the population of the state of wyoming bigger than the marine corps when i was in it. that's a lot of people. we're not even scratching a dent criminal alien problem as well as the gangs. so our involvement, our enforcement is critical to community and public safety as well as national security. again.nk you i want to beat that before that red light illuminates. it's my belief that matter is still not resolved.

at a can talk about that later date. good to have all of you aboard. mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman from north carolina. california,ady from the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> i would like to ask unanimous to include in the record eight letters in opposition to this bill. objection. >> i would also like to ask -- i i t to make sure -- i think was precise. but i want to double back and make sure. because i think what i said in opening statement was that justice department had oncluded that the sheriff's deputies engaged in discrimination. the i would like unanimous consent to put into the record findings from the department of justice that the sheriff's epartment did engage in intentional discrimination and

copel is gue, mr. correct. they filed a lawsuit which is still pending. we're both right and i would like unanimous consent that both he complaint and the findings be a part of this record. >> i never doubted for a moment without both right and objection. >> great. i just want to say that very close have a relationship with the my county and themtremendous respect for as well as the law enforcement agents. it's incorrect to suggest that because immigration enormously complex and maybe not an area of expertise the d.a.'s ds in office, somehow that insults them. as a matter of fact, i think my the d.a. in santa clara county would agree he's not an law.t on immigration i would like to ask you this. none.ook offense, i meant

let me ask you this question. if you found someone who was 15, 1986, whoser mother was a united states citizen, would that person have she ative citizenship if been in the u.s. for three years prior to that child's birth? >> to the chair, quite frankly, anything we don't do in regards to that. deputies who 13 get enhanced training, they actually come back east and the only deputies that -- >> i tell you, the manual for that law enforcement about thick and the immigration code is this thick. you know, i'm not insulting you. i value what law enforcement does. used to teach immigration law new answers many

that are important and critical. you have to be five years in the u.s. prior to the child's birth. least two of which have to have been before the age of 14 presence not lude only in the united states but also possessions. and those are things about you're an american, not an illegal -- >> i can answer that. numerous y have situations because when through i.c.e. and when the president came out and said anybody who's been here for five uninterrupted years or longer they shall be allowed to stay here. we did, our deputies. >> if i can interrupt, i want to ask one other question. whether you can follow the policies that the president outlined, i don't doubt that. >> sure. at don't doubt you're good arresting people who are drug dealers.

great, i want you to do that. >> with that situation, we would do nothing. >> there have been -- this goes the question i guess ms. martinez you in your written estimony outlined instances where american citizens have been deported, which is a travesty. i wonder if you can -- if you didn't have an opportunity to go through that, but we have come numerous instances where mistakes have been made, ncluding in l.a. county where american citizens were apprehended and then deported they were americans birth. can you address that issue? >> thank you. ndeed, there are several of those cases, particularly that ere documented and the recent findings about maricopa county. discrimination. and in terms of people being of rted, there's a variety reasons. somebody doesn't answer the

ight question and they end up being cat gorized as someone who's deportable. t has happened to u.s. citizens. i know it's ex-trially hard to fathom. but it does happen. -- and part of the reason is that the toxic nature of our -- and that'sbate need are desperately in of fixing this has created an there are a here lot of people, american citizens illegal residents cat gorized as illegal. >> i want to be respectful of the time. to say thank you to the parents who have lost children. what happened to you shouldn't anyone.o argument.t an certainly we don't want people who have done nothing wrong to mattized but our hearts go out to you. i think there's really

unanimousty about going after in this room. i yield back to the chairman. >> the chair would recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, former united states attorney marino. >> thank you, chairman. louis gutierrez was here because i agree on many of the issues. i don't agree he categorizes this side by saying we want all hispanics and illegals just moved out of the country for no reason at all. talking about the people these --d the death of this father and mother who should be moved out of the country. fact that they had criminal records, if they were sent and deported back or put in when they were supposed to their not released, alive today. be >> would the gentleman yield for

just a moment? agree with you. but if there were trials and in andcase there may have been in another, there wasn't, that determine. ourt to >> reclaiming my time, sir. as a prosecutor, i know what the court should determine. but given the circumstances and immigration law, those individuals should have been or sent back eventually. so i'm not saying they didn't deserve a trial. issue.not the ms. martinez. you eloquently spoke to the fact that what we need to do. ut i think you did not speak clearly enough. it's going to take enforcement. you did say that a large americans want immigration fixed. i want it fixed alsz. i know we're not going to send people. million i'll be standing at the front of the line to argue that.

the question wasn't asked that way. if you ask those people, should they all get amnesty, those significantly increase ecause i'm not only hear it in pennsylvania, but people across the country. we need to deal with this, but not total amnesty. there was a statement about enforcement levels that this administration increased. that's not true. 'm disappoint in this administration and the bush administration for not issue in the s previous administration and the bush administration. been doing, lt has what homeland has been doing is sent back at als the border are considered to be individuals who are here and sent back. that's how they inflate the numbers. i am offended by your statement. as my ended because

district e assistant attorney, i.c.e., secret to local law ame enforcement and said help us solve these crimes no matter if if 're dealing drugs or they're illegals. i agree with the statement that was made that all law grass roots.s then when i became a united tates attorney i went back and was a united states attorney for seven years and went right back to the district attorneys and sheriffs and those police officers and said, help me the law of the federal government. because most of the cases were solved by those people there. i want to ask you a question. certainly pick apart law enforcement in your statement. locals should not to the authority and power

do over the last years when this administration stopped it. government wouldn't operate without these individuals. to that.sult should a person who drove mom to the store to get milk and he got stopped, should he be prosecuted? if he's driving, he shouldn't, the law.olation of how can you say these people aren't qualified when the on ral government relies them to enforce the law. >> i appreciate the representative's question. think as a prosecutor, of ourse you know that in that that e, the prosecution talking of faa ga was about is not about that.

hey were talking about transporting an undocumented. >> it's still illegal. good not think that's a law but the law they're enforcing for immigration or is a bad enforcing law? -- me ask you this question i commend you for your cause and what you do and the work you're that are do for people here illegally. but have you ever taken the time o talk to people like mr. shaw about what they lost? about how their rights were violated? about their child's constitutional rights were violated and they're not here their children. you seem to be jumping on the we want to prosecute every illegal immigrant that's ere and send them right back regardless of any cause. let me tell you something, that's not the case. i've been a prosecutor for most my life and the rule of law is the rule of law. you can't sit there and pick and

want to at laws you enforce and who should enforce them. > so, what i would like to say briefly if i may to the question i think it's -- remark. incendiary what i would say about the we heard tragedies about today. >> let me interrupt you. i didn't hear you mention one opening t that in your statement. ms. martinez did, but i didn't hear you do it in the opening statement. doing it because i'm bringing it up now. you need to step back, cause, and take into consideration with the victims and what the people are going through. back my time. >> recognizing the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. thank you, mr. chairman, mixed feelings.

i'm sorry for your loss. ago, 40 years ago on may 29. ed, that my sister was kill ed murdered by a guy. i chose not to be angry or that to this out day. wonder why is it that have been brought here to share your pain about your the nation? ere you called because we and d to arouted passions

rejudices against people from against illegal immigrants? is it because we wanted people o think that all illegal immigrants are from mexico. they're hispanic. we wanted everyone that all immigrants are al immigrants criminals? drivers? or somehow that the scourge of our community. all were brought here? think of any reason why other than that. that you all are here. >> can i answer that? and i think that this kind of

and this kind of emotion for the ill placed consideration of the legislation us.ore law appreciate the enforcement personnel who put on the line every they're asked to do more increasingly with less. they are frustrated because they are -- they have a job to do. if -- if the federal government can't get its act it has not done, law it falls on local enforcement.

falls on local prosecution as well. the city jails, we lead to rustration with each other and we end up pointing fingers at each other while there's money making going on. that money making, ladies and entlemen, is from the profits of incarceration. illegal immigrants can be source of revenue for or private ke -- private prisonit stock es skyrocketing value on wall street. corrections corporation of ceo damon henenger back

in the week of february 20 on a investors call to incarcerationthat rates will remain high. and immigration detention would be a strong source of business foreseeable future. how public erstand in dollars d result in the pocket of business what's s and so happening is we have turned our away from those who are making the money and we're blaming laming each other for everything that ails us. this game time for

to end. they're members of allic, the bills that drafts state-by-state and introduced federal government kinds of t in these growth opportunities for it's immoral.rong, and it's hurting, it's killing america. time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman, i wonder before have my time if mr. shaw and durdin can answer the question? the most ridiculous thing i've heard. to stoop to the

posture. here and come in insult another member. that's against the rules. >> i believe if you called them coming out here and you said that they were -- >> if you have a question that to ask them, that's fine. >> i will do things the way i will do it. don't try to get them to answer my question. >> gentlemen will both suspend. time. not use your >> the gentlemen will both suspend. ms. durdin if you would like to respond to the made by ement/question the gentleman from georgia, we will allow you to do so. welcome their i response. i happened to run out of time. sticking to e are the time, i don't want to give minutes of free time. their time -- mr. shaw andg give ms. durdin the time and then

we'll go mr. labrador. >> okay. we'll do it like that. >> you -- i thought you were completing a statement. you were completing a question. either way, we'll let them comment on it. will be fine. answer your ve to question. we weren't brought here for any sympathy. for being here to put a face to this that i don't immigration talks about to church ady going and she looks like hispanic so we're going check her status.tion sonuts a face on it with my that brought a lot of good things to the community he lived in. of me. care e took care of friends and neighbors and everybody. and he was wiped out because the

'08 wasn'tlled him in deported. he wasn't deported after his second dui. his criminal. if i sneak into a restaurant, if act a fool, and i'm asked to eave, they say no, you're not invited back here. you did something wrong. okay, ck and they say, you can stay until you tear up the place and once it's all with you., we'll deal that's how i feel. questionedsay -- you why we were brought here, to put a face to it. married to a wonderful man who supported me. my son can't walk me down the aisle. i will never be a grandmother or mother-in-law.

>> mr. shaw? >> i don't like the way you did that. you're putting no value on my son. because when you said your sister was killed by a black man it made everything that we say nonvoid because it was a black man and we're picking on latinos. you have to understand our kids were here. they were living here and they ere murdered by someone illegally in the country and i came here to let people know say that everybody 11 million people are more aren't criminals. you have people here in the are ry illegally that criminals. you have people here brought here by no fault of their own. murdered by someone who was brought here at 4 years old. because someone was brought here, you act like that

them a carte blanche to do whatever they want to. that's not fair. if you're here illegally from one, you cross their border, everything else is out the door. it's illegal. to act like if you come into our country, it's not a crime, that's insulting to all americans and to say that i came here for sympathy, you sympathy.n't need i get that -- i think about my son 24 hours a day. the same aboutel your sister. for you to say i was brought ere as a puppet to make people cry and feel sorry for me. that's not fair. we love our kids. saying, my son wasn't bothering anybody. he was walking down the street i'm sure m the mall your kids go to the mall, enjoy life. anybody.asn't bothering he was playing football. he was not in any gangs, no gang bases, he'd never been arrested, never been suspended

from school. player ofee times mvp the year. he was running track. he was getting ready to get a olympics, ing to the you know? for you to make it seem like that, our families aren't brought here we're like they -- they brought us here to like we're puppets to us, that's insulting to me. you to have that nonchalant attitude is not fair. the same way with the attorney end.he other lady on the the same way. they never talk about the crimes the he criminals and cemeteries full of dead people. nd they act like just because they're here to work and just -- of a honor.kind that's not an honor. you broke the law to come to country. you brought your kids over here. that's human trafficking. you brought an infant that had they were doing to a foreign country illegally raised him like that and you want us to feel like it's our

daddy isause mommy and here to work. where's the criminal? where's the criminality? you, mr. shaw. >> if i might offer my apology offendeditnesses, if i you. it was not my intent do that. i'm a black guy and i think the point that i was making with that was that i'm against all black people thinking that all black people are criminals. and i said that to demonstrate point. i'm deeply apologetic. spending your time and resources at the call of here and ttee to come testify.

that's not your fault that you were called here. you. >> the chair recognized mr. minutes. for five >> mr. chairman, i want to thank durden for ms. being here. i have five kids. i want to thank ms. martinez for your words. and i think you and i -- i'm a little emotional. issue for important america. and when i see the tragedy that but i d to your family, also think about a broken immigration system that we're to ng to fix, and for us a nk that we cannot reach approach to immigration reform without local law enforcement, i mistake.'s a and i know you and i, ms. martinez, want to reach a common you need to what do. i think we have the same goal.

ut my problem is i think it's unrealistic for you to think that we're going to have any kind of immigration reform some sort of participation from the local law nforcement without giving mr. crane the tools that he needs to his job. immigration law for 15 years and i had no idea you agents dealing with 40 million people. think about that. if you think about 5,000 agents 40 million people. that's why we have the problem that we have today. many why we have so eople in the united states illegally. and or someone to sit here say you cannot do your job because you do not know law -- i found the question very interesting.

i practiced law for 15 years. looking at my book, i don't think i could have answered the question that she sked you because it's been three years since i practiced immigration law and i don't answer. the would have been able to train your deputy and the people in your office to this issue.k on i believe if you would have man who claimed i think i know getwell enough to say we'll you an attorney. i know i'm speaking for you. answer that question? >> yes, through the chair, mr. likely, that scenario would never play out.

i.c.e.ld call the only contact we would have is there's probable cause or some reason why we in law enforcement are there speaking with somebody and that up.ue came we're required under arizona law to ask the question if we have a easonable suspicion, not because of the color of their skin. not because of how they talk or sound. ice.all ice gives us direction. he direction in answer to the question earlier, the direction we've been given is that person been here five year, treat them as any other citizen. of business for us. we deal with what we have to deal with, citation, contact, or have a good day. that's it. that's what we're doing.

trying to protect us, not just from people who are but from drug trafficking, why do you think strengthen your ability to do your job? >> the first it does is gives us to do the job with. that's one of the most important thing. that's one of the things we're to be doing -- working every jail in the country, every prison in the country. working posed to be with probation and parole and get the criminals who slips through and go back on the street. the people to do the job. things like the detainers to detainers are actually recognized by local law that when we at

put the detainer and it's ignored, that guy goes back on the street. so many things about this bill that will help us do our jobs better. have two positions with two different arrest authorities, they do the same training but different arrest authorities. so we ended up in situations with guys that need to make an do it.and can't they can't be assigned to a gang task force or something because the arrest ave authorities. makes no sense. we're pulling our hair out. asked i.c.e. to make changes internally to give all of the arrest authorities to all of the officers and they won't do it. there's a lot of things in this bill that will help us. extremely appreciative to congressman dowdy and everyone who's worked with us to try to some things in here to get them back on track. thank you, ms. tomlin and ms. martinez. i want to get immigration reform passed. it would behoove you to work

with the local law enforcement to make e out a way something like this work. because there's no way in the representative, an immigration reform bill passes ithout having the assurance that we're going to feel comfortable that what happened durden and mr. shaw will not happen again. > time of the gentleman has expired. we recognize the chair of puerto rico for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, good afternoon. >> let me say that immigration the best course of action. we need a common sense reform that will meet our nation's the 21st century. it must hold true to our american values. real reform must take into account that the challenges that are immigration system faces are multifaceted. they're not situations that can through isolated initiatives that only address

or another. result in a will better america and squander the exists while at truby partisan efforts are under house and the find critical issues. the enforcement approach offered act falls short of accomplishing what america wants us to accomplish, which is that works for our economy that strengthens and ecures our borders and our interior, that helps america attract needed talents and expertise, that allows undocumented immigrants already to merica an opportunity legalize their status and apply and improves the efficiency and fairness of the immigration system to vastly reduce illegal

immigration. while i understand and share the desire to improve our nation's security, i don't the safehe approach of act which would combine the criminal invasion of immigrants with the delegation of authority to the tates and localities to enact wouldforce their own laws accomplish that goal. it's a risky approach to a complicated problem and could harm to communities everywhere by opening the doors wrongful profiling, detention, and the riminalization of otherwise innocent behavior. and i, for one, i am very sorry the pain that you suffered, durden. and ms. i lost my own brother, a victim of a car jacking in puerto rico. pain. your i relate to that. but we're seeking a

comprehensive solution. aspects o address all of this. not only the pain of victims of including crimes committed by undocumented the pain , but also immigrants are their ng because of status. i join mr. labrador in thinking supporting -- we have additional resources at the federal level to enforce immigration laws looking forward. but, of course, that makes all of the sense in the world. for ms. uestion is martinez decastro from the raza.nal council of la in your testimony, you mentioned eduardo, the u.s. citizen born in puerto rico i come from. and i also relate to this on a

personal basis. who was arrested by chicago police and held for more than three days in the custody of agents on suspicion of being undocumented and was threatened with deportation mexican f the appearance. that states and localities are allowed to enact heir own immigration laws, including civil and criminal penalties and then given the uthority to enforce the laws, situations such as the one citizens like m mr. -- because it could affect well because of my accent nd my mexican appearance will become more prevalent? doubt.out a it has nothing to do with law enforcement. when i get trouble home because i have members of family.orcement in my

what we did was cite facts and investigation. there are bad apples everywhere. i think that's why our voices in law enforcement community that are concerned about how these laws will interact with a number of things. the ore thing i would like to seems to be ane hernt assumption somewhere here hat there's false lines dividing the opinions and -- and long as we have that kind of conversation, we're never going to get to the finish line here. to present my organization as somebody that doesn't think law enforcement has this debate is simply false. what we believe, again, is that balance.ds to be a since there's been a lot of talk about public safety, let me say

talk about en we public safety and the public trust, we are making sure that community, 75% of hom are u.s. citizens, are counted in that public trust because oftentimes, some of the this debate and the conversations that are here someone to believe that latinos, citizens illegal residents are not considered part of that american is ic or that their trust irrelevant. and i do think here, like i tragedy re's too much in this issue. we can continue to talk on top other, around each ther, misrespect what we say that's not going to help us. mrs. durden can identify with tragedies of mothers who experienced the loss f their sons because they were beaten to death because somebody thought they were mexican. those tragedies are

unacceptable. to address this problem head on. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. district that is been much offense to your fortion, ms. tomlin, except bringing a point of making georgia, i was part of that tate legislature and arizona and others who attempted to deal with an issue in their state, attempted to do so in a certain way who may or may not and others been right and what was struck or put

on hold by the court but the majority of the law was upheld. i think you're right, ms. martinez, to draw lines are not good. and to alk in to here take account officers, to take others me personally or in the legislature who tried to work through these issues, maybe satisfaction, but did so at the request of those us, the same ones that sent me here, is not a good thing. it is not helpful. there's one that's trying to work through this in a district, one ive in which we struggled deeply in which issues, there is a large hispanic presence that made our district perspective and made it struggle from those who are there not legally. these are issues that we have to deal with. ut to simply categorize it in the way it came across -- and i

was watching, is not and will a helpful tool as we move forward, especially for those of are trying through sometimes great difficulty to find an answer for this. to others, the gentleman from idaho and ina and others across this table who have tried our best to look at do so does not do any good. nd especially from those, i appreciate ms. martinez, my father was a state trooper for 31 years. would go what he through and these others go through knowing that in my hall county was one of the first 287-g counties. have my issues. and i hold accountable -- we accountable.her but to simply say the one argument that never came from me i have sheriffs who great respect for was that you were basically too dumb to enforce the law. it may be i disagree with you on how you made this stop or how

fact that s, but the you were not bright enough to enforce it? no. and to have law school -- i appreciate it and i respect greatly the gentle ady from across the aisle from california. she can outrun me any day on aspects.al but that's the law school question. what these gentlemen deal with side of the road kind of stuff. i want to focus a little bit on georgia.in over 50 illegal aliens were released from the sequestration. and in march, i wrote to the dhs and requested information about releases. i asked how many were released in georgia and how many had criminal convictions. are specific crimes committed by illegal aliens released in georgia? never gotten an answer. i'm an original co-sponsor of supports lation that the needs to fix this current law in conjunction with other need to deal with with immigration. not just one, but with a lot of

we look for the agents and prosecutors, shouldn't we take steps to ensure that the national and public safety goal in this bill aren't by what be releases detained. from you ke to hear about your thoughts on the seriousness of this situation to cure it inn do the future. >> it's serious. georgia,it's arizona or we're cutting people to the streets that are criminals, not letting law enforcement know about it. letting them know what we're doing, it's extremely dangerous. as an finitely -- officer, those things never needed to happen. sequestration or no ways of tion, we have trimming the numbers back without making mass releases like that. completely unacceptable. a public safety threat. everybody should be held accountable. senator mccain himself from the napolitano t said here -- someone needs to be

disciplined for that. to do is cut have back when ever possible the discession of political secretary of ng dhs or the director of i.c.e. the ve to cut back on discretion. congress has to codify this. they have to put it in writing going to folks are behave. >> that's something we need to look at. just want to say, as one ooking for an answer here, let's deal with answers, not disparaging comments. to ask the ike opportunity to respond. >> if you suspend for a moment. floor that s in the are five minutes in. ten minutes remaining. florida is n from mr. garcia. he's next. momentarily.gnized he'll be cutting it really close on the vote. then we can return after the vote and we hope our witnesses be remain because there will a few other members, including

desantos.r. have you asked questions yet? >> yeah, ms. tomlin didn't get a chance to respond. >> i understand. we're running close on time. > if you're going to let other witnesses, she ought to be given a minute. because despite the fact -- gentleman would suspend. i don't have time to accomplish mr. garcia and mr. king said he's going to come back. then go to ms. tomlin and to mr. garcia and then come back after votes. >> i would rather ms. tomlin speak to the people when they're here. it doesn't make sense that she speak -- i know of her good work and incrediblens work. i know about the good work. maybe we should be here to listen. >> i understand, many members may not come back after. are more ow if there members then than there are now. >> go ahead, i'm sorry.

>> thank you. have a vote to get to. it is really important how we engage in this discussion and dialogue.of at no point did i say i believe law enforcement is too dumb to immigration law. let's be clear -- in my world, i have to deal with facts and evidence. i don't get extra credit for representing undocumented immigrants. an extra chance. i need to deal with the facts in evidence. the facts in evidence show from findings, from the department of justice that under entire g program in its incarnation, the way it operates now, there are patterns of violations.onal what we're pointing out today. as an expert, when i read the i have s of this bill, serious fears about the expansion of that authority and to and what lead it would mean on human terms.

to the parents who children, for everyone in this m radio, it was to.d to listen i'm a mother. of course, i empathize with you. understand.in to because i'm a mother, i know i can't understand what happened to you, but i'm a proud american. and one of the things that i'm we believe in a equality and equal treatment the law. this bill does not do that. that's why i'm concerned. that you do not get held without probable cause and we believe no group whether they noncitizens or whatever country they came from is strict with the constitutional values. i urge us to look at what this bill does to remove equality specific law for a group. and i appreciate the indulgence of the chairman's time. gentleman. the >> i'll take my five minutes since there's enough time.

> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> i've seen these law here.cement persons unlike others, i have spent a great deal of my time working on immigration. one of the great prides i find working with law enforcement is that law enforcement doesn't responsibilities that law enforcement is overwhelmed with responsibility already. -- very sacred trust that they have with the local whounity, with those people get hurt. in particular, to get witnesses of serious crime. and so i worry about how we're selling this here. andcrane has come here time time and time again. and spoken against immigration reform. nd mr. chairman, i have the deepest respect for you and for trying to get this through. ut this is not the debate that we should be having today. we're close to solving a national problem that could have olved a lot of the problems that we've seen here today. and it is important that we realize that. because we can pull back fear, fear mongering and hate and

underlying a lot of what goes on here today. clearly we've come a long way. its's important to go that way. question toing this or ms. martinez. i know for a fact because i worked with you in the past that you have dealt with law enforcement. can you speak to that really quickly? think we can both address that quickly. we speak to law enforcement regularly. and lk to police chiefs sheriffs about this issue. they told us is exactly what the congressman is pointing out. want to do our job. we need the community to have terrified of to be us. we want to make choices about how to prioritize, how to nforce law, and keep our communities safe. from sheriff after sheriff across the country.

and i spoke about this at the beginning. there are differences of opinions. think that there is a shared concern in the law enforcement community about how takes place, on what it may do for people's crime, ness to report whether a crime is being committed against them or whether they've been witness to one. i think as we heard from everal members, a very recent study corroborates previous not es that say that is unique to people who are undocumented. it's a fear that it's now taking hold of latinas that are u.s. citizens. again, this is about balance. i feel that a lot of the there's n here -- almost like aggressive agreement on some things and then we're on the thingings we don't agree on. we cannot continue to tear each apart and move us away from actually we're much closer

we hen a consensus that think. in the american public, it is in consensus on this issue that congress gives a credit for. -- as is usually the case, that leaders follow the people that can get there soon. to doe a real opportunity it this year. the solution does involve law enforcement. been doing we've enforcement for 24 years. we can say we've learned lessons better.can do it enforcement needs to be smarter and more accountable based on learned in we have that in the last 20 years. but i think we have to admit hat the solution that we're after is not going to come through that one piece alone. >> i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the e chair thanks gentleman for a minute and a half for the members to get to floor. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> could i inquire as to whether

that this intention measure be marked up next week? we are work ing working steadi making an announcement for that very soon. know i i caution you i for one would like to review to record and i would like see the transcript before we that. >> the gentleman has been here most of the hearing and he has benefit of that. we want to afford him to review as much of the information but we recognize there's a lot of work from the house and senate and this its work needs to do as well. we'll have further disdis cushion about that. we have a vote pending on the with little time for the members to get there. the committee will stand in witnesses we ask the to stay because we have two or three more members who would questions you some including myself. thank you for your patience and

foreberns. -- foreber rans. the committee will stand in recess. >> the house and senate are in session today. the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern for speeches and to consider a pair of judicial nominations. at 5:30. expected work on the rn to immigration bill. majority leader reed plans to bill on the july 4 recess. he house gavels in at noon eastern for speeches with legislative work starting at 2:00. on the agenda during the week, a banning abortions after 20 weeks and the farm bill which also includes nutrition programs. atch the house live on c-span, the senate on c-span two. next, "q&a" with politico patrick gavin. then live at 7:00 a.m., your cause and comments on washington

journal. three days before the battle. he gets to the headquarters to assume command from hooker. and hooker doesn't even -- he's such a poor leader, he hadn't even gathered in one single detailed map of southern pennsylvania. i mean, he makes command, leads in pennsylvania, and mead doesn't have a map. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live all day coverage of commemoration from the gettysburg battlefield on c-span 3. >> the c-span video library

reach add milestone. there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span programming. public affairings, politics, history, nonhistory books all searchable and free, a public service created by private industry. america's cable companies. >> this week on "q&a," patrick gavin discussing the use of television over a variety of platforms including facebook, youtube, and other internet websites. patrick gann of politico, how would you define your job? >> i'm a staff writer. i cover politics. but i don't cover politics very seriously. i do my job seriously, but i'm not covering, you know, the budget committee, i'm not covering markups. i'm doing a story, some of which are fun, some are not fun. covering the stories off of the beaten track and doing one-on-one interviews about politico. they're about their lives, interesting, colorful stories taking place around town. >> what is politico? a website and paper started five years ago. 5 bare knuckle staff. mike allen, they've now grown into a very large news operation based out of rozland. they have politico and politico pro, a subscription site.

but their beat is very much to cover politics obsessively and comprehensively. it's a narrow beat. organizations have to cover sports and they have to cover gardening. but politico is very, very straightforward cover politics. >> you came to work in this town in brookings, which is a very old institution. but since then, the washington examiner, fish bowl, politico,