vulnerable people in this country. and i thank the gentlelady for her participation. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. hartzler, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. . mrs. hartzler: father's day was this past sunday and i'm thankful i had the opportunity to spend time with my father and sister and her family and thanked him for the role that he has meant and continues to mean in our lives and also an opportunity for our daughter and i to do something special for my husband. father's day focuses on the importance of fathers in this country. the presence of a father has a tremendous impact on the life and every child and adult in

america. a father serves to provide a sense of protection, guidance and above all love for their child. fathers push their children to pursue their dreams and to never give up. i think of my own father, and the pro found influence he has had on my life, not only has he taught me the meaning of hard work and dedication, but he has supported me throughout my entire life to where i am today representing the good people of missouri. that's what good fathers do and why they are so important. we learn a lot from fathers, whether it's how to drive a tractor and shoot a free-throw or how to fix an engine or play baseball. dads teach us. they also show us how to live by example. children learn the importance of work and dedication to providing for the family when they see their dad leave for his job each day. they learn the importance of faith when he takes his family

to church on sunday. and they learn the value of family when he prioritizes his time to eat dinner with them each night or to coach their little league team. we need good fathers now more than ever. their importance is paramount to another discussion taking place in our nation and that is the value of marriage in america. along with father's day, june will bring an important announcement, the supreme court's much anticipated rulings on domea and proposition 8. these cases have put the national spotlight on this issue in a new way and provide tunes for americans to discuss the question, what is marriage. it's not complicated. rriage exists to brian woman to be man and wife and have children. marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man

and a woman and the reality that children need a mother and a father. redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children. it would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. we know that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. president obama is also a strong advocate for the importance of a strong male figure, with firsthand experience without growing up without a father, the president works every day to be a great dad to his two daughters. the obama administration has created many new programs including fatherhood buzz and healthy marriage and healthy fatherhood initiatives. president obama has said too many fathers are quote, missing, from too many lives and too many homes, having abandoned their

responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men and goes on, the president says, we know the statistics. that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and to commit crime. nine times more likely to drop out of school. and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. they are more likely to have behavioral problems or to run away from home or become teenaged parents themselves, and the foundations of our community are weaker because of it, end quote. clearly, we all agree on the critical role fathers play in the lives of their children, which is why we should continue to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the interest of children. every child deserves a mom and a dad. arecannot say that a father

essential while making them optional. we are here tonight to make a case for fathers. too many times in society they re viewed as optional. we are here to set the record straight. it's time to honor the fathers of america for the vital they play in in not only our families but also the stability and well-being of our nation. it's time to show the respect that is due them. encourage men to be better fathers for their children and champion the vital role they play in marriage. and i'm joined tonight by several of my colleagues, and i appreciate them taking the time to visit about this very important topic and i have my good friend from kansas, tim huelskamp. he is a good father and i yield my time to tim huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: thank you,

congresswoman hartzler, and i appreciate you leading our discussion on this very important topic and you do mention sometimes, a forgotten topic. and we have our stories about our dads and i was really blessed and still blessed with an active and involved father and as a farm kid, probably the most poignant story i do recall with my dad was after a hailstorm. you know being a farm gal yourself, the damage that the hailstorm does to your family and crops. and we were sitting out in the yard and three, four inches in the yard and listened to bounce off the roof of the pickup and then it stopped and we thought what's going to dad going to say. we put the pickup in drive and got out and went back to work and that's the message i learned

from my dad. you don't give up, you roll with the punches. tonight i don't want to talk just about my father or my children, i would love to do that. my wife not blessed with any of ur own biological children but four adopted children. one thing i do want to speak to fathers that are listening tonight and fathers, i want to challenge you to be a hero to your children and be committed fathers to the mothers of your children. live out fatherhood courageously and live this heroic role as father requires marriage. it is the exclusive and permanent union between one man and one woman to become husband

and father and mother and father. i would like to speak to all of america as my colleague has done. it is vital we encourage fatherhood in the context of marriage and uphold policies that reflect the truth that fathers are not optional and play a vital role. and restoring america must begin again on the home front and begins with encouraging and supported committed responsible fatherhood in the context of marriage. we know who the victims of the vicious fatherless cycle is, it is our children. the children of america who are left to suffer the scars of their absentee fathers. as my colleague noted and quoted the president, he was accurate when he said we know the statistics because they are so powerful. children who grow up without a father are likely to commit crimes, nine times to drop out

of school and 20 times more likely to have behavioral problems. the foundations of our community are weaker because of ftslessness. fathers not around wound our society. the welfare state has to expand when marriage and families decline. it has been estimated $229 billion in welfare costs from 1970 to 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of marriage and specifically a study in 2008, one year alone, estimating that divorce and unwed child bearing cost american taxpayers over $120 billion a year. this was a study five years ago. where there are absentee fathers, it's you, i, our families, our communities, our churches, our neighbors our cities and the government are forced to step in and try to pick up the broken pieces of these shattered marriages.

this is not fair to mothers and children. wives deserve committed husbands. children deserve fathers. one story i will note and i will close quickly, not far from here, i was crossing a crowded street here in washington, d.c. and there was a line of kids i think they were with a baby sitter and a two-year-old young boy and looked up as he is crossing the street and she is dragging him across and he said, who is my daddy? who is my daddy? and that baby sitter didn't have an answer. she said don't worry about that. he kept asking, who is my daddy. we should have an answer for that little boy because we should know. we should expect, demand, promote and push fathers, encourage them, be man enough to hold up their responsibilities. there is a disease in america

that is the disease of fatlessness. there is no doubt, tons and tons of social science data for that two-year-old boy, three-year-old boy, we have to have an answer, who is his daddy and should be involved and our policies should reflect that goal because every child deserves both a mom and a dad and i look forward as we continue to press forward that we promote marriage and father hood. > thank you so much -- mrs. hartzler: thank you so much, tim. and the costs that we have as a society when fathers are not present and why it's important to have a policy that promotes a father being there for their children. now i would like to yield to the

gentleman from georgia and hear what he has to say about the importance of fathers. thank you, phil gingrey. mr. gingrey: i appreciate so much the gentlelady from missouri, for leading this time on father hood and what a perfect time to do it this evening. we all just came back from our districts and celebrated father's day. grandfather's day and of course we're also awaiting sometime soon before the end of june, a momentous decision from the supreme court in regard to two particular decisions, the one ballot initiative from california, proposition 8, where he people of california fairly

convincingly decided what is the definition of a traditional marriage. and of course the other thing is defense of marriage act passed right here on this floor and signed into law by president clinton back in 1996. so this is timely, and i commend the gentlewoman from missouri for bringing it forward and giving us an opportunity to join with our colleagues and talk about something as important as this, that is the definition of fatherhood and how important a father is to a child. but maybe even more important than that, a mother and a father. we don't always have the ideal situation, but that's certainly no reason to throw up our hands and say let's forget about faith and family and traditional values and what's best, what is

the best circumstance for a child. you know, i think, my colleagues, i think a lot about my own children. of course they're adults now and among them, they have 13 grandchildren -- our grandchildren, their children and you know, at least one of my son-in-laws had no father present when he was growing up. and that father didn't come to his wedding. that father was not there for the birth of any of his four children. that father just basically denies his existence. and i watch that particular son-in-law and my son and my physicallyn-laws but him how much he loves his

children, how kind, caring and loving he is and how important he is in their lives. nd i realize today that father knows best and that traditional view we had back in the old days of television is different, it's changed and i do understand that . of my three daughters and one daughter-in-law, they all work. they all work. some of them full-time, some of them part-time, but they're still there as moms. and when they come home and take over that responsibility, they need a shared partner and that partner is that partner for life . and i'm talking about, of course, the father. . . maybe part of the problem is we

need to go back into the schools at a very early age, maybe at the grade school level, and have a class for the young girls and have a class for the young boys and say, you know, this is what's important. that s what a father does is may be a little different, maybe -- maybe a little different, maybe a little better than the talent that mom has in a certain area and same things for the young girls, you know, this is what a mom does and this is what's important from the standpoint of that union. which we call marriage. and we have called that since the beginning of this country and long before the beginning of this country. as i close and yield back to the gentlelady and thank her for giving me some time. i stand strongly for the defense of marriage act and traditional marriage as we know it. and don't take that right away from our states.

but this is a wonderful opportunity to say, young men, you've got a great responsibility, you're not a father unless you prove it. and i yield back to the gentlewoman. ms. hartzler: thank you so much, phil. that's well spoken from a proud grandfather as well as a father and certainly brought up the importance of fatherhood. as well as these decisions that are coming up from the supreme court. the people have spoken on that. the people of california spoke two times and they said, this is what we think is wise public policy for the families and the citizens of california. and the people spoke on the defense of marriage act through their elected representatives here in congress. huge vote. bipartisan. and president clinton signed the bill. the people have spoken on this and what we don't want is to have the supreme court impose their view or be activists, impose their view of what

marriage should be on the citizens who have spoken. so it's going to be interesting to see how they rule. but certainly i agree with you, phil. that it's very important that the people have spoken and that we hold -- uphold marriage. next we have a representative from oklahoma, a friend of mine, james lankford, who not only is a great dad and father, but has worked with teenagers for many years and i'm sure has seen the importance of fatherhood as he relates to young people. go ahead, james lankford. mr. lankford: thank you. i thank the gentlelady for hosting this time. there's a lot of things i've talked about in the well of this house. talked about budget, i've talked about a growing economy, about jobs, i've talked about transportation, i've talked about the relationship of the individual citizen and their government and how that relationship works or sometimes doesn't work lately. but this is a time just to be able to pause for a moment and not talk about necessarily some new government law or some new regulation but to celebrate for

justice a -- just a moment dads. with father's day this past weekend and to be able to hesitate again and be able to say thanks to my own dad, but to also talk about the fact that it is the love of our life , for men to be able to enjoy their children just like it is for ladies to be able to enjoy their children as well as a mom. there's something very unique. and i believe firmly that every child needs a mom and needs a dad. they come at parenting from two different directions and they together make such a dramatic difference in the life of a child. to have a mom and to have a dad. it's interesting to me that the last verse in the old testament in that verse from maliki can 4:6, it ends that new testament by saying, the role of the profit will be to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers and to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. to be able to see that restoration. in that time period there was a collapse for a moment in the families.

and they suffered as a nation and saw that. we see that today. in our own families. 15 million children live life without a father. 15 million. in 1960 there were only 11% of the homes that didn't have a father. today it's over 1/3 of the homes that don't have a father. and as we we've -- as we watch all the consequences that occur in that, in our own economy and family and culture, it's just the separation that happens. we see a greater emphasis right now with trying to figure out what to do in schools. as parents seem to be disconnected from their children and teachers struggle in their community, in things -- and things have changed this our schools with an be a sebs of father -- with an absence of fathers, as we've seen the families collapse. we've seen an increase in poverty. some cliques were here earlier -- some colleagues were here earlier speaking about hunger in america which is rampant and a huge issue for us as a nage. and they mentioned that -- as a

nation. and they mentioned in the 1970's we a a very low hunger rate in america and it's interesting for to us come here now and talk about fathers and how that has changed and from that point in 1970, when we had a very low hunger rate in america, now to look at the difference now, a very high hunger rate in america and also a very low presence of fathers in the lives of their children, we've seen something different happen in families. as fathers disconnect from their children, and they no longer see our role, to be able to be a provider, and they call government to be a provider for children, it was never designed to be that way. that's not where it is best. children have a higher risk of poverty, children have a lower graduation rate from high school, have a lower entry rate into college. there's not a safe environment for children when there's an absence of a dad and a mom. it's different for them as they grow up and as they process through things. and the stability that can come

to a child with the presence of a mom and of a dad. so what do we do about it is the challenge. quite frankly, there are issues in our marriage laws right now as a nation that we have where there are penalties to be married in our tax law. there are penalties even in our disability benefits as we try to reach in and help families as they're disabled, but yet if they're married it's a lower rate. so we look at that and we ask the question, why would we punish a family for being married because one of the individuals there is disabled? that doesn't make sense for us. so we need to look at our policies that we have. and to be able to encourage rather than discourage marriage. because we know what that happens. it's the reason that the federal government's involved at all in the marriage relationship. is because we know what happens in the lives of children when a man and a woman are committed to each other for life. that commitment, the reason the government's connected to that, is because of what happens in the lives of children and how it benefits people in the days

ahead. so we need to look at the marriage penalty. that's occurring in our tax law and our disability rules and such. but most of the issues that deal with fatherhood and from the absence of fathers won't happen because of a change in federal law. it will happen when families turn and mentor young couples and they get personally involved in the lives of young families. for some individuals that they've never seen a functioning man and a woman married and committed to each other for life. they've never seen that in their community and they haven't experienced that in their own family. it's so important for older couples to mentor younger couples, to pass on the wisdom that they've gained. it's quite frankly very important at the marriage altar for two individuals to truly commit to each other for life. it brings stability not only to those two individuals but also stability to the children as well as they grow up in a home where there's some emotional security and safety and not the constant fear of separation and of loss of either the mom or the dad. so for individuals to be

committed to each other for life makes a big difference in that. so what can happen? i talked about the federal policies but it's really individuals. individuals mentoring other individuals and it's two individuals when they approach the marriage altar knowing they're going to commit to each other and work through the problems that they have because that's what's best for our nation and that's what's best for the children that crumbing up, to provide them that stable home where they can grow up. do we always get it perfect? no. but we know economically, we know emotionally the strongest homes and what's best for our children is for a mom and a dad. and i want to honor dads that do commit to walk through the hard, difficult days and to say to them, keep going. don't give up, dads, as you face through hard times, your children need you. it is the single most difficult part of my job, is getting on an airplane on monday mornings and flying away from my two daughters and my wife. no other moment of my week is harder than that one.

because i know the importance of being a dad to my daughters. and they need me and i encourage dads today to live out the commitment that you have made to your wife and the commitment you've made to your children. with that i yield back. ms. hartzler: great, great words. thank you, james. what a word of encouragement. on how to commit and to keep on going and to be good dads. and the need to strengthen marriage in this country. so thank you for those very, very excellent comments. and now i'd like to call on another colleague from oklahoma , a freshman this year who has just hit the ground running and we're really glad he's here. jim bridenstine. i'd like to yield to you and hear what you would like to share tonight about the importance of fathers. mr. bridenstine: i really appreciate that. it's an honor to be here and thank you for inviting me to participate in this. i have been certainly accused of maybe being critical of the

president from time to time, as many of us republicans are sometimes. but i'd like to share a few points where we agree. the president and i. i've got a number of quotes here and i think these quotes cross party lines and certainly indicate how important fathers are in the lives of their children. here's a quote from our president, barack obama. we need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn't end at conception. we need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child, it's the courage to raise one. here's another quote from our president, i wish i had a father who was around and involved. that's a profound statement and certainly it shows a great deal of courage by our president to say that. i remember when i was a young the in the cub scouts, pinewood derby came around every year and my father and i

and my brother, we would spend a great deal of time weighing our little pinewood derby car to make sure that it weighed precisely five ounces. and we would spend all night graphiting the wheels because we wanted our little pinewood derby car to be the absolute fastest car that we could possibly make and whether we won or lost, it didn't matter, we were going to make this car as fast as we could possibly make it and i also remember not too long ago my 7-year-old, who was then 6, wanted to participate in the pinewood derby as a cub scout himself. and because of that relationship i had with my father and the time that we spent involved in that project, it was a desire of my heart to be involved in his pinewood derby to the same extent. and i'm proud to say that when i was a child we won the pinewood derby and i'm proud to say that, as walker's dad, together we won the pinewood derby when he was 6 years old. these are the things that i think are critically important in the life of a child.

some other quotes from our president, obama has said that his hardest but not always the most rewarding job is being a father. or i'm sorry, the hardest but the most rewarding is being a father. and i think that's absolutely true as well. i want to quote some statistics here. currently there are 24 million children in america living in a home without their biological father. the world family map report by child trends found that even when controlling for income, children who live with both parents have better educational outcomes than children living with one or no parents. fathers play an important role in teaching children life lessons and preparing them to succeed in school and in life. some other quotes, according to the national fatherhood initiative, a father's involvement in education of his children is associated with a higher probability of a's for

their children. interestingly, i remember when i was in fourth grade, there was a competition called math olympiads and my dad was a mathematician and he came from a family of mathematicians and my dad would spend hours with me working on these math problems that were really college-level math problems and we would go over and over these problems again and again. and i remember in fourth grade, when it came time to do math olympiads, there was just five problems and if you could get one or two of them right it was really tremendous for a fourth grader. and i remember at the end of the first math olympiad i had four out of five correct and it wasn't because i was smart, it wasn't because i was brilliant. it had nothing to do with that at all. in fact, quite the contrary. but what it had to do with was the fact that i a dad who was so engaged and so involved and interested in making sure that not only would i get an a in the class, quite frankly that

was not really relevant to him whearks cared about was whether or not i learned the material. i remember taking tests in sixth grade and i would do the math problems entirely different than how the teacher taught and the teacher would count it wrong and my dad would go to the school and he would say, you know, you may have -- he may have done it differently than you taught him, but he did it the way we taught at home because he's preparing for, you know, higher math in a different year. and having a dad involved in your education in that way is something that's tremendously important to me as i was growing up and certainly now that i am a father myself, and i have a child in first, now soon to be second grade, and of course other children on the way that are entering kindergarten and a 1-year-old at home, these are areas where it's important for me. and there's a generational trend. when a child has that impact from their father, certainly it's an impact on them that they want to have on their own

children. . that's why it is important for fathers to be involved in the lives of their children. children with involved fathers are more likely to do well in school, better sense of well-being, fewer behavioral problems. when fathers are involved, the children demonstrate greater self-control and greater ability to take initiative. along with father's day this june will also bring an important announcement. the supreme court's much anticipated ruling on the defense of marriage act and proposition 8. these cases have put the national spotlight on this issue in a new way and provide an opportunity for americans to discuss the question what is marriage. marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be a father and mother to children. and the institution of marriage is intended for life.

and this is very important when it comes to the rearing of children. a few more statistics, in 2012, one-third of all children lived in families without their biological father present. according to some estimates as many as 50% of children under age 18 will spend or have spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father. research indicates that children raised in single-parent families both re likely with ological parents have pafrle problems and have poverty-level income. in 2011, the poverty rate for children living in homes without a father was 48% compared to 11% for children living with married-couple families. single-parent families are more likely to be poor than

two-parent families. that's why it is so important for fathers and i commend the president when he talks about the importance of fathers. here's a final quote from our president, as fathers, we need to be involved in our children's lives, not just when it's convenient or easy and not just when they're doing well, but when it's difficult and thankless and they're struggling. that's when they need us most. with that, i thank the gentlelady from missouri, and i yield back. mrs. hartzler: thank you so much, jim. really enjoyed hearing the stories about your father and the role that he played and you know, i think every child in helped make their pine box with them and it really is important and makes a huge difference and thanks for sharing that. now i would like to yield my time to congressman trent franks

from arizona and to fathers and families, trent. mr. franks: i thank the gentlelady, mr. speaker, because she has demonstrated such a wonderful presence in this body. she's been a gift to all of us and i know each person has preceded me to this platform is grateful for congresswoman hartzler and wish there were about another 200 like her and i might just go home. but i really appreciate her so much. it's been said that a father is a man who expects his children to be good as he meant to be and i haven't meant a father who doesn't want to convey his own mistakes to his children. he wants his children to learn from his mistakes and give his children the best possible start in life, serving as a springboard from which to face the day-to-day challenges that

ultimately come. but i really don't think that's such a comprehensive definition. those of us who are privileged to be in the christian family believe there is a loftier image of fatherhood, that there is one after whom we model our flawed aattempts to raise our children with love and wisdom. a perfect father that gives us every good and perfect gift, a father to the fatherless and help in times of need to the widow and oppressed. and it is only in having children sometimes that we begin to understand just a little glimpse of how our heavenly father feels about the rest of us. to most women, their father was their first love. to most men, their father was their first larger than life idol. the role father plays in the life of his children cannot be overstated. that knowledge that little eyes are watching every move we make

often emulating what they see good or bad, no matter what we do, will never fully feel equipped to do justice with the responsibility that god has entrusted us. there is a famous saying that the greatest gift a father can give his children is to love their mother. and the point of that quote is that a healthy intact home gives the child the best possible chance at pursuing and achieving their dreams. but for all these difficulties, what a sweet and blessed honor it is to be entrusted with the task of raising these little human images of unconditional love. and i have said it before that every baby that is born comes with a message from god that he has not yet despaired of mankind on earth. yet i look around at the state of the american family, that bedrock institution that is responsible more than any other

factor for putting the truth into the hearts and minds of each new generation and i believe it is facing a grave and profound challenge in america. gary bower wrote an article on this very subject. highlighting the state of affairs in which so many americans find themselves without the firm, guiding loving hand of a father. indeed, mr. speaker, 40% of children are now born to unmarried parents including the majority of children born to women 30 years old or younger. and recent study in richmond, virginia, found 60% of families in the city have just one parent, usually the mother at home. among black residents, 86%. and related pew study estimated that women when they are the prime bread winners and they are in 40% of american households that unfortunately the majority

of these households are led by a single mother who has $23,000 in income. intact families average $80,000 by comparison. 85% of all young men or even for that men middle-aged men in prison came from a family that never had a functional father figure in their midst. 85%. mr. statement it is an understatement to suggest to you that children are desperately in need of a mother and a father. and i know no better way to illustrate that than to tell the story of three fathers and the first story i will tell is one father named earl carr, my grandfather, a coal miner. and when he was in the his mid -20's, a terrible cave-in crushed his friends, killed most of them and broke his back.

so as a child, i remember growing up when my grandfather could carry a coal bucket maybe 40 feet and then he would have to sit down. he never abandoned his family and was there in every way that he could be. and just to illustrate how a grandfather can have a big impact on a grandson, more than 45 years has past and i hope i can remember it, but he used to be very fond of the coal miner's ode. come and listen you fellows so young and so fine and seek out your fortune and will form as a habit for your blood run as black as the coal. damp as the dew and the pleasures are few and the rain never falls and the sun never shines and i hope when i'm gone, my body will blacken and turn into coal and i look to the door

of my heavenly home. because as dark as the dungeon and the pleasures are few. where the rain never falls and the sun never shines it's as dark as a dungeon down in the mines. i don't remember the last time i said that, mr. speaker, but i do know that it was over 40 years ago that i learned it and grandfather does have a lasting impact on our lives. and so now i will tell you the story of another father and it's my father, man named taylor franks. i don't remember how he was there for me when i was a baby and had some congenital defects and probable wouldn't have the opportunity to be standing in this well had it not been for a faithful story. years ago in the little town i was growing up, i quame away from the playground when i was five or six years old and i came through an alley and you know

how it always is, there is sometimes a bunch of guys that want to demonstrate their macho capability and i walked past the fence and one of them yelled something at me and there was a rock fight that ensued. they were behind the fence and several of them. and i was out there alone and i was losing this battle. and i would pick up what rock and throw it back because i didn't want to be overtaken by this band. but i was losing and i thought what am i go go to have to do? and just when i was in the moment of my peak of my panic, the rocks stopped. everything was still and i could see them peeking over the fence at me and i noticed they were looking at something behind them. and i turned it was taylor franks. he said how about me evening up the sides a little bit.

and he evened up the sides many, many times. he is 87 years old now. but i tell you if the communists ever come to this country to take us over they better go around his house because they'll get more than they bargained for. he loves his country, his god and his family. to express words my gratitude to him. so i will tell you about another father who almost didn't think he was going to be one, but he calls this little boy little feller because that's what his daddy called him. and his name is joshua lane and he's my boy. sister, sister, twin

five minutes younger, of course he takes care of her. and i can say to you that there no greater gift on this .arth than these children somehow i guess the point of all this, mr. speaker, just to remind all of us that our fathers, what they meant to us and what we mean to our children, sometimes i have to watch mine grow up at a distance, but they know their daddy loves them and know their daddy is here so we can make a better future. your children grow up so quickly and your impact on them will be profound beyond any words that i could ever articulate.

and they say that great societies come when old plant trees under whose shade they will never sit. and i believe that to be true. that our greatest job as fathers is to make sure that our children have the truths that will help them find their way home and through the great storms of life. we should always remind ourselves that they are the living messages that we send to a time we will never see ourselves. i hope the fathers of our country will recognize the gift they have been given and recognize the impact they will have and the rest of society will recognize that if we displace fathers in our country, we will bankrupt us all trying to replace them. so i -- with that, mr. speaker and congresswoman hartzler, i yield back. mrs. hartzler: thank you so

much, representative franks. i couldn't say it any better, i think. thank you and the hertealing he has given his children and his father gave him and his grandfather gave him, that's what it's about, to pass on that heritage to your children. and that's why we have a policy in our country in a country that encourages fathers to be there for their children so that every child has a chance to have a mother and a father. and i'm glad to be joined today by the gentleman from california doug lamalfa. and thanks for coming tonight. . . mr. lamalfa: thank you for holding this time here tonight for us here. to talk about the importance of fatherhood and what all that means. you know, i really appreciate the words of my cleeling from

-- of my colleague from arizona who just spoke and his eloquent way of doing that. we're in a nation here that really cries out for the type of values that are represented by what's called the nuclear family. you know, kids these days, with so many temptations, so many things out there that would pull them in all different directions. they need a mom and they need a dad. and we know statistically, this talk of numbers, that the chances of success for children to grow up and be successful in their own lives, not in poverty, not in an abusive situation, the per -- percentages are so much higher when there's a loving mom and a dad in their life. and so we have very important tasks, very important jobs here in this place. so, mr. speaker, when we make policy here, we always need to make it in such a way that

supports the family, that strengthens the family and doesn't weaken it or in some fashion even use the state, use the government as usurping the role of a parent or of a dad like we've seen so much with maybe the start of the great society. well-intentioned things that have gone on to, in many ways, replace the father in people's lives. and there needs to be that accountability to come back and bring that unit together. you know, thinking of my own dad, we lost him almost five years ago now. i'm going to get through this without getting verklempt. he was always a strong and pretty quiet leader but he could just give you the look pretty much and set you back on track. and so he to spend a lot of hours out on the farm. we didn't always get to see him all the time, when it was busy

in the spring time with the planting or harvest. but we always knew, me and my sisters, he was there for us. he didn't get to every ballgame but we always knew. we didn't have to question his dedication and commitment to us and to our mother. because moms are in it too. we know that. certainly. as typically mostly the caregiver for kids a lot of times, she needs that support too. that comes from that committed family unit. so, we have to make policy, we have to make things that support that in this place. and i'm so just disappointed with the direction our country's gone the last 40ers 50 years that's broken that apart. i have an obligation, too. my wife and my four kids, and one of the most difficult things in contemplating what goes on with this role of service that i've been blessed

with by the voters of my district is the time away from home. being from the west coast, it's a heck of a commitment. five-hour plane ride each way and all that. you don't just get to pop in like when i was in the state legislature in sacramento. you get home most nights. so that's the thing that kind of keeps me wondering sometimes, worrying a little bit. am i doing right by my kids? we do this here. i think any one of us that runs for office, with the idea that we're trying to help the next generations and preserve the country, preserve our freedoms. but there's a sacrifice in this job. but it kind of all comes back to perspective here. father's day the other day. got to spend the -- home with the family, all my kids got me a little success or made me a card. very, very touching things that were said in those cards that reminds me that, yeah, we are

here trying to do something for them. preserve their rights, their opportunities, their liberties and that they understand, even though i don't always get to be home, that it is for them. and so that makes me feel good about doing this, about taking on the huge issues here, the long hours, the sometimes fruitless battles and people looking at us from the outside with our maybe 10% approval rating, wondering what the heck are you doing back there in washington, d.c.? but we all know we're here for a good reason. so, as i bring my piece to a close here, we have an obligation as dads to be there for our wives and for our kids. i mean, that's nothing new. but the dedication, they need to know that we're there for them. that we're fighting for something, whether it's our more day-to-day jobs, if you're a butcher or baker or

candlestick maker, you're back here getting to be a part of the u.s. congress, that we're there for them. the importance of a dad to a son can't be overstated. you need a man in the life to guide your son to the right path, to be that strong voice, to keep your son in the position, first of all, of respecting your mother, respecting your sisters, respecting women. of what that role is supposed to be. they need that. and a lot of them have lost out on that. that's sad. we see the tragedy. some of these kids walking the streets and they grow up to be in gangs and so much because they didn't have that. a dad has a very strong role with his daughters. to ensure that they know that they have value, that they aren't something to be out there to be traded as so often happens, when they didn't have that farewell voice saying that you have value, you have

self-respect that is so key to you and keeps so many times young girls out of trouble and on that good path. you can't overstate that role of a father on both sons and daughters. and of course that very strong support that's needed for your wife. who has to watch the home fires when we're off doing things like this. she needs that. and so what i'm saying to the men that are already fathers or would-be fathers, you got a very important task, extremely. the most important task, to be that leader of your household. you need to stick with them through thick and thin. and, men, be men. don't be something else. grow up, cast off childish things when you've made that commitment to a woman and to fatherhood. because they're watching you. your neighborhood's watching

you. it's the most important thing you'll ever do. so, mr. speaker, i conclude tonight with the thought that if we are to be one nation under god, men have a very key role in that and that's being that father. that's holding the family together. no matter what might come and effect it, no matter what legislation or court decision might try to affect or break that family union or make confusing decisions for our children, we have that role and we can be that guide for their whole lives. and it's rewarding for all of us. so with that i appreciate the time, appreciate your leading this discussion here tonight. thank you. ms. hartzler: thank you. very, very well said and appreciate you encouraging the men to be leaders of their household and to make a difference for their children,

the next generation. i appreciate all my colleagues who have come tonight so that we could talk about the importance of the fathers and how important it is to have marriage strong in our country. every child deserves a mom and a dad and you cannot say that fathers are essential while also making them optional. in the presence of a fsh -- the presence of a father has such a tremendous impact in the lives of each and every child and every adult in america. fathers not only represent the success of our children, but also the success of our nation. as we get closer to the supreme court rulings concerning the defense of marriage act, it's crucial that we weigh the entirety of the impact such a decision will have on families. my colleague from oklahoma earlier cited the president and this quote, when he stressed the importance of fathers. i think it's very, very good and i want to repeat it. president obama said, as fathers we need to be involved in our children's lives, not

just when it's convenient or easy, and not just when they're doing well, but when it's difficult and thankless and they're struggling. that is when they need us most. every single child in this country deserves the opportunity to have a mother and a father. that's why we must uphold marriage, not only must we represent the future of our children, they represent the future of our nation. so thank you, mr. speaker, for this time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the news to recess subject to the kay call of the chair.

>> the bill provides exceptions in cases that the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or. the house also began work on the farm bill, which sets subsidies for crop insurance and nutrition plans. ,e will see amendments tomorrow with over 200 filed. members return on wednesday. the head of the national security agency told a house panel today that over 50 terror threats around the world have been stopped with the assistance of surveillance programs that were recently disclosed by former contractor edward snowden. that hearing is next on c-span. oner tonight, house debate banning abortions after 20 weeks. director robert mueller testifies on capitol

hill tomorrow at an oversight hearing. he will take questions on a data collection program run by the national security agency. watch live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. next, an essay director general keith alexander speaks about data collection programs. is three hours.

>> call this meeting to order, please. host[indiscernible]

on short notice. that was the nice things we said about you. that is why we turned the microphone off. still not working? all right. holding for technical difficulties. can you hear me?

now it's working. the committee will come to order. thank you for appearing before us today, especially on short notice. the ranking member and i believe it is important to hold an opening hearing today and we do not do a tremendous amount of those, to provide this house and the public an opportunity to hear directly from you how the government is using the legal authorities that thomas has provided to the executive branch since the terrorist attacks of september 2001. on to recognize the hard work of the men and women of the nsa and the rest of the intelligence community who work a in and day out to disrupt threats to our national security. people at the nsa have heard a constant public drumbeat about

a laundry list of the fierce things they aren't doing to spy on america. all of them wrong. the misperceptions have been great. if they keep their heads down and keep working every day to keep us safe. please convey our thanks to your team for continuing every day, despite much i disinformation about the quality of their work and thank you to all of us for working to protect america. general alexander has been extended as national security advisor three different times. that is a patriot. this is a very difficult job at a very difficult time in our .istory for the general to extend those extensions of his military -- to accept those extensions of his military service, i want to thank you for that, for your

patriotism, for continuing to serve to protect united's dates -- the united states. you have a great or note classified information -- you have a great burden of classified information. in order to fully understand the intelligence collection program, most of these briefings and hearings have taken place in -- in classified settings. efforts under the business records provision in section 702, they are legal, court- approved and subject to extensive oversight regime. we look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses about fixed ended protections and oversight in place for these programs. general allen zendaya -- general alexander, we look for word to hearing what can discuss and

what you have obtained from providers under court order on how they are used and attorney general cole, we hope to hear more about the legal authority and what privacy protections americans have cared one of the frustrating parts about being a member of this committee is sitting at the intersection of the program and democracy as a representative of the people. one of the more damaging aspects of selectively leaking incomplete information is that it paints an inaccurate picture and fosters distrust in our government. this is particularly so when those of us who've taken the oath to protect information

that can damage the national security if release cannot publicly release -- cannot a buckley release information because it remains classified. it is at times like these when our enemies within become almost as damaging as our embassy -- as our enemies on the outside third it is critically important to protect sources and methods so that we are not giving the enemy are playbook. it is important to talk about how these programs help protect us so they continue to be reauthorized and we highlight the protections and oversight that these operations continue under. weise folk about the need to be able to publicly elaborate on the success stories these authorities have contributed to without jeopardizing ongoing operations. i know you will have the opportunity to talk about several of those today. value inhe utmost protecting sources and methods and that is why you have been so diligent in making sure that

anything that is disclosed comports with the needs to protect sources and methods so that, again, we don't make it easier for the bad guys to to do harm to american citizens and when we are forced in a position to so publicly discuss intelligence programs due to criminally are sworn to, we secrecy while educating the public hearing -- criminally public behavior, we are sworn to secrecy while educating the public. i appreciate your efforts. i hope today's hearing will help answer questions that have

arisen as a result of the fragmentary and distorted illegal disclosures over the past several days during before recognizing general alexander for his opening statement come i turn it over to the ranking member for his statement your leadership that nsa has been outstanding. i want to acknowledge the people that work at nsa every day. i have on occasion to communicate in a lot of people who go to work to protect our country, who work hard every day, are concerned that the public think they are doing something wrong and that is not the case at all. the one thing we are most important here to do here today is to let the pub know the true facts here in -- let the public know the true facts. we are here today because of the brazen disclosure of critical classified information that keeps our country safe. this red lake by a 29-year-old

systems administration or -- systems administrator has put us in danger. there has been a lot in the media about situation. some right. a lot wrong. we are holding this hearing today to set the record straight so that the american people can hear directly from the intelligence community as to what is allowed and what is not under the law. we need to educate members of congress also with the public good to be clear, -- with the public. we live in a country of laws. these laws are strictly followed and layered with oversight with three batches of government, including the executive government, the courts, [indiscernible] we learned that terrorist reliving on our own soil -- terrorists were living on our own soil.

good surveillance is clearly the best defense against terrorism. metadata is the phone number and length of call. no conversations. this allows countertenor is him officials -- counterterrorism officials to close the gap. allows theauthority government to collect the content of e-mail and phone calls of foreigners, not americans. located outside the united states to this allows the government to get information of doubt terrorists, cyber threats, and nuclear weapons proliferation that threaten america. this authority prohibits the targeting of american citizens or u.s. permanent residents without a court order no matter where they are located.

both of these authorities are legal. congress of true them over the last two years to these authorities have been instrumental in helping to prevent dozens of terrorist attacks among many on u.s. soil. for the fact remains that we must figure out how this could have happened during how was this systems administrator able to accept such highly classified information about such sensitive matters and how was he able to download it and remove it from his workplace undetected. systemsto change her and practices and employ the latest in technology to use -- to alert superiors when a work person attempts to remove these materials. nsa is prohibited from listening to phone calls or reading e-mails on americans without a court order. period. end of story. >> thank you for the kind words. i will tell you it is a privilege and a noun or -- and

an honor to serve. as you noted, we have extraordinary people doing great work to protect this country and to protect our civil rights -- sorry -- our civil liberties and rights. the debate has been fueled by incomplete and inaccurate information with little context provided on the purpose of these programs, their value to our national security and that of our allies to and the protections that are in place to preserve our privacy and civil liberties. today, we will provide additional detail and context on the stroop programs to help inform that debate. these programs were approved by the administration, congress, and the courts. from my perspective, is sound

legal process that we all work together as a government to protect our nation and our civil liberties and privacy. ironically, the documents that have been released so far show the rigorous oversight and compliance our government uses to balance security with civil liberties and rosie. let me start by saying that i would much rather be here today debating this point than trying to explain how we failed to prevent another 9/11. it is a testament to the ongoing team mark of the central , the federalagency bureau of investigation and the national security agency, working with our allies and industry partners, that we have been able to collect the dots and prevent more terrorist attacks. september 11, 2001 occurred in part the cause of a failure on the part of our government to connect those

dots. some of those dots were in the united states. the intelligence community was not able to connect those domestic dots, phone calls between operatives and -- operatives in the u.s. and al qaeda terrorists overseas. following the 9/11 investigation, congress passed the patriot act. section 215 of that act, as it interpreted and applied, helps the government close that cap by enabling the detection of telephone contacts between terrorists overseas and operatives within the united muelleras jerked her emphasized last week during his testimony to the judiciary committee, if we had had steps it's -- if we had had section 215 prior to now 11, we may have known that the hijacker was in

san diego and communicating with a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. ,n recent years, these programs together with other intelligence, have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats of ross the globe. to include helping prevent the terrorists -- the pretender -- the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. we will bring forward to the committee tomorrow documents that the interagency has agreed on that, in a classified setting, gives every one of those cases for your review. we will add two more today publicly. but as the chairman noted, if we give all of those out, we give out the secrets of how we are tracking down the terrorists in the community and we cannot do that. too much is at risk for us and for our allies.

we would like to make three fundamental points. first, these programs are critical to the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation and our allies security. they assist the intelligence community efforts to connect the dots. second, these programs are limited, focused and subject to rigorous oversight. they have distinct purposes and oversight activism's. we have rigorous training programs for our analysts and their supervisors to understand their responsibilities regarding compliance. third, the disciplined operation of these programs put checked the privacy -- programs protect the privacy and civil liberties of the american people. first, i would ask the deputy attorney general to discuss the

overarching extent of our authority. thank you. ,s general allen xander said and as the chairman and ranking member of said, all of us in the national area are costly trying to balance protecting public safety with protecting people's privacy and civil liberties in this government and it is a constant job at allen sing this. we think we have done this in these instances. there are statutes that are passed by congress. this is not a program that is off the books here in, dashed off the books, that has been not a away in -- this is program that is off the books, that has been hidden away. the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive branch. the process of oversight goes on

during, before, and after. and i want to talk a little bit about how that works, what the legal framework is, and some of the protections. first of all, what we have seen published in the newspaper concerning 215, this is the business records provisions of the patriot act that also fisa, pfizer -- modify you have seen one in the newspaper that is a couple of pages long that under that order, we are allowed to acquire metadata, telephone numbers. the twoe smallest of orders. the other order, that has not been published, goes into, in great detail, what we can do with that data -- with that itadata, how we can access and what we can do it. what the conditions are that are placed on us that make sure we protect right to see and

civil liberties and at the same time protect public safety. go through a few of the features of this. first of all, it is metadata. they are phone records. this is what you get on your own phone bill. it is the number that was dialed from, the number it was dialed to, the date and the length of time. that is all we get under 215. we do not get the identity of any of the parties to this phone call. cell site orany location information as to where any of these phones were located. most importantly, and you probably will hear this hundred times a day. we don't get any content under this. we don't listen in on anybody's calls under this program at all. this is under 215 of the patriot act. this has been debated and up for reauthorization and reauthorize twice by the united states congress since its inception in 2006 and in 2011.

there is anorks is application made by the fbi under the statute to the fisa court. they ask for and receive permission to get records that are relevant to a national security investigation. and they must demonstrate that it will be operated under the guidelines that are set forth by the attorney general under executive order 12 333. this is what covers intelligence gathering. it is limited to tangible objects. these are like records, the maiden data that i have been describing -- the metadata that i have been describing. it is limited to the things you could get from a grand jury subpoena. it is important to know that prosecutors's issue ran jury

subpoenas all the time and do not need any involvement of a court or anybody else, really, to do so. toer this program, we need get permission from the court to issue this ahead of time. so there is court involvement with the issuance of these orders, which is different from a grand jury subpoena. but the type of records, just documents, business records, things like that, are limited to the same types of records that we could get through a grand jury subpoena. last only that we get 90 days. so we have to renew these orders every 90 days in order to do this. there are strict controls over what we can do under the order. again, that is the bigger order that hasn't been published. there is restrictions on who can access it in this order. in repositories at

nsa can only be accessed by a limited number of people and the people who are allowed to access it have to have special and rigorous training about the standards under which that they can access it. in order to access it, there needs to be a finding that there is reasonable suspicion that you can articulate, that you can put into words that the person whose phone records you want to query is involved with some sort of terrorist organizations. and they are defined. they are limited in the statute. so there has to be independent evidence aside from these phone records that the person you're targeting is involved with a terrorist organization. if that person is a united states person, a citizen, or a lawful permanent resident, you have to have something more than their owns each is, their

readings, their first amendment type activity. you have to have additional evidence beyond that that indicates that there is reasonable and articulable suspicion that these people are associated with specific terrorist organizations. one of the things to keep in mind is, under the law, the fourth amendment does not apply to these records. numbers a case quite a of years ago by the supreme court that indicated that paul records, phone records like this, that don't include any content, are not covered by the fourth amendment because people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in who they called and when they called. that is something you showed to the phone company, too many people within the phone company. on a regular basis. once those records are accessed under this process and reasonable articulable suspicion is found, that is found by specially trained people. it is reviewed by their

supervisors. it is documented in writing ahead of time so that somebody can take a look at it. any of the accessing done is done in an auditable fashion. there is a trail of it and so both the decision and the facts that support the accessing and the query is documented. the amount that was done. what was done. all of that is documented and reviewed and audited on a fairly regular basis. there are also minimization procedures that are put into place so that any of the information that is acquired has to be minimized. it has to be limited. and it's use is strictly limited during all of that is set out in the terms of the court order. and if any u.s. persons are involved, there could tickle her restrictions on how any information concerning a u.s. person can be used in this. there is extensive oversight

and compliance that is done with these records and with his process. average now and then, there may be a mistake am i wrong phone number hit or a wrong person who should not have been targeted gets targeted because there is a mistake in the phone records, something like that. each of those compliances -- confines incidences, when they occur, they have to be reported to the fisa court immediately. the core pushes back on this game to want to find out why this happened, what were the procedures and mechanisms that allow it to happen, and what have you done to accept. -- done to fix it. so we reported to the court immediately and we reported to congress. we reported to the intelligence committees of both houses and the judiciary committees of both houses. we also provide the intelligence and judiciary committees with any significant interpretations that the court makes of the 215 statute.

if they make a ruling that is significant or issues an order that is significant in its interpretation, we provide those as well as the applications we made for those orders to the intelligence committee and to the judiciary committee. and every 30 days, we are error with the court report that describes how we implement this program. it includes a discussion of how we are applying the reasonable articulable suspicion standard. it talks about the number of approved queries that we made against this database. the number of instances that the query results in containing u.s. person information that was shared outside of an essay. and all of this goes to the court. at least once every 90 days, sometimes more frequently, the department of justice, the office of the director of national intelligence and the nsa meet to assess nsa compliance with all of these requirements that are contained

in the court order. separately, the department of justice meets with the inspector general for the national security agency and assesses nsa's compliance on every other basis. finally, by statute, there is reporting of certain information that goes to congress in semiannual reports that we make on top of the periodic reports that we make because of compliance incident. those include information about the data required and how we are performing under this statute. once again, keep in mind, all of this is done with three branches of government involved good oversight -- involved. oversight and nishi nation by executive branch, statutes orsed by congress, oversight congress, and under compliance by the court.

you are only allowed under 702 two target for this purpose non- us persons who are located outside of the united states. so if you have a u.s. permanent resident who is in madrid, spain, we can't target them under the 702. or if you have a non-us person who is in cleveland, ohio, we cannot target them under 702. in order to target a person, they have to be neither a citizen nor a permanent u.s. citizen and they need to be outside of the united states while we are targeting them. there are prohibitions in this statute. for example, you can't reverse target somebody. this is where you target somebody who is out of the united states that your goal is to capture conversations with somebody who is in the united states during so you are trying

to do indirectly what you couldn't do directly. that is explicitly prohibited by the statute. and if there is ever any indication that it is being done because, again, we report the use that we make of the statute to the court and to the congress. that is seen. you also have to have a valid intelligence purpose in order to do any of the targeting on this. so you have to make sure, as it was described, that it is being done for defined categories of weapons of mass destruction, foreign intelligence, things of that nature. these are all done pursuant to an application that is made by the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to the court. the court gives a certificate that allows this targeting to be done for a year. if it has to be renewed at the end of that year, -- and it has to be renewed at the end of that year. there is also a requirement

that, again, there is reporting. you cannot have them collect any information on conversations that are wholly within the united dates. -- united states. so you targeting somebody outside of the united states. call into the united states, it can be collected. wholly within the united states, you cannot collect them. if there is any lag and we find out that we collected information because we weren't aware that they were in the united states, we have to take that information, purge it from the systems and not use it. yield ofa great

minimization procedures involved here. concerningy acquisition of information that deals are comes from u.s. persons. , only targeting people outside the united states who are not u.s. persons. but if we do acquire any information that relates to a use it -- to a u.s. person, under limited criteria only can we keep it. if it has to do with foreign intelligence in that conversation or understanding foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime or a threat of serious bodily injury, we can respond to that. other than that, we have to get rid of it and we have to predict. and we can't use it. ,f we inadvertently acquire it once again, once it is discovered, we have to get rid of it. we have to purge it. the targeting decisions are ,ocumented ahead of time reviewed by a supervisor before

they are ever allowed to take lace in the beginning. the department of justice and the director of national intelligence conduct on-site reviews of each targeting that is done they look at them and determine that they were done properly. this is done at least every 60 done moreany time quickly than that. if there is any compliance issue it is immediately reported. did this back -- how happen? what are the procedures? what mechanisms are you using to fix this? what have you done to remedy it? have you gotten rid of it as you are required? we are providing congress with all of that information if we have compliance programs -- programs. there are compliance issues that have arisen during that quarter on top of the immediate reports

and what we have done to fix it anonymity the ones that we have reported. any of the ones we have reported. we accept our compliance with the targeting and minimization besiegers. -- procedures. we also divide the report concerning the implementation of the program. and what we have done and found. we will provide to congress documents that contain how we are dealing with the minimization procedures, any significant legal interpretation concerning statutes, as well as orders and applications that relate to that. on top of all of this, annually the inspector general for the nsa doesn't assessment that he provide -- does an assessment

that he provides to congress. the number of targets that were reasonably lead at that time to be outside the united states and later determined to be in the united states and what was done. in short, there is before, during, and after the involvement of all three branches of the united states government on a robust and fairly intimate way. i would like to make one other observation if i may. we have tried to do this as thorough and protect the and as transparent a way as we possibly can incident it is the gathering of intelligence information. countries and allies of ours all over the world can elect -- collect intelligence. there have recently been studies of how transparent our system is in the united states compared to many of our partners. many in the eu, countries like

france, germany, the u.k. a report recently issued in may fisais year found that the amendment acts, the statue we "imposes ifabout, process on foreign intelligence surveillance and other countries." eu countries. the u.s. is much more transparent about its procedures and requires more due process investigations regarding national security and terrorism and foreign intelligence. the balance is always when we seek to strive to achieve, but as i have laid out to you, we have done everything we can to achieve it. part of the proof of what we have done is this report that came out last month indicating

our system is as good and better than all of our allies. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chairman will switch to the value of the program and talk about statistics put together. aree stated, these programs immensely valuable for protecting our nation and securing the security of our allies. information gathered on these programs provided the u.s. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world. faa contributed to over 90% of these cases. at least 10 of these events included homeland based threats. a vast majority, fisa contributed as well. partnership with the homeland security department. the real lead is the federal

bureau of investigation. it has been our honor and privilege to work with director mueller. >> thank you, general. thank you, chairman, and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here. nsa and the f b i have a unique relationship. it is one that has been invaluable since 9/11. i want to highlight some instances. 2009, the -200 -- from apted an e-mail terrorist located inside the united states talk about recipe for explosives. that individual was identified. he was located in denver, colorado. the fbi followed him to new york city. later we executed search bomb making found

components in baghdad. he later confessed to a plot to bomb the new york subway system. also working with fisa, business records. we are able to get a previously unknown number of a co- conspirator. al qaedathe first plot since 9/11. nsa utilized authority with monitoring and extremism in yemen. he was in contact with an individual in the united states. and other individuals that we fisa were through able to detect a nascent plotting to bomb the new york stock exchange.

he had been information and support to the plot. arrestednstructed -- individuals. a u.s. citizen living in chicago, the fbi received intelligence regarding his possible involvement in the 2008 mumbai attacks. there was a killing over 160 people. there was an all qaeda affiliated her wrist -- terrorist. plotting to bomb a day and danish office -- a newspaper office. he and his co-

conspirators were arrested for this plot. nsa using the business records fisa get this off that this individual had indirect contact with a known terrorist overseas. we were able to reopen this investigation and identify additional individuals and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity. thank you. cases totals four that we have put out publicly. what we are in the process of 50ng is looking at over cases that are classified and will remain classified. 50 cases right now has been look that by the fbi and the cia and other partners in the national counterterrorism center so that you know what we

have put in there is exactly right. i believe the numbers from those cases are something we can publicly reveal and publicly talk about. what we are concerned is going into more detail on how we stop some of these cases as we are concerned it will give our adversaries a way to work around those and attack us or our allies. that would be unacceptable. i have concerns that the intentional and irresponsible leak of programs will have a long and a reversible impact on our nations security and on behalf of our allies. this is significant. i want to emphasize that foreign intelligence programs we are talking about is the best tool that we have to go after these guys. we cannot lose those capabilities. one of the issues that has -- we havecome up

the deputy director of the national security agency becky give some specifics of what we do and how we do it with these programs. thank you. i'm pleased to be able to really describe it to programs as use by the national security agency with a focus on the internal control and oversight provided. the two complementary, but distinct programs are focused on foreign intelligence. that is the nsa charge. it authorizes a collection of telephone metadata only. it is the only telephone numbers and the time and date of the call and the duration. this authority does not therefore allow the government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls, even that of a terrorist.

information is required with a court order. what you're saying in the course of the conversation and identities of the people this program was specifically developed to allow the u.s. government to detecting indications between terrorist operating outside the potential operatives inside the u.s. the control and use of this data are specific and rigorous and design to ensure focus on counterterrorism. the metadata required may be queried only when there is a reasonable suspicion they saw specific and documented facts like an identifier such as a telephone phone number. these determinations are referred to as being reasonable, suspicious standards. during 2012, 12 months of 2012,

we approved fewer than 300 unique numbers that were used to initiate a query of the data. the second program authorized under the act authorizes targeted only for communications of foreigners who are not within the united states for foreign intelligence purposes. being aed earlier, nsa foreign intelligence agency, that is information related to activities including foreign governments are organizations or international terrorists. let me be clear -- section 702 cannot be and is not used to potentially target any u.s. citizen for any u.s. person, any person known to be in the united states, a person outside the united states, if the purpose is to acquire information from a person inside the united states. we may not do any of those things using this authority.

the program is cain in our counterterrorism efforts. part of ouram is counterterrorism efforts. want to target the content of the u.s. person anywhere around the world, you cannot use this authority. you must get a specific court warrant. i would like to describe in detail some rigorous oversight from each of these programs. first, a program known as business records fisa, controls how we manage and use the data. it is explicitly defined if approved by the surveillance court. it is segregated from other data sets held by the nsa. everything is documented and audited. only 20 analyst at nsa and their two managers are authorized to approve numbers that might be used to query the database. all of those individuals must be trained in the pacific --

specific procedures to determine what is meant by reasonable suspicion. every 30 days, nsa reports to the courts the number of queries and dissemination made during that time. every 90 days, the department of justice samples all data queries and especially reviews the basis for every u.s. person or every u.s. identity query made. we do not know the names of the individuals of the queries we might make. only seven senior officials that nsa are authorized that the dissemination of any information we believe that might be a too beatable to the u.s. person -- mike beebe attribute will -- to thee attributable u.s. person. it is necessary to understand. the foreign intelligence survey -- reviews every 90 days. nsa and the department of

justice oversight committee on employment of the program, we provide written notification of all significant developments. the justice department provides oversight committees opinions regarding the programs. turning my attention to another program, the foreign intelligence court annually review certification that is required by law and jointly submitted by the attorney general and and the director of national intelligence. the certifications defined what might be appropriate late targeted. the attorney general and the court both agree are consistent with the law and the fourth amendment of the constitution. these require that a regarding a u.s. person must be destroyed if it does not maintain evidence of a crime.

a semi annual assessment by the department of justice in the office of the director of national intelligence regarding compliance with the nation received years -- with the procedures. the number of dissemination is that might occur, the number of targets found in the united states, and whether the communication for such targets are reviewed. an annual director report is required to describe the efforts taken by nsa and adjust the number of u.s. person identities. address the number of u.s. person identities. technology relevant to an authorized to the and any noncompliant to include executive branch's plan for remedying that same event. in addition to the procedures i have described, the department of justice conducts on-site reviews to sample nsa targeting

decisions every 60 days. i would conclude with my section to say that july 2012, the senate intelligence committee reported progress over the four years of the law at that time. he said across the four-year history of the program, the committee had identified a single willful effort but executive branch -- nine millio -- , there are 10 people in the decisions. everyone of those have to be credentialed. i do want to hit a couple of keynotes. 702 program, the u.s.

government does not use in u.s.al from servers companies. rather the servers are compelled to provide records using methods that are in strict compliance with the law. further, the deputy attorney general noted virtually all countries have lawful national awfully interceptor programs in which providers share data about individuals a believer presented its to their .ocieties communication providers are required to comply with those programs in the countries in which they operate. the united states is not unique in this capability. the u.s. operates this program under the strict oversight and compliance regime it was noted above with careful oversight by the courts, congress, and the administration. impact this, u.s. companies have put energy in focus and commitment into consistently protecting the privacy other customers around the the world and meeting their obligations

under the laws of the u.s. and other countries in which they operate. i believe they take those seriously. as americans, we value our privacy and civil liberties. as americans, the also value our security and our safety. in the 12 years since the attack on september 11, we have lived in relative safety and security as a nation. that security is a direct result of the intelligent communities by effort to better connect the dots and learn from the mistakes that permitted those attacks to occur. in those 12 years, we have thought long and hard about oversight and compliance and how to minimize the impact on our fellow citizens privacy. we have created and implemented and continue to monitor a comprehensive mission compliance program inside nsa. this program was develop a stun

industry best practices they keep technologies aligned with approved procedures. ofside of nsa, the office the director of national intelligence department of justice and foreign intelligence surveillance court revive robust oversight, as well as this committee. i believe we have that balance right. areummary, these programs critical to the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation and our allied -- allies. it allows us to connect the dots. these programs are limited, focus, and subject to rigorous oversight. they have distinct or basis and oversight mechanisms. third, the discipline provides -- protects the civil liberties of the american people. takes thesef nsa response abilities to heart. they protect our nation and our

allies as part of a bigger team. they protect our civil liberties. andas been an honor privilege to lead these great americans. we will turn it back to you. >> members of the committee, i want to speak very briefly and address a couple of additional misconceptions that the public has been said about some programs. the first is the collection it is somehow a loosening of tradition standards because it does not require individualized warrants. the oppositetly is the case. the kind of collection done under that section 702 is collecting foreign intelligence information from foreigners outside of the united states, it was historically done under his own authority without any kind of supervision whatsoever.

act,result of the fisa there are restrictions and limitations that have been described by the other witnesses. this is a tightening of standards from what they were before. the second misconception is that the core is a rubber stamp for the executive branch. thise point to the fact -- does not recognize the actual process that we go through. the fisa court appointed from around the country take this on in addition to their other burdens. they are rightly expect it -- experienced and respected judges. they work only on fisa matters. when we prepare an application for fisa, whether it is one of these programs or traditional fisa, we first of the to the core what is called a read copy.

the court staff will review and comment on it. they will almost come back with questions and concerns and problems that they see. there is a process back and forth between the government and the board to take care of those concerns. at the end of the day, we are confident that we are presenting something that the fisa court will approve. that is hardly a rubber stamp. it is rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process. the third point -- misconception i want to make is that the process that we have here is one that simply relies on trust or individual analysts or people at nsa to obey the rules. i will not go into details as to the oversight. it has been adequately described. the point is that there is a multilayered level of oversight within nsa and involving my

agency, the office of the director of national intelligence, and the fisa court and congress to ensure that these rules are complied with. the last point i want to address is that this information should not have been classified. it was classified to conceal it from the american people. the leaks are not damaging. you both made this point. these are extremely important collection programs to protect us not only from terrorists, but other threats to our national security. there is a wide variety. they have produced a huge amount of valuable intelligence over the years. we are faced with an -- with the situation because this has been made public, we run the risk of losing these collection capabilities. we will know whether these leaks have caused us to lose

capabilities. if they do have that effect, there is no doubt that they will cause our national security to be effective. thank you. very much.u all i appreciate that. just a few quick questions. members have a lot of questions. , can you describe quickly your civilian role? >> yes, sir. senioras a husband serving military officers at the national security agency -- there has always been a senior serving military officer at the national security agency. period of 13a years active-duty on the air force and transferred to that national security agency. >> you rose to the rank of? >> i was general of international guard. the just want to get on

record that he had military service as well as civilian service. >> i do. i transferred from the active air force to national security. i retained my filiation i was proud to be able to serve in the national guard. >> thank you. you mentioned wearies of less than 300. what does that mean? -- queries of less than 300. what does that mean? .> a reasonable suspicion a number of interests, telephone number might be associated with connected plots of a specific plot overseas. there is a desire to see whether there is any connection to the united states. the process they go through is described as one where they make -- >> you do not put in a name? >> no. the only thing we get from providers are numbers.

the dataset is numbers themselves. >> no names or addresses affiliated. >> no. >> just phone numbers. >> an analyst would try to determine whether there was a describable, there must be written documentation that says there is a suspicion that this is attributed to a foreign plot. after having made that determination, there would be determineecked to whether it is possible to discern whether it is associated with a u.s. person. you might look at the area code and say it could likely be in the united states. we know within this area that is d.c. 310, that would be maryland. itthat were to be the case, would get for the review to ensure is not a situation or some and is merely expressing their first amendment rights.

if that was all it was, however objectionable thomas that is not a basis to for that database. if he gets further, it must be -- if it getsed further, it must be further approved. the query itself would just be a number. they would determine whether that number exist in the database. that is how the query is formed. >> it is not a named or an address. it is a phone number. >> if it were a name or address, there would be no possibility that the database would return any meaningful result. >> just a phone number. >> just a phone number. >> welcomes back when you carry the database? -- what comes back when you query the database? >> just phone numbers. >> there are no names and

addresses in that database. >> no. >> why only less than 300 queries or numbers into that database? >> only less than 300 numbers were approved. those might have been applied both will times. there might be some number greater of -- than that. ,he reason there are very few select approve is that the court determined there is a narrow purpose for this use. it cannot be to prosecute a greater understanding of the simply the mistake -- domestic -- there might be very well defined and describable, written determination that this is a suspicion of a connection between a foreign plot a -- foreign plot and a domestic nexus. >> and those are big ported to the -- and those are reported to the court? there are a number of

queries reported to the court and any time there is a dissemination associated. >> and there is a court approved process in order to make that query into that information? -- phoneor numbers numbers. the department of justice provides a rich oversight auditing. is the nsalexander, on private company servers, as defined under these programs? >> we are not. have thehe nsa ability to listen to americans' phone calls or read their e- mails under these programs? >> we do not have the authority. >> does the technology exists to flip a switch and have an analyst listen? >> no. >> the technology does not exist

for individuals at the nsa to listen to americans' phone calls or read their e-mails? >> that is correct. >> help us understand that. if you get a piece of a number, there has been some public discussion that there is not a lot of value in what you might get from a program like this, that has this many levels of oversight. can you talk about how that might work into an investigation to help you prevent a terrorist attack in the united states? >> investigating terrorism is not an exact science. it is like a mosaic. we try to take disparate pieces and bring them together to form a turf. there are many different pieces of -- of intelligence. he have assets. we have physical surveillance. we have legal surveillance with legal process for phone records. with additional legal process, financial records.

these programs are all valuable pieces to bring that mosaic together and figure out how these individuals are plotting to attack the united states here, or u.s. interests overseas. we hear the cliché, frequently, after 9/11, about connecting the dots. the american public, we come together to put the dots together to form the pic chair to allow us to disrupt these activities. >> thank you. given the large number of questions by members, i am going to move along. >> i want to thank all the witnesses for your presentations, especially mr. cole. i think you explained well and in a very sick sink way. it is unfortunate sometimes when we have incidents like this that a lot of negative or false information gets out. i think that those of us who

work in this field and the intelligence field every day know what the facts are, and we are trying to now present those facts through this panel. that is important. but i would say that if i were to listen to the media accounts of what occurred in the beginning, i would be concerned. it is important we get the message out to the american public that what we do is legal. ourre doing it to protect national security from attacks from terrorists. you addressed this, but i think it is important to reemphasize the fisa court. it is unfortunate. when people disagree with you, they attack you. they say things that are not true. we know these are federal judges. they have integrity. they will not approve anything they feel is wrong. wheree 90 day periods the court looks at this issue. general alexander, do you feel in any way that the fisa court

is a rubber stamp they stunned the process? our system of government is checks and balances. that is what we do in this country. we follow our constitution. it is unfortunate the federal judges are being attacked. >> as you have stated, the federal judges on the court are superb. our nation can be proud of the way they make sure we do this exactly right. every time we make a mistake, they work with us to make sure it is done correctly to protect our civil liberties, write essay, and go through the court process. they have been extremely professional. there is no rubber stamp. it is kind of interesting. it is like saying you just ran a 26 mile marathon, and somebody says, that was just a job. the details and specifics go for months through the fbi, the department of justice, and through the court on each of those orders. there is tremendous oversight,

compliance, and work, and i think the court has done a superb job. is to worked hard to do bring all these under court supervision for just this reason. we have done the right thing, i think, for our country. >> the second thing i want to get into -- the public are saying, how did this happen? we have rules. we have regulations. who work onviduals this, and yet here we have a technical person who had lost a job, who had a background that would not always be considered the best. we have to learn from mistakes, how they occur. what system are you or the director of the national intelligence administration putting in effect now to make sure what happened in this situation -- that if another person were to turn against his or her country, that we would

have an alarm system that would not put us in this position right now? difficult question, especially when that person is a system administrator, and they get great access. a system administrator is one that actually helps operate, run, set the conditions and stuff on a system or portion of the network. persons of those misuses their authorities, this is a huge problem. working with the director of national intelligence, what we are doing is working to come up with a 2-person rule and oversight for those, and ensure that we have a way of blocking people from taking information out of our system. this is work in progress. we are working with the fbi. we do not have all the facts yet. as we are getting those facts, we are working through our system. the director has asked us to do that and provide that feedback

to the rest of the community. >> thank you. i yield back. , andank you, mr. chairman thank you all for being here and for making some additional information available to the public. i know it is frustrating for you, as it is for us, to have these targeted, narrowly, and not be able to talk about the bigger picture. general alexander, you mentioned you are going to send us tomorrow 50 cases that have been stopped because of these programs, basically. 4 have made public to this point, and i think there are 2 new ones that you are talking about today. but i would invite you to explain to us both of those 2 including the operation wi-fi case. them starts with a 215. one starts with a 702.

i think it is important for you to provide information about how these programs stopped those terrorist attacks. >> i am going to do for this, because the actual guys who did all the work was the fbi. and they did it exactly right. ,> as i mentioned previously -- it was out of kansas city. that was the example i referred to earlier. the nsa, utilizing 702 authority, identified an extremist located in yemen. this extremist was talking with an individual located inside the united states, in kansas city, missouri. that individual was identified. the fbi immediately served legal process to identify him. we went up on electronic surveillance and identified his

co-conspirators. this was the plot that was in the initial stages of plotting to bomb the new york stock exchange. we were able to disrupt the plot. we were able to lure some individuals to the united states and affect there are rest, and they were convicted for the terrorist activity. , it was undert the 702, targeted against .oreigners some communication from this person in yemen back to the united states was picked up, and then they turned it over to you, the fbi, to serve legal process on this person in the united states? >> that is correct. on a 702, it has to be a non- u.s. person, outside the united states, and linked to terrorism. >> would you say their intention to blow up the new

york stock exchange was a serious plot? or is this something they kind of dreamed about, talking among their buddies? >> i think the jury considered it serious, as they were all convicted. >> what about the plot in october of 2007, that started, i think, with a 215? >> it was an investigation -- after 9/11 that the fbi conducted. we did not find any connection to terrorist activity. several years later, under the business record provision, the nsa provided us a telephone number only in san diego that had indirect contact with an extremist outside the united states. we served legal process to identify who was the subscriber to this telephone number. we identified that individual. we were able to, under further

investigation and electronic surveillance we applied specifically for the u.s. person with the fisa court -- we were able to identify co- conspirators, and we were able to disrupt this terrorist activity. >> repeat for me again what they were plotting to do? >> actually, he was providing the financial support to an overseas terrorist group that was a designated terrorist group by the united states. >> but there was some connection to suicide bombings, correct? in the example that i am citing here. am sorry. the group in somalia which he was financing -- that is what they do in somalia. wax correct. as you know as part of our classified hearings regarding the american presence in that area of the world. >> thank you.

>> if i could hit a couple key points. it is over 50 cases. the reason i am not giving a specific number is, we want the rest of the community to make sure everything we have there is exactly right. if somebody says, not this 1 -- what we are finding out is, there are more. they will say, you missed these three or four. on the top of that packet, we will have a summary of all of these and a listing of those. i believe those numbers are things we can make public. we will try to give you the numbers that apply to europe, as well as the ones that had a nexus in the united states. on the specific overseas cases, it is our concern that some of those, going into further detail with exactly what we did and how we did it, may prevent us with disrupting a future plot. that is a work in progress. our intent is to get that to the

committee tomorrow, both for the senate and house. >> thank you. mr. thompson? >> thank you all for being here, for your testimony and your service to our country. the foregoing to hearing, has the fisa court ever rejected a case that has been brought before it? >> i believe the answer to that is yes, but i would defer that to the deputy attorney general. >> not often, but it does happen. >> mr. cole, what kinds of records and data collected under the business records provision? >> there are a couple of different kinds. the shorthand required under the statute is the kind of records you could get with a grand jury subpoena. these are business records that already exist. it could be a contract. it could be something like that.

in this instance, for this program, these are telephone records. it is just like your telephone bill. it will show a date the number was called, how long the call occurred, a number that called back to you. that is all it is, not even identifying who the people are. previously collected anything else under that authority? >> under the 215 authority? --m not sure, the long the thatd the 215 and the 702 answers about what has and has not and declassified can be about.about all stop -- >> you have said there were cases where there was data inadvertently or mistakenly collected, and subsequently destroyed. >> that is correct.

actually has been data that has been inadvertently collect it, and it was destroyed? nothing else was done with it? >> that is correct. this is a very strict process. if you dial a phone number and collect a wrong number, when that is discovered, that is taking care of in that way. >> who does the checking? who determines if something has been inadvertently collected and decides it needs to be destroyed? >> i will refer to the nsa in the first instance, because they do a robust and vigorous check internally themselves. after the fact, the department odni, and, oh dni -- the inspector general make sure we understand all the uses. compliance problems are identified. they are given to the court, given to the congress, and fixed.

>> i do not think i need anything more than that. general alexander, can you tell us what snowden meant during this chat thing he did when he said nsa provides congress with a special immunity to it surveillance? >> i have no idea. >> anybody else? >> i am not sure i understand the context of the special immunity. >> i do not either. >> we treat you with special respect. [laughter] a special with immunity to it surveillance. >> i have no idea. it may be in terms of disseminating any information not in this program, that in any program we have. data have to disseminate to a u.s. member of congress, we are not allowed to say a name, unless it is valuable to

one of the investigations. we cannot put out names of stuff. part of the minimization procedure protects you. >> i would simply say your status as u.s. persons gives gives you a special status, as we have described throughout this hearing. >> if you do figure that out, you will get that information to us? ofo, the president kind suggested, i guess, in his television interview the other night, that the new york subway bomber could not have been or would not have been caught without resume. is that true? >> yes, that is accurate. without the 702 tool, we would not have identified him. >> thank you. i have no further questions. i yield back the balance of my time. >> general alexander, which agency actually presents the

package to the pfizer court for them to make their decision? .> it is the fbi >> the fbi is part of the process. it goes over to the department of justice. >> the formal aspect of the statute allows the director of the fbi to make an application to the court. the justice department handles that process. we put all the paperwork together. and it must be signed off on before it goes to the court by the attorney general, myself, or if we have a confirmed assistant attorney general in terms of the national security division, that person is authorized. but it has to be one of the three of us before it goes. >> and the court is a single judge? kind of ines sit rotation in the court, presiding

over it. these are all article three judges with lifetime appointments. they have districts they deal with. they are selected by the chief justice to sit on the pfizer court for a. of time -- the fisa court for a period of time. crux of mythe question -- would there be a way that if you did not get the answer you wanted from a certain judge, could you go to another fisa court judge and ask for another opinion? >> i think that would be very difficult to do, because the staff does a great deal of the prep work, and they are going to recognize when they have thrown something back. if you have not made changes to correct the deficiencies that cause them to throw it out, i guess is they will throw it back again. >> one of the things a lot of people do not understand, that i think you have also discussed,

is the rita had -- the rita had document. a lot of focus has been made on the fact that, as my colleague mr. thompson said, the court is a rubber stamp, but they do have an opportunity to review the documents prior to rendering a decision. >> they do. it is by no means as a rubber stamp. they push back a lot. these are very thick applications that have a lot in them. and when they see anything that raises an issue, they will push back and say, we need more information about this area, about that legal issue, about your facts in certain areas. this is by no means a rubber stamp. there is an enormous amount of work, and they are the ones to make sure that the privacy and civil liberties interests of united states citizens are honored. they are that bulwark in this process. they have to be satisfied. >> there has been some

discussion this morning on the inadvertent violation of a court order, where data has been collected and then destroyed. has there ever been any disciplinary action taken on somebody who inadvertently violated an order? >> not that i am aware of. i think one of the statistics included in earlier comments was that in the history of this, there has never been found and intentional violation of any of the provisions of a court order, or any of the collection in that regard. so the nature of the kinds of anomalies that have existed were technical errors or typographical errors, things of that nature, as opposed to anything remotely intentional. there would be, in those instances, no reason for discipline. there may be reason to make sure our systems are fixed so that a technical violation or technical error does not exist again, because we have identified it, but nothing

intentional. of themportant part oversight process at the department of justice and the complianceen problems are identified, and the vast majority were self- identified by msa -- we go and look at it and say, are there changes that need to be made in the system so this kind of mistake does not happen again? it is a constantly improving process to prevent mistakes from occurring. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general alexander, do you feel that this opening -- open hearing today in any way jeopardizes our national security? the hearingthink itself jeopardizes it. i think the damage was done in the release of the information. today, what we have the opportunity is, to where it

makes sense, to provide additional information on the oversight, compliance, and statistics, without jeopardizing it. we are being careful to do that, and i appreciate what the committee has done on that. theow many people were in same position as snowden was as a systems manager, to have access to this information that could be damaging if released? >> there are system administrators throughout nsa and all our complexes around the world. there is on the order of 1000 system administrators, people who actually run the networks, that have, in certain sections, that level of authority and ability to interface through the system. >> how many of those are outside contractors? >> the majority are contractors. as you may recall, about 12 or

13 years ago, as we tried to downsize our government workforce, we pushed more of our information technology workforce or system administrators to the contract arena. that is consistent across the intelligence community. >> i would argue that this conversation we are having now could have happened, unlike what you said, and perhaps we disagree also, general erosion of- that the trust, the misconceptions and misunderstandings that resulted, and why one would assume that, when there is a thousand -- are there any more than a thousand, do you think? >> we are counting all those positions. we will get you an accurate number. >> some of this information would not have become public. the effort that has to convince the american public of the necessity of this program i

think would suggest that we would have been better off having a discussion of the oversights, the legal framework, etc., up front, and how this could present -- prevent another 9/11, and in fact 50 or so attacks. let me ask you this, mr. cole. you were talking about transparency, saying essentially that while the verizon phone records order looked bad on its face, there are court documents that talk about the legal rationale of what we are doing. will you release those court opinions with the necessary reductions? if not, why? >> i am going to refer that over, because the classifying authority would be dni. >> we have been working for some time in trying to declassify opinions of the pfizer court. it has been a very difficult task. , youmost legal opinions

have facts intermingled with legal discussions, and the facts frequently involve sensitive sources and methods, classified information. we have been discovering that when you remove all the information that needs to be classified, you are left with something that looks like swiss cheese and is not very comprehensible. having said that, i think as general alexander said, there is information in the public domain now. nationaltor of intelligence declassified certain information about these programs last week. as a result, we are taking another look at these opinions to see whether there is now -- we can make a more comprehensible release of the opinions. the answer to that is, we are looking at that and would like to release into the public domain as much of this as we can without compromising national security. i think general alexander. thank general alexander.

what kinds of records are collected? >> for nsa, the only records that are collected under business records 215 is this telephone the data. -- telephony data. >> will you collect more? >> this is the only thing we do. this gets into other authorities, but that is not ours. you are asking me now outside of nsa. >> 215 is a general provision that allows the acquisition of business records if it is relevant to a national security investigation. that showing has to be made to the court to allow that subpoena to issue, that there is relevance and a connection. that could be any number of different kinds of records a business might maintain -- customer records, purchase orders, things of that nature. somebody buys materials that

they could make an explosive out of, you could go to a company that sells those and get records of the purchase. kings of that nature. e-mails would not be covered by business records in that regard. thewould have to, under electronic communications privacy act, get specific court authorization for e-mails that stored content. if you are going to be looking at them in real time while they are going, you are going to have a separate fisa court order. it would not be covered by the business records. make sure one clear part on the system administrator. what you get access to is helping to run the network and the web servers on the network that are publicly available. to get to data, like the business records data we are talking about -- that is in an exceptionally controlled area. you would have to have specific certificates to get into that. not aware that-

snowden had any access to that. on reasonable suspicion numbers and what we are seeing -- i do not know of any inaccurate numbers that have occurred since 2009. there are rigorous controls we have from a technical perspective. once a number is considered approved, you put that number in and cannot make a mistake, because the system helps correct that. that is a technical control we put in there. >> i yield back. , gentlemen. mr. cole and mr. english went through a very extensive array of the oversight and internal controls associated with what is going on. in a business environment, sarbanes-oxley requires that companies go through their entire system to make sure that not only the details, the trees, work, but that the forest works

as well. is there anybody who steps back and says, the goal is to protect privacy and our civil liberties, and we are doing the best we can? is there an internal control audit, so to speak, that looks at the system and says, we have got the waterfront covered? >> there are periodic reviews that i have described that audit everything that is done under both of these programs by both nsa and the department of justice, and the office of the director of national intelligence, and we report to the court and we report to congress. all of that is done looking at the whole program at the same time. >> i understand that the various pieces work well and are ,esigned to create that process but is there an overall look at everything that is done, to say, we have got it all covered? and if we do not, where do those suggestions get embedded?

have we had suggestions where we have said, we do not need to do that? >> there are at least two levels at which that takes place. by statute, within the office of the director of national intelligence, there is a civil liberties protection officer named alex joel, whose job it is to take exactly that kind of look at our programs, and make suggestions for the protection of civil liberties. outside of the intelligence community -- >> and that person would have the requisite clearances? >> he is part of this audit process, his office. outside of the intelligence community, the president's civil liberties oversight board, which has five confirmed members, is the charged with looking at impact of our programs on privacy and civil liberties. they also have full variances.

they have the ability to get full visibility to the program. i have recently been briefed on these programs and are looking to make this kind of assessment. >> is that report public? it is the president's board. i suspect that since they are making a classified report, it would not be public. if it is unclassified, it is up to them. >> you mentioned minimization and a rolling five year window of destruction on the business records. you used the word purge, get rid of, destroy. can you help us understand what that means? when i shredded piece piece of paper, that is one thing, but given the number of times you backup data -- can a citizen is that wetizen figure have deleted all of these things we are supposed to delete? >> i believe they can. we have a fairly comprehensive

system at the nsa. ,henever we collect anything under this authority or some other, we bind to that communication how we got it, where we got it, what authority we got it under, so we know whether we can retain it. we talkedisa data about, after the expiration of five years, it is automatically taken out of the system, literally deleted from the system. >> it is mechanically overwritten, and backup copies are done away with? >> yes, sir. it gets fairly complicated very quickly, will we have systems of record our architecture, and if the data aliment has the right to exist, it is attributable to one of those. if it does not have the right to exist, you cannot find it in there, and we have specific lists that determine what the provenance of data is, how long that data can be retained. wereve purge lists, if we

required to purge something. that item would show up explicitly on that list, and we regularly run that against our data sets to make sure we have double checked that things that should be purged have been purged. fisay indication that the court has the resources necessary to run its oversight piece? , the courts are suffering under sequestration like everybody else, so i do not know what is going to hit them as we go forward. >> gentlemen, i want to thank you all for your testimony here today, and for your service to our country. as a member of the committee, i have been briefed on the program, and i know the extent of digital agents -- due diligence you have gone through to make sure this is done right. i think it is important this

discussion is being had this morning, and hopefully it will give greater confidence to the american people that all the agencies involved have dotted their eyes and cross their tees. it is helpful that we had a discussion about the fisa court today, and how detailed the requests have to be before they get approval. i think it is made clear that these are not just one page documents presented to a fisa judge and rubberstamped. it goes through excessive due it even getsfore to the point the judge sees it. obviously, if all criteria have been met, it gets approved. if the criteria have not been met, it will be rejected. i will not belabor that point. that has been a fruitful discussion. but can you talk further about the role of the ig, and go into that process a little more, so that the amount of report the ig

,oes once a query has been made in terms of the range of queries that have been made -- i think that would be important to clarify. >> i will start with that and then defer to the odni and deputy attorney general for some follow-up will stop any analyst who wants to perform a query, this authority or any other, essentially has a two-person control. they would determine whether this query should be applied, and there is somebody who applies oversight will stop under the metadata records captured by the program, there is a very special court-defined process by which that is done. those are all subject to the ig, the inspector general, review on a general basis, such that we can look at the procedures as defined, the procedures as executed, reconcile the two, and make sure that is done

exactly right. there are periodic reports the ig has to produce, and they are faithfully reported. i think the real checks and balances have been between nsa, the department of justice, the director of national intelligence. the department of defense enters that as well. they have intelligence oversight mechanisms. between those components, rigorous oversight varies in what they look for. particularly rigorous authority, but they all have checks and balances that transcend nsa. , ies if i can add to that refer you to a recent review by the doj inspector general on the 702 program that was highly complementary of the checks and balances that were in place. >> let me turn my attention now to programs that primarily target non-u.s. persons.

this is probably a question for mr. joyce. you have said that if a u.s. overseas, or a non-u.s. person living in the united states -- if we become aware that they may be involved in terrorist activity, they are served process. could you go into detail about how that happens, and how a court is involved if we become aware a u.s. person is involved? maybe ink either misspoke or you misspoke. we are not looking at all at u.s. persons. the 702 is anyone outside the united states. even a u.s. person outside the united states is not included in the coverage. it is a non-u.s. person outside the united states, and three different criteria go through. one of those links is terrorism.

specifically, only certain individuals are targeted. those linked to terrorism. on numerous occasions, as i have outlined in some examples, individuals outside of the united states were discovered communicating with someone inside the united states. that is being tipped from the nsa. we then go through the legal process here, the fbi does, regarding that u.s. person. we have to serve what is called a national security letter, much like a subpoena. electronicto pursue surveillance, we have to make a specific application regarding that person with the fisa court here. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> just to follow on and to clarify, because i want to make sure everything we say is exactly right -- as sean said, the nsa may not target phone calls or e-mails of any u.s.

person anywhere in the world without individualized court orders. >> thank you. >> that is unimportant point we cannot make enough. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general -- general alexander and steam, thank you for helping us understand in so many closed sessions, and hopefully helping the nation understand, what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we are doing it. i want to focus more on 702, if we could. general alexander, could you explain what happens if a target of surveillance is communicating with a u.s. person in the united states? >> under 702, i think the best case is someone that sean joyce made. if we are tracking a known

terrorist in another country -- pakistan, yemen, or someplace -- and we see them communicating with someone in the united states, focused on doing something in the united states, we tipped that to the fbi. our job is to identify that, see the nexus of it. it could be in another country. sometimes, we would see somebody in one of those countries planning something in europe or elsewhere. we would share that. when it comes into the united states, our job and this -- our job ends. we are outside, and we provide it to the inside fbi, and they go from there. they will get the process for getting additional information to see if this is a lead worth following. haveat does the government to do if it wants to target a u.s. person under fisa, when

they are located abroad, when they are not here? what would be the process for the government? >> that would be the full package, going to the fisa court, identifying that person, identifying the probable cause to believe that person is involved in terrorism or foreign intelligence activities, and indicating that we have the request to the court to allow us to intercept their communications, because we have made the showing that they are involved in terrorist or foreign intelligence activities. we have to make a formal application, targeting that person specifically, what are they are inside or outside the united states. >> if i might add, that could not be done under 702. there is a separate section of the foreign intelligence surveillance attack that would allow that, that it would not be doable under 702. >> what if you want to monitor

the within the united states? >> again, a different provision of pfizer, but we would have to show that person is, was probable cause, involved in foreign terrorist activities or foreign intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power. we have to lay out to the court all those facts, to get court permission to target that person. >> i want to reemphasize that. you have to specifically go to the pfizer court and make your case as to why this information is necessary to be accessed? >> that is correct. >> and without that, you have no authority and cannot do it and do not do it? >> that is correct. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you gentlemen for your work. on the business records program,

the general pfizer court order allows you to get the metadata from the communications providers. then, when there are reasonable facts, you can go and see if one of the numbers has a match in the metadata. on those 300 or so occasions when you do that? -- when you do that, does that require separate court approval, or does the general pfizer court order allowing you, when your analysts have the facts, to make that query? in other words, every time you make the query, does that have to be approved by the court? >> we do not have to get separate court appearance for each query. the court sets out the standard that must be met in order to make the query in its order, and that is in the primary order. that is what we ought it in a

very robust way, in number of different facets through the executive branch, and give it to the court and give it to the congress. we are given the 90 days with these parameters and restrictions to access it. we do not go back to the court each time. >> and does the court scrutinize, after you present back to the court, these are the occasions where we found these facts? do they scrutinize your basis for conducting those queries? >> yes, they do. >> general alexander, i raised this in closed session, but would like to raise it publicly as well. what are the prospects for changing the program, such that rather than the government acquiring the vast amounts of metadata, the telecommunications companies retain the metadata, and only on the 300 or so occasions where it needs to be queried, you are querying the telecommunications providers for whether it they have those

business records related to a reasonable, articulate double -- articulable connection to a foreign intelligence agency? fax we are looking at the architectural framework of how we do this program, and the advantages and disadvantages of doing each one. each case, if you leave it at the service providers, you have a separate set of issues in terms of how you get the information and how you go back and follow it on. and the legal authority for them to compel them to keep these records for a certain time. what we are doing is, we are going to look at that, come back to the director of national intelligence, the administration, and you all, and give you recommendations for both the house and the senate. i do think that is something we have agreed to look at and will do, but it will take some time. we want to do it right.

i think, just to set expectations, the concern is speed in crisis. how do we do this? that is what we need to bring back to you, and have this discussion here, and let people know where we are on it. >> i would strongly encourage us to investigate that potential restructuring, even though there may be attendant inefficiencies with it. i think the american people may be much more comfortable with the telecommunications companies retaining those business records, that metadata, even though the government does not query it except on very rare occasions. >> it may be something like that that we bring back and look at. we are going to look at that. have already committed to doing that, and we will do that and go through all the details of that. >> this week, i am going to be introducing the house companion

to the bipartisan markley bill that would require disclosure of certain fisa court opinions, in a form that does not impair our national security. i recognize the difficulty that you described earlier in making sure those opinions are generated in a way that does not compromise the programs. you mentioned that you are doing a review, and i know one has been going on for some time, in light of how much of the programs have now been declassified. how soon do you think you will be able to get back to us about when you can declassify some court opinions? x i am hesitant to answer any question that begins how soon, partly because there are a lot of agencies with equities in this. there is a lot else going on in this area. my time has not been quite as free to address this topic as i would like to over the last week and a half. i can tell you that i have asked

my staff to work with the other agencies involved to try to track this along as quickly as possible. we are trying to identify opinions where we think there is the greatest public interest in having them declassified. we would like to push the process through as quickly as possible at this point. >> i am encouraged that, beyond the two programs at issue here, to the degree you can declassify other fisa court opinions, i think it is in the public interest. >> that is part of what we are doing. >> i wanted to correct a little bit one of the things i said. this does not review every reasonable articulable suspicion determination. they are given reports every 30 days in the aggregate, and if there are compliance issues, and we find that was not complied properly, that is reported separately to the court. >> is there a follow-up? >> thank you. i want to make sure i

understood what you just said. a prior court approval is not necessary for a specific query, but when you report back to the court about how the order has been implemented, you do set out those cases where you found reasonable articulable facts and made a query. do you set those out with specificity, or do you just say, on 15 occasions, we made a query? >> it is more the latter, the aggregate number where we have made a query. if there are problems that have been discovered, we report with specificity those problems. >> it might be worth providing the basis of the reasonable facts, and having the court review those as a further check and balance. >> my understanding is that every access is already preapproved. the way you get into the system is court approved. >> that is correct. the court sets out the standards

which have to be applied to allow us to make the query in the first place. the implementation of that standard is reviewed by nsa internally at several levels before the actual implementation is done. it is reviewed by the department of justice. it is reviewed by the office of the director of national intelligence. it is reviewed by the inspector general for the national security agency. there are numerous levels of review of the application of this. if there are any problems with those reviews, those are then reported to the court. >> if they do not follow the court-approved process, that would be a variation that would have to be reported to the court? >> that is correct. >> but you are meeting the court-approved process with every query? >> that is correct. >> every one of those queries is audited. those are all reviewed by the department of justice. those are the reviews we spoke

about at 30 and 90 days. there is a very specific focus on those we believe are attributable to u.s. persons, despite the fact that we do not know the identities of those persons. the court gets all of those reports. >> all of those internal checks are valuable, but they are still internal checks, and it might be atthwhile having the court least after-the-fact review those determinations. tank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what has happened here is that the totality of many problems within the executive branch has now tarnished the fine folks at the nsa and the cia. i made a short list here. right after benghazi, there were lies. fast and periods, missing documents, dead americans, and that mexican citizens.

or at least have to into got phone records from ap reporters, fox news reporters, including from the house gallery within this building. oh iseek, as you know, ag being accused by the judiciary committee a possibly lying to the committee. holder is being accused by the judiciary committee of possibly lying. and on friday, they tried to release documents to make this go away, the release of personal data from u.s. citizens from the irs. now, i understand when my constituents ask me, if the irs is leaking personal data -- general alexander, this question is for you. how do i know for sure that the nsa and people trying to protect this country are not leaking data? mr. rogers asked the question about -- how do we know that

someone from the white house cannot turn a switch and begin to listen to their phone conversations? general, i think if you could clarify the difference in what the people that are trying to protect this country are doing, and what they go through, the rigorous standards, i think it would help fix this mess for the american people. >> thank you, congressman. i think the key facts are -- when we disseminate data, everything we disseminate, and all the queries made into the database, are 100% auditable. they are audited by not only the analyst doing the job, but the overseers that look and see, did he do that right, or did she do that right? in every case we have seen so far, we have not seen one of our analysts will fully do something wrong, like you just said. that is where disciplinary action would come in. what i have to underwrite is when somebody makes an honest mistake. these are good people.

if they transpose 2 letters in typing something in, that is an honest mistake. we go back and say, how can we fix it? the technical controls we are adding in help fix that. it is our intent to do this exactly right. in that, one of the things we have is tremendous training programs for our people that they go through, how to protect u.s. data, how to interface with the business records of fisa. the records under 702. everyone, including myself, at nsa, has to go through that training to ensure we do that right, and we take that very seriously. i believe we are the best in the world in terms of protecting privacy. another thing that is sometimes confused here is that, then they are getting everybody else in the world? but our approach is foreign intelligence. it is the same thing in europe. we are not interested in -- for

one, we do not have the time. and ours is to protect our country and our allies. i think we do that better than anybody else. anything you want to add to that? >> i think that is exactly right. people at the nsa take an oath to the constitution, not to some particular mission, but to the entirety of the constitution. it covers national security and the protection of civil liberties. there is no distinction for us. they are all important. >> i want to switch gears, and perhaps this is a good question for mr. joyce. i find it really odd that right before the chinese president comes to this country, all these leaks happen and this guy has fled to hong kong, snowden. i am concerned with the information you presented last week, that this is going to be the largest lake in american history, and there is probably more to come out. can you explain the seriousness of this leak? said said earlier

that it damaged national security. can you go into a few of the specifics? >> no. really, i can comment very little. it is an ongoing criminal investigation. as we have all seen, these are egregious leaks. it has affected -- we are revealing, in front of you today, methods and techniques. ihave told you the examples gave you, how important they have been. to first core al qaeda plot attack the united states post- 9/11, we used one of these programs. a plot to bomb the new york stock exchange -- we used one of these programs. here we are now, talking about this in front of the world. i think these leaks affect us. >> it also affects our partnership with our allies? -- with our allies. and with industry.

industry is trying to do the right thing, and they are compelled by the courts to do it, and we use this to also protect our allies and interests abroad. i think the way it has come out and the way it looks is that we are willfully doing something wrong, when in fact we are using the courts, congress, and the administration to make sure everything we do is exactly right. as chris noted, we all take an oath to do that, and we take that oath seriously. know from closing, we the report that came out that other governments are busy doing this and expanding their cyber warfare techniques. it is so vital, as the chairman has pointed out many times, for the work you are doing, how important that is to not only today's security, but tomorrow's security. thank you for your service, general. i yield back. >> i will dispute that other

governments do it in any way close to having any oversight whatsoever of their intelligence gathering programs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank all of our witnesses today for your service to this country, and for helping to maintain our national security. i would like to talk a little bit about the security practices. we have spent a lot of time explaining to the american people the various levels of complexity in which you have judicial oversight and congressional oversight. how did this happen? how did a relatively low level administrator, a systems administrator, i think you said, have classified information, and is it an acceptable risk? i get that you have a thousand or so system administrators. it is extremely frightening that you would go through such to do the balancing act

internally to make sure we are balancing protection and security and privacy, and yet internally, in your own controls, there are system administrators that can go rogue. is it acceptable risk? how did it happen? and is there oversight to these systems administrators? >> there is oversight. we are looking at where that broke down and what happened. that is going to be part of the investigation we are working with the fbi on. i would come back to 9/11. one of the key things was, we went from the need to know to the need to share. in this case, what the system administrator had access to is what we will call the public web forms that nsa operates. these are the things that talk about how we do our business, not what has been collected as .esults of that

nor does he give insight into the training and certification process and accreditation folks go through to actually do this? those are in separate programs that require other certificates to get into. the intelligence community looked at a new information technology environment that reduces the number of system administrators. if we could jump to that immediately, i think that would get us a much more secure environment, and would reduce this set of problems. it is something the dni is leading and we are supporting. i think that is absolutely vital to get to. there are mechanisms we can use their. -- we can use there. click snowden did not have the certificates necessary -- >> snowden did not have the certificates necessary?

>> each set of data we would have -- let's take business records, fisa. you have to have specific certificates, because this is a court. he would have to get one of those certificates to enter that area. >> i would encourage us to figure out a way that we can declassify more information. i thank you for giving us 2 additional examples of terrorist attacks we have thwarted because of these programs, but i think that providing us with as much information as you can on court opinions, how that goes, would help the american public demystifyin what we are doing.

the additional examples you gave today were great, but i also am concerned that we have i get that doing -- there was a move at some point to not have as many government employees, and we sort of outsourced it. but given the sensitivity of the information and the access, given the sensitivity of the information and the access, do you see that being a problem? >> so we do have significant concerns in this area, and it is something we need to look at. the mistakes of one contractor should not tarnish all the contractors because they do great work for our nation as ell. you raised two great points that

i think we will look at. one, how do we provide the oversight. i talked to our technology director about the two-person system for system administrators, and we are going to implement that. i think in terms of what we released to the public, i am for releasing as much as we can, but i want to weigh that with our national security. and i think that's what you expect us, and what the american people expect from us. i need to make sure on this side that what we do is exactly right. i think how we minimize data, how we run this program, those types of things, that's why chris went through those great details. i think those are things that the american people should know. what they find out is, shoot, look at the oversight, the compliance, and the training that our people are going through. this is huge. this isn't some rogue operation

that a group of guys at n.s.a. are running. this is oversight by the committees, the courts, the ministration, and a 100% auditable process. that's extraordinary oversight. i think when the american people look at that, they would say, wow, for less than 300 selectors, that amount of oversight, and that's what we have jointly agreed to do. i think that's tremendous. >> i doo, too. i applaud the efforts. i think given the nature of this leak, you know, we don't want our efforts to be for naught, if, in fact, what happens is that the leaks get the american people so concerned, that we roll back on these programs and therefore increase our vulnerability as a nation. that's not in anyone's best interests. going back to sort of the

difference between private ontractors and federal security, is there a different security clearance? >> same security clearance. >> thank you. i rest my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as mr. nunez had mentioned about some of the other things that have come out about leaks and so asked me constituents the difference in maybe what the attorney general did in going to the court to -- on the rosen case, said he was an unindicted coconspiritor, because that was about a leak also. what type of review did you-all go over before you asked for those phones to be tapped and to make it perfectly clear that was

not in a fisa court. is that correct? 6 >> number one, that was not a fisa court. in the rosen case, there were no phones being tapped. it was just to acquire a couple of e-mails. and there is a very, very robust system. it is set out in regulations that the department of justice follows, of the kinds of that must d review be done before any subpoena like that can be issued. you have to exhaust all other avenues. you have to make sure the information you are looking at is truly necessary to be able to ove the investigation forward. there are restrictions on what can be done with the information, and it goes through a very long process of review

from the u.s. attorney's office through the united states attorney, him or herself, into usually the criminal division of the yudyud through the assistant attorney general of the criminal division, through the deputy attorney general's office, and ultimately to the attorney general signing it. it gets a lot of review before that's done under the criteria that we have in our guidelines in our c.f.r. >> so the d.o.j. didn't, because of it being a security leak, the d.o.j. didn't contact the f.b.i. or the n.s.a.? there was no coordination with that, it was strictly a d.o.j. criminal investigation? >> but the f.b.i. does criminal investigations with the department of justice, and they were contacted in that regard. it was not part of the fisa process. it did not involve the n.s. a. >> and i think that's what we need to be clear of. it was not part of the fisa process. that was a lot more detailed and

a lot more scrutinized as far as getting information than what this was. is that correct? >> well, they are both very detailed and very scrutinized processes. they have different aspects to them. they are both very unusually detailed and scrutinized, both of those processes. >> thank you. and general, going back to what ms. sewell had asked about what the difference is of the clearance you would have with a contractor or government employee, when you have 1,000 different government contractors, i know from my experience after having one of my staff go through a security clearance, it is a pretty etailed operation. i know this person had previously worked for the c.i.a. had there been additional

clearance given to him when he became a contractor after he left the employ of the c.i.a.? >> no additional clearance. he had what's necessary to work at n.s.a. or win of our facilities, a top secret special intelligence clearance. that goes through a series of processes and reviews. the director of national intelligence is looking at those processes to make sure those are all correct. he's stated he is taking that on. we support that objective. to work at n.s.a., whether you are a contractor, government civilian you have to have that same level of clearance. >> does it bother you that this gentleman had only been there for a short period of time? is there any sort of oversight or review or whatever of the individuals that are carrying out this work? is there any type of probation time or anything? because, you know, it seems he was there a very short period of

time. >> so he had workled in a couple of positions. z had just moved into the boo allen porks but he had been in a technology position in the 10 months prior to that. he had actually been there 15 months. he had moved from one contract to another. >> would he have been familiar with these programs at his previous job? >> yes. and i believe going out on what we call the public classifies -- classified web service to help you understand parts of n.s.a., that he took parts of that and -- i can't go nto more detail. >> at one point when you say, would he have become familiar with these programs, i think one of the problems is, he wasn't nearly as familiar with these programs as he thought he was.

this is one of those cases where someone sees a small corner of a program and thinks it gives them insight into the whole program. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i do like to thank the panel for appearing today and your service. i think i have been saying to each of you, i have been heartened by your agencies, and the agencies with which you work. i have seen nothing in the week and a half that we have discussed this that these programs are operating in anyway would adde law, and i the controls in place in these programs seem solid. i will also say that i don't know that there is anyway to do oversight without a posture of kepticism on the part of the overseers, so i hope you will take my observations and questions in that spirit. i would like to limit my questions purely to section 215 in the verizon disclosures.

they, quite frankly, trouble me. they trouble me because of the brth and the scope of the information collected. they trouble me because i think this is historically unpress denlted in the extent of the data that is being collected on potentially all american citizens, and the controls which you have laid out for us notwithstanding, i think that's new for this country. we know that when a capability exists, there is a potential for abuse. mr. nunez ran through a lot of issues going back to j. edgar hoover to nixon to concerns around the i.r.s. if a capability exists, it will be abused fliment. this individual, whose resume would make it unlikely he would get an unpaid internship in my office, he had access to some of the most sensitive information that we have, and someone like him could have had access to

many different numbers. we all know with a phone number and google you can get a name pretty quickly. he could have made comments about the c.e.o. of google making phone calls or anything, really, information that we hold to be private. so we have -- so i guess i have two questions. where do we draw the line? in other words, so long as the information is not information to which i have a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 215 powers, where do we draw the line? could you, for example, get video data? as i walk around washington, i suppose you could reconstruct my day with video captured on third party cameras. could you seep that in a way that is analogous to phone numbers? again, with all the careful

guards around, could you not reconstruct my day? i'm trying to decide where the line is. >> i think the real issue is, how it is accessed, what it can be used for. >> i am stipulating that that system, even though we know it is not perfect, i'm stipulating that that system is perfect. i'm asking, where is the limit as to what you can keep in the tank? >> i think some of it is a matter for the united states congress to decide in policy matters and the legislating that you do surrounding these acts and where you are going to draw those lines. certainly the courts have looked at this and determined that under the statutes there is a relevance requirement. they are not just saying out of whole cloth they are going to gather these things, have you to look at it all together. they are only saying that you can gather this volume unled these circumstances under these

restrictions with knees controls without those circumstances and controls and restrictions the court may well not have approved the orders under 2:15 to allow that collection to take place. so you can't separate them out one from the other and say just the acquisition what can we do? because the acquisition comes together with the restrictions on access. >> and if those restrictions and controls are adequate, there is theoretically no restriction on your ability to store information on anything for which i do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy? >> i will refer back to n.s.a.'s textbooks for that. >> i do have one more specific uestion. >> so your question is, could someone get your number and see you were at a bar last night?

the answer is no. only 22 people can approve a articulable inquiry on a citizen. you would have to have one of those 22 break the law. someone gove to have in and break a law, and the system is 100% auditable. so they will be caught. there is no way to change that. on that system, whoever did that would have broken the law. that would be willful, and then that person someone go in would be found by the court to be in violation of a court order, and that's much more serious. we have never had that happen. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i think it is really important that we explore these bright lines about what you can keep and what you can't. again, i don't see anything about the control systems. i do have one quick question, if the chairman will indulge me. chairman, this is something i asked you, and something i asked you in closed session.

obviously we are weighing privacy against security. i think when we are weighing this, it is important we understand the national security benefit. i limit myself to 215 here. 50 episodes. i don't think it is adequate to say that 702 and 15 authorities contributed to our preventing 50 episodes. i think it is really essential that you grade the importance of that contribution. the question i asked you, and you can enter now or i would really like to get into this. how many of those 50 episodes would not have occurred but for your ability to use the section 215 authorities as disclosed in the verizon situation? how essential -- not just contributing to it, but how essential are these authorities for stopping which attacks? >> for clarity, over 50. d in 90% of those cases,

f.a.a.-702 contributed. and in 50% i believe they were critical. >> 702. >> 702. and shifting to the business ad advisor, and i'll do mutt and jeff here. i'm not sure which one i have. over 50% were domestic. >> and how many? >> 10. >> and of the 10, how many were critical. did i say that wrong? >> yes. just slightly over 10. and i doacht want to pin that number until the community verifies it. so just over 10 had a domestic nexus. so business records could only apply to those. the ones in other countries could not apply. the ditia sat there and doesn't come into the u.s. if we look at that, the vast majority of those had a contribution by business record. so i think we have to be careful and say we don't take the whole

world and say you only did those in the united states and some large majority of that. i do think this, going back to 9 11, we didn't have the ability to connect the dots. from my perspective, what we are doing here, with the civil liberties and bringing people together, does help connect those dots. >> if i could just -- i'm out of time. i think this point is important. if my constituents are representative of the broader american public, they are more familiar with the collecting of american data than foreign data. so i would appreciate if you many illucidate for us how stopped terrorist attacks was 15 essential to?

>> i think you ask an impossible question. what i can say is i don't recognize the f.b.i. from when i came in. our mission is to stop terrorism starts in the united states. i can tell you every tool we use is essential and vital. the tools we have outlined today have been vital to stopping some of those plots. you ask, how can you put value on an american life, and i can tell you, it's priceless. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chair for holding this important hearing today. i just have a series of short questions. my first is, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that data must be destroyed within five years of acquisition. i believe that's been the section 215 phone records. >> it is destroyed when it reaches five years of age. >> and how long do the phone companies on their own maintain data. >> that varies.

they don't hold the data for the benefit of the government, they hold it for their own business and internal processes. i don't know the specifics. i know it is variable. it arranges from six to 18 months. the data they hold is again useful for their purposes, not necessarily the government's. >> my question is, did the fisa orders give the government a choice in whether to participate in the n.s.a. records or the prison program? was this voluntary compliance on the part of these companies? >> no, these are court orders. they require their complains with the terms of the court order. >> let me just, for the record, spying today or have you spied on american citizens? >> we do not target u.s. persons anywhere in the world without a specific court warrant. >> and does the n.s.a. listen to the phone calls of american citizens?

>> we do not target or listen to the telephone calls of u.s. persons under the targeting without a specific court warrant. >> does the n.s.a. read the e-mails of american sentence? >> same answer, ma'am. >> does the n.s.a. read the text messages? >> not without a specific warrant anywhere on the earth. >> has the n.s.a. ever tracked any political enemies of the administration, whether it is a republican administration or democrat administration? you said you are 100% auditable, so you would know the answer to this question. have you ever tracked the political enemies of an administration? >> in my time at the n.s.a., no ma'am. >> does the government keep the data? does the government have a data base with video data tracking the movements of the american people? > no, ma'am.

>> n.s.a. does not hold such data. i think those are held by individuals in boston. >> does the federal government have a video data base tracking the where abouts of the american people? >> the f.b.i. does not have such a data base, nor am i aware of one. >> does the american government have a data base that has the g.p.s. location where abouts of americans, whether by our cell phones or other tracking device? is there a known data base? >> n.s.a. does not hold such a data base. >> does the n.s.a. have a data base that you maintain that holds the con tent of american phone calls? do you have recordings of all of our calls? so if we're making phone calls

is there a national data base that has the content of our calls? >> we're not allowed to do that, nor do we do that unless we have a court order to do that. and it would be only in specific cases, and almost always that would be an f.b.i. leak, not ours. >> do we maintain a data base of all e-mails that have ever been sent by the american people? >> no. no, we do not. >> is there a data base that maintains the text messages of all americans? >> none that i know of, and none at n.s.a. >> and i think what you have told this committee today is that the problem is not with the , that it's trying to keep the american people safe. you told us you have a 100% auditable system with oversight from its n.s.a. and congress, it seems to me that a person that worked within the system, that broke laws, and who chose to declassify highly sensitive

classified information, it seems to me that's where our focus should be on how there could be a betrayal of trust, and how a traitor could do something like this to the american people. it seems to me that's where our focus must be in how we can prevent something like that from ever happening again. let me ask you a question. how damaging is this to the security of the american people that this trust was violated? >> i think it was significant and irreversible damage to this nation. >> has it helped our enemies? >> i believe it has, and i and our t will hurt us allies. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the panel. one of the things about being so low on the totem pole here is,

all the questions i would like to ask have been asked. i am fortunate in that a lot of the questions were very poignant. i hope the american people and those in the room have learned a lot about what happened here and learned a lot about the people on the panel. i can specifically say, general alexander, in my time on the intelligence committee, i have more respect for you. i am glad you are the one up there testifying to the -- testifying, so that the american people can see despite what is being portrayed that there is no rticulate whatto a is happening. and i will ask a couple basic questions that might help clear ome things up. mr. cole you talked about how

maryland v. t, mith, et cetera and then we heard how to look at the data under 215 there has to be smesk -- specific suspicion that is presented to a court, and that court is not a rubber stamp in allowing us to basically look at data which is trictly phone records. one of the problems i think people have out there is that when it is so specific and only a number of people are able to articulate who we should be looking at, and you hear this number of "millions" from verizon, can you help clear that

up? >> certainly. as we said, we don't give the reasonable suspicion to the court ahead of time. they set out the standards for us to use. but the analogy, and i have heard it used several times, if you are looking for a needle in the haystack, you have to get he haystack first. that's why we have the ability under court order to acquire all of that data. we don't get to use all of that data necessarily. that is the next step. which you have to be able to determine that there is reasonable, articulable suspicion to actually use that data. so if we want to find there's a phone number we believe is connected with terrorist organizations and terrorist activity, we need to have the rest of the haystack, all the other numbers, to find out which one it was in contact with. qvist you heard mr. en

say, it is difficult toll do this because we do have standards that have to be met before we can make use of that data. so while it is collected, it is used sparingly. >> did you or anyone you know break the law to obtain this data? >> i am aware of no one who has broken the law in obtaining this data. there are other issues with the leaks that have gone on here. >> based on everything we have heard today, do you see any problems with 702 or 215 that you think should be changed by this body? >> not right now. but this is something we agreed we would look at, especially the structure of how we would do that. we are looking at all of the key points. what we have to bring back to you is the agility. how we do it in the oversight. are there other ways we can do

this? we at the end of the day, need these tools, and we have to figure out the right way, from perspective,ing -- this court and the body do oversight. i think the american people would agree, that what we are doing is the right way. so those are the steps that we will go back and look at the architecture. that is a commitment that n.s.a. has made to this administration and this committee. >> final question, what's next or mr. snowden that we can expect? >> justice. >> i yield back, mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. this has been a great hearing. i think the american people are to hear ave a chance

from you and believe you or a man who told american secrets and fled to communist china. soldiers fighting overseas and others, do you think these programs are just as in need today as they were in the aftermath of 911? >> i do. and i would add that i think the environment has become more challenging. i think the more tools you have to be able to fight terrorism, the more we are going to be able to protect the american people. >> thank you. >> we're talking a lot about the atchtri -- statutory ability of 215 and 702. we have plain old article 3 judges in the sense of lifetime

tenure, nominated by the president, confirmed by the united states senate. they have the same power and authority as all article 3 judges do. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. article 2 here before us today and we have article 1 oversight taking place today. i want to talk about article 1's involvement. there have been members that talkled about the fact that they didn't know about these programs p general alexander or maybe mr. english, can you talk about the briefings you provided for members of congress both recently and when this set of laws were developed? >> 702 has recently reauthorized at the end of 2012 in the run-up of that n.s.a. companionship with the department of justice, f.b.i., d.n.i. made a series of presentations across the hill some number of times and talked very specific details about the controls on those programs

and the success of those programs. the reauthorization of section 215 of the patriot act came after that, but there was a set of briefings along those lines. at the same time we continue to welcome all congress persons or senators to come down and we can come to you and classify all briefs. some members have taken us up on that offer. >> that's right. any time any place we can talk, we will do that. >> i have been on the committee only a short time. i learned about these programs a short time, so i know members outside of the committee had access to these programs, and i think it is important. as committee oversight members, i think it is important, but i think it is important for all members of congress to appreciate the scope of this. i appreciate that you have offered that assistance to all of us. a couple clean-up details. i want to make sure i have this

right. general alexander, from the data collected, can you determine the location of a person who made a particular phone call? >> not beyond the area code. >> do you have information about signal strength or tower direction? i have seen articles that talk about you having this information. i want to see if we have that right. >> we don't have that in the data base. >> you made a reference to 702. you talked about it being a restriction on article 32, not an expansion. that is article 702. that is, people believed they had authority long before it was granted. is it true you view 702 as a restriction, article 2? >> yes. >> great. thank you, mr. chairman. i reeled yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to first of all thank all the witnesses for their testimony, for their service,

and for all you have done to strengthen and maintain this program. my question, general alexander, is several times in your testimony, you referenced 911 and how -- i recall september 11 there was a loud challenge to the intelligence community to do a better job of connecting the dots, be more aggressive, be more forward thinking, try to anticipate what's going to happen, think outside the box. as i see it, this is a very legitimate and lem response to that request. i would ask that you reference the case after september 11, when there was a phone interception from yemen which enabled you to foil the new york stock exchange plot. it is also my understanding that there were phone messages from yemen that you did not have the

option to follow through on that could have perhaps prevented the 9/11 attack. can you explain low that could have been prevented if you believe it could have been prevented. >> i don't know if it could have been prevented. what i can tell you is it is a tool that was not available to us prior to 9/11. so when there was a call made to a terrorist in san diego, we did not have the capability to track that call. now, things may have been different, and we will never know that unfortunately. that is -- the tools that we are talking about today that we did not have at the time of 9/11. moflinge forward, as you mentioned, about the stock exchange. here we have a similar thing, except this was under the 702 program where n.s.a. tipped to a known extremist in yemen was conversing with an

individual inside the united states we later identified as khalid huajani. then we were able to go up with our legal authority here in the united states and in kansas city we were able to identify two additional co-conspiritors. we found they were in the initial stages of planning to bomb the new york stock exchange. to really summarize, as i mentioned before, all of these tools are important. as congressman shiff mentioned, we should have this dialogue. we should all be thinking outside the box of how to do our business. i sit before you today humbly and say that these tools have helped us. >> if i could, i think in the midar case, that was the terrorist from the 9/11 plot in california that was on the flight that crashed into the pentagon. what we don't know, going back in time, is the phone call tween yemen and midar, if we

would have had reasonable suspicions to enter. so we would have to look at that. assuming that we did, if we had the data base that we have now and we searched on that yemen number and saw it was talking to someone in california, we could have tipped that to the f.b.i. another step, and this is an assumption, but let me play this out, because we will never be able to go back and redo all the figures from 9/11, but this is why some of these figures were put in in order to do that, going from midar, we would have been able to find the other three teams in the united states .nd/or one in germany so the ability to use the metta data would have allowed us, we believe, to see something. so it is hypothetical. there are a lot of conditions that we can put on there. you would have to this have this right, but we didn't have that ability. we couldn't kekt connect the

dots, because we didn't have the dots. so i think what we have here is one more additional capability to help us work together as a team to help us prevent are future attacks. you look at this, the new york city and others, i think from my perspective, those would have been zant significant events for our nation. so i think what we have jointly done with congress is help set this program up correctly. >> in your opening statement you said you would rather be testifying here today on this issue rather than explaining why another 9/11 happened. so thank you for your service, and for preventing another 9/11 from happening. i want to thank all you have done to presprent attacks. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> just a couple things to wrap it up.

mr. joyce, you have been in the f.b.i. for 20 years. you have conducted criminal investigations as well. sometimes you get a simple tip that leads to a broader investigation. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> so without that initial tip, you might not have found the other weighty evidence scent to that tip? >> absolutely. > so in a case of mulola, in 2007, the very fact that under the 215 records there was a simple tip that was, we have someone who is known to have ties with al-qaeda's east african network calling a phone number in san diego. that's really all you got was a phone number in san diego. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and according to the unclassified report, that tip ultimately led to a full investigation that led to the february 13 conviction. is that correct? >> yes. >> so without that first tip -- you weren't up on his

electronics communications, he was not the subject of any investigation prior to that tip from the national security agency? >> no, actually he was the subject to our prior investigation seven years earlier. that was closed because we could not find any connection to terrorism. then, if we did not have the tip from n.s.a., we would not have been able to reopen the case. >> but at the time you were not investigating the case? >> that is right. >> and when they dip that number into the business records, the preserved business records from the court order, they dip a phone number in and a phone number came out in san diego, did you know who that person was when they gave you that phone number? >> no, we did not. we had to serve legal process to identify this person and corroborate it. then we later had electronic surveillance. >> when you went up on electronic surveillance, you used a court order, a warrant, a

subpoena? >> that is correct. >> what did you use? >> a fisa court order. >> so you had to prove probable cause to go up on this individual's phone number. that is right? >> that's right. and it has been mentioned several times today, anyone inside the united states, whether they are inside or outside the united states, we need a specific court order regarding that person. >> mr. cole, just for purposes of explanation, if you were going to have an -- an f.b.i. agent came to you for an order to preserve business records, do they need a court order or a rrant for that in a criminal investigation? >> no, they do not. you can just get a grand jury's subpoena. separate from preserving it, you can acquire it with a grand jury subpoena, and you don't need to go to a court to do that. >> so that is a lower legal standard in order to obtain information on a u.s. legal criminal mat per. >> that is correct. >> and i think this is an important point to make. the system

investigation? this they is set up on foreign collection. and i argue this -- we need this high standard because it is in a classified sess setting. you need to have this high standard. can you describe the difference? if i were getting the information, the legal standard would be much lower if i were working an embezzlment case in chicago and trying to stop a terrorist operating overseas trying to get back into the united states to conduct a plot. >> some of the standards might be similar, but the standard you have to go through is much greater in the fisa context. you have to go to the fisa court ahead of time and set out facts thr that will explain to the court why this information is relevant to the investigation that you are doing, why it is a limited type of investigation that is allowed to be donend the statute and this foreign collection. and under the rules, and then the court has to approve that ahead of tisme, along with

all of the rules and estrictions, how you can use it, how you can access it, and who you can disseminate it to. you have ricks on who you -- you have restrictions on who you can disseminate it to. but those would be broader, and you don't need a court ahead of time. >> so in total, this is a much more oversighting scene, and on an embezzlment case, you wouldn't brief that to congress would you? >> no, not as normal course. >> so you would have a whole different layer of oversight. and i argue that because of necessity, it used to be a classified program of which you want additional oversight. you want members of the legislature making sure that you don't necessarily need in a criminal matter domestically?

>> that's correct. in a normal criminal embezzlment case you would have the f.b.i. and the justice department involved and that's about it. in this you have the national security agency, you have the odni, you have the inspectors general, you have the department of justice. you have the court monitoring what you are doing, if there were any mistakes made. you have congress briefed on a regular basis. there is an enormous amount of oversight compared to a grand jury situation. yet the records that can be obtained are of the same kind. >> does china have an adversarial relationship with the united states? >> yes, they do. >> do they perform economic espionage farthered at companies in the united states? >> yes, they do. -- they conduct espian

espionage to our military in the united states and abroad? >> yes, they do. >> do they target policymakers that might engage in foreign affairs when it comes to the united states? >> yes. >> how would you rate them as an adversarial intelligence service, compared to other adversries, the russians, the reins, others. they are one of our top adversaries. >> if i understand it, there have been economic as well as military efforts. so they have been very aggressive in their espionage activities toward the united states. is that a fair statement? >> i think they have been aggressive to united states' interests. >> general alexander, how would you describe in an unclassified

way the chinese cyber-efforts for both espionage and their military capability to conduct disruptive attacks toward the united states? >> very carefully. with a lot of legal oversight. i think one of the things that is important about the cyber-activities that we are seeing, and i also think what is missing perhaps in this conversation with the chinese, is what is acksementable practices here -- acceptable practices here. i think the president has discussed 14 some of that with the new president of china, and i think that's some of what we have to have. this need not be an adversarial relationship. our country does a lot of business with china, and we need to look at how can we improve the relationship with china in such a way that both our countries benefit.

because we can, and i think that's good for everybody. what concerns me is, now this program and what we're talking about with china, i think we have to solve this issue with china and look at ways to move forward. i think we do have to have that discussion on cyber-, what are the right standards and have that discussion both privately and publicly. and it is not just our country, it is all the countries of the world as well as china. >> i appreciate you drawing the line, but would you say that hina engages in cyber-economic economic to steal property in the united states? >> yes. >> would you agree they engage in trying to steal military and business secrets of the united states?

>> yes. >> i think this is important that we put it in the context of what americans want to know about the relationship between mr. snowden and where he finds a home today, and know that we are doing a full investigation into possible connections with any nation state who might take advantage of this activity. the one thing i degree with mr. -- today, is they haven't seen any changes, and i would dispute that based on what i've seen yesterday. do you believe al-qaeda elements -- just historically, when issues have been disclosed, change the way they operate to target both soldiers abroad and their terrorist plotting activities, movements, ? nancing, weaponization >> to be fair, what i intended to say, we know they have seen it, we know they have commented on it. what we don't know is over the

long term what impact it will have on our collection capability. but you are right. they watch us, and they modify their behavior based on what they learn. >> and we also know in some cases in certain countries they have modified their behavior, including, the way the they target u.s. troops based on certain communications. is that correct? >> i guarantee it is absolutely correct. that's what is so concerning about this. >> i appreciate you being here. i know how difficult it is to come and talk -- zpwhren general, did you want to say something? >> yes, i did want to say a couple things. thank ts to the committee and the administration and others. in the summer of 2009 we set the up the director of compliance and put some of our best people in it to ensure that what we are doing is exactly right, and this zphee committee was instrumental in helping us set that up. that's one point. when we talk about oversight and

compliance, people think it is just once in a while, but there was rigorous actions by you and this committee that set that up. the second is in the open pressers there is a discussion about pattern analysis. they are out there doing pattern analysis on this. that is absolutely incorrect. we are not authorized to go into the data nor are we data mining or doing anything with the data other than those queeries that we zpussed -- discussed period. we are not authorized to do it. there are no automated processes trying to figure out networks. the only time you can do pattern analysis is once you start that querrey and go forward. you can't -- you know, i have four daughters and 15 grandchildren. i cannot supervise nem with this data base. it is not authorized, and our folks do not do it. so that oversight applies too you and ools. i think it is important for the american people to know it is

limited. in this case of 2012, less than 300 selectors were looked at it had an impact in helping us prevent potential attacks. when you look at that and you balance those two, that's pretty good. >> and i do breeshate it. and the folks at the n.s.a. -- we have never had an issue with subpoena. all that information has readily been provided by you. you meet with us, and we have an open dialogue. when problems happen, we deal with them in a classified way and in a way that i think americans would be proud that their elected representatives deal with issues. i'm not saying there are some hidden issues out there. there are not. i know it has been difficult to talk about sensitive issues in a public way. in order to preserve your good work on behalf of all the patriots defending america, i

still think it is important -- it was important to reassure the level of oversight on a program that we all recognize needed an extra care and attention and a lot of sets of eyes. i hope today in this hearing we have been able to do that. i do believe that america has the responsibility to keep some things secret as we have served to protect this country. you all do that well. and the darndest thing is we may have found it is easier for a systems administrator to steal the information than it is for us to access the program in order to prevent a terrorist attack in the united states. we'll be working more on those issues. we have had great dialogue about what's coming on some of those oversight issues. thank you very much. thank you all for your service, and i wish you all well today. > thank you.

inaudible] >> outgoing f.b.i. director robert muller testifies on capitol hill tomorrow -- robert mueller testifies tomorrow. plus more coverage of the senate judiciary committee on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on our next "washington journal" we will talk to house foreign affairs member gerald connolly

about the conflict in syria and a new president being elected in iran. then we will speak to republican scott perry of pennsylvania. we will talk to later, or spotlight on magazine series continues. a christian science monitor discuss will discussion his article about prayer in schools, 50 years after the supreme court banned the practice. they we will take your calls live on c-span. >> let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our differences and the means by which those differences can be resolved. and if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. all freeree men are -- en are citizens.

>> from west berlin we see a much different kennedy to the cuban missile crisis. then we see another one who is preparing the ground for a real shot at the times and his nuclear test ban treaty that was agreed to in the fall of 1963, while at the same time also building up defenses and seeking a way toward piece peace with this american university speech. > looking back on the 50th anniversary of kennedy's speeches on c-span3. >> the republican led house of representatives passed legislation that puts restrictions on abortion. the measure, which was approved on a mostly party line vote prohibits abortions 20 weeks

after conception. we'll have some of that debate in a moment on c-span. and later, the hearing of thomas mueller, head of the communications division. >> i ask that all the chairman is here. we recessed our markup so that all members of the judiciary

committee could be present. it is generally prior this for members of the committee jurisdiction to manage on both sides. the inquiry is why we are departing from that practice. i do reserve. >> if the prerogative of the committee is to choose the appropriate people to manage time. i noticed the ranking member is not managing on the democratic side. we choose to ask someone who is not up part of the committee and that is appropriate by the rules of the house. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i do not it jack, i just thought it was an unusual procedure. i withdraw my reservation. >> without objection so ordered.

>> gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. yield myself so much time as i may consume. >> without objection. we come to the ,loor and we hear members say we are doing this for the children. i have to tell you this is one of those days where we truly can't stand day and say yes, indeed we are taking an action that will enable so many children to enjoy that first guarantee -- life. indeed, that is their reason that we stand here. it is indeed an appropriate response to the house of horrors

and similar stories that we are hearing emanate from across the nation about what is happening in these abortion clinics. this eliminates abortion at the six months of pregnancy and includes exceptions or we can send the clearest possible message to the american people thosee do not support abortions. it does nothing to ban abortion before the sixth month of pregnancy. it does not effect of roe v wade. we know it is a step that needs to be taken to protect the life. scientific evidence tells us that unborn babies can feel touch as soon as eight weeks into the pregnancy. they feel pain at 20 weeks.

marvelousme of these fetal surgeries that are performed, they administer anesthesia to these unborn babies. as i have said, public opinion polling shows 60% of all americans limiting abortion during the second trimester and 80% during the third. we believe it is incumbent upon this body to take the step we bring before the chamber today science and bring the law in line with the majority of public opinion and to stand against what has in these abortion clinics. it is so noteworthy that his attorney stated that he thought

the law should be back at 16 or 17 weeks. 24 weeks is not a good determiner and it would be a far better thing to have the ban at 16 or 17 weeks. we are not pushing back that far. we are at 20. we think this is an appropriate step. at this time, i reserve the balance. >> the lady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i yield myself three minutes. wethis'll be the 10th vote have had to restrict women's access access to healthcare since republicans took control of the house in 2011 and there are plenty of other things we should be doing. this imposes a nationwide 20 week abortion ban that is unconstitutional and dangerous to the safety of american women. the narrow exception of the bill only allows for abortions

necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman and it is shortsighted at best, cruel at worst. this would force a doctor to wait until the woman's condition was life-threatening before performing an abortion. non-life-threatening conditions could not be treated if this were a law which could in permanent health problems for some women including infertility. severe or fatal conditions may also arise and if enacted, this would require some women to carry a fetus to term even in situations where the fetus has been diagnosed with a lethal medical condition. the rape and exclusions are insulting and excessively narrow. the bill added to after the markup than they are just incredibly disappointing. they require reporting the crime prior to seeking care showing a distrust of women and

a lack of understanding of the reality of sexual assault. only 35% of women report sexual assaults and there are many reasons for that including fear .f reprisal 78% of them know their attacker. this bill is unconstitutional and it is a direct challenge to roe v wade where the court held ,hat prior to viability abortions may be banned only if there are meaningful protections health.the these principles have been upheld them this bill blatantly disregard them. i went to richmond colleagues to oppose this ill. its an attack on women's health, on our constitutional freedom entreat myo colleagues to oppose this bill.

.his is a misguided effort i oppose the bill and i reserve. >> the gentlelady from california reserves. he gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. >> at this time, i yield three minutes to one of our great pro- life advocates. >> the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. >> i think the gentlelady for yielding. when i first came a nurse 40 years ago, i took a vow to devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care. it is with this spirit of both protecting life and women's health that i'm am proud to rise , the in support of hr 1797 unborn child protection act. this bipartisan legislation would ban late-term abortions after 20 weeks. let me say that again. it would and late-term

abortions after 20 weeks with the exception provided for when the life of the mother is in danger. 1797 is based on undisputed scientific evidence which tells us that unborn children at 20 weeks can feel pain. these are babies. they can feel pain. abortions pose severe health risks also for the mother. your example, a woman seeking an 35 timesat 20 weeks is more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first trimester. there are medical reasons for this. at 21 weeks or more, a woman is 91 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first trimester. despite these undisputed facts about the baby's level of development and a health, there is currently no federal law to

unborn children or their mothers by restricting late-term abortions. day and age where we are seeing premature babies that are born at 22 weeks that survive and as a society we celebrate the birth of babies whether it is prematurely ordered delivered full-term. the goodnd pray for health of that baby on the mother. today, with that same spirit in mind, i urge my colleagues in celebrating and protecting the lives of both the babies and the mothers by passing hr 1797. i yield back. >> the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. would yieldaker, i two menace to a former the judiciary committee, representative debbie wasserman schultz. >> do you gentlewoman is

recognized for time. >> i rise do solemnly oppose the pain capable act. it has been 40 years since roe versus wade yet women still have to fight to keep decisions about our bodies between us and our doctors. we should not have to worry that our doctors will -- our government would try to intercede. this is an unprecedented reach into women's lives. this is a clear indication that the well-being of women in this country is not something republicans care to protect. it's clear the members who approved this bill, the all-male republican members are not only disinterested and protect and the well-being of women but are also disinterested in the medical opinion. we have heard a lot of insensitive and downright untrue assertions including by the previous speaker.

these are baseless, completely devoid of medical fact or grounding in consensus among doctors. no evidence has been presented, they just did it out any citation or reference. just because you say it out loud does not make it through. the republican men who brought this bill to the floor despite the parade of our women colleagues, they do not represent the voice of the women in america. every time we let their voices louder than ours, we are on our way back to the truly dark ages. we have worked too hard and come too far to let it slip away now. as a mother, when i think about the kind of world i want my daughters to live in, it is one where their value is recognized which means having access to affordable contraception and safe legal reproductive services. this does not work towards creating a better world.

it undermines their independence and undercuts their health. i urge a no vote on this extremely unconstitutional piece of legislation or the personal health and well-being of women. i yield. >> the gentlewoman from california reserves. >> i yield 15 seconds to myself to respond. "usa today" they should not be in the second three months of pregnancy. trimester.third 63% of women believe abortion should not be permitted after the baby canre feel pain. at this time, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. bachmann. >> thank you, madam speaker. it's a privilege to be able to stand here today and speak on behalf of the unborn. i have a picture taken just yesterday.

as parents we look to take pictures of our babies. this picture was taken of an unborn baby yesterday. this is the age of the baby, the youngest age, 28 weeks, that the bill is referencing and this is a picture of a mom. we are here because we care about women. we are here because we care about the unborn. that is why i support this wonderful bill before our body today. we had a very recent disturbing account of a late-term abortionists. his actions make a case like this more important than ever before. under the guise of being a medical professional, he violently ended the lives of viable unborn babies and in turn he seriously hurt or even killed some of the women who he claimed were his patients. a few days ago, the minority leader nancy pelosi referred to late-term abortions as "sacred ground" when voicing opposition

to this bill. i found it to be a stunning statement. what could possibly be sacred about late-term abortions? what could possibly be sacred about this member in -- dismembering this six month old with a pair of scissors? what could be sacred about listening to the whimpers and cries of a baby. we know that babies at this age are feel pain. you see, we are the people who make the laws in our society. therefore, we have the duty to protect the inalienable right to life of every individual, both the mother ran the unborn baby. the heart is beating and babies as young as 21 weeks have survived premature births. madam speaker, as a woman and a mom of five natural born

children and 23 foster children, i am appalled at this average practice of late-term abortion. there is no such thing as an unwanted child and that is why this legislation is so important. and not only protect the unborn, but it attacks the mom against the lethal practices and women deserve better than abortion. unborn children deserve their own inalienable right to life. pregnancy is wonderful. it can be difficult. we need to show patience and compassion towards every woman as they carry a human life. we are treading upon sacred ground bit because we are dealing with the sanctity of every human life. out of respect for this mom and respect for this unborn child, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense piece of legislation. and ik representative yield back. >> the gentlelady's time is

expired. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves and the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> and may i inquire how much time or mains? >> the gentlelady from california has five and a half minutes remaining. in the gentlelady from tennessee has 21. >> before yielding, i would just like to note the situation of my friend vicki wilson who found in the 20thately week of her pregnancy that her much wanted and desired child had her brain formed outside of the cranium and would not survive. if she carried the fetus to term, it is likely that her uterus would have ruptured. under this bill, she would have been forced into that heartbreaking situation and i think it is simply wrong. i yield three minutes to the judiciarymber of the

committee, the gentleman from michigan. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. .> thank you i appreciate this important debate and participating in it. members of the house, by imposing a nationwide ban on abortions performed after 20 , the so-called pain capable unborn child protection act is nothing less than a direct attack on a woman's constitutional right to make decisions about her health. pre-viabilitys with only a narrow exception for the woman's life. it fails to include any exceptions for the woman's health and it utterly disregards the often difficult personal

circumstances that women face. needconfronted with the to terminate their pregnancies. the amendment version of 1797 made it by the rules committee last night and it attempts to address the nationwide outcry in response to comments by the bill's author and the judiciary committee's markup that " incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." as amended, the bill now includes only a very limited exception for rape and. there would only be available if the victim could " demonstrate" that she has reported the crime to the proper authority. this reporting mandate does not even require things in the hyde

amendment and it ignores the reason why rapes go unreported including the fear of the abuser, fear of how the legal system may treat the them, and shame. the legislation would also onose or mental penalties doctors and other medical professionals. let's consider the fact beginning with the sponsors incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very need and that there is no for an exception. on the contrary, rape-induced pregnancy unfortunately, i'm sad to say occurs with some

frequency. the rape and abuse national network reported during 2004 women were,000 raped and of those raped, 3002 hundred four pregnancies resulted. >> the gentlelady from california. .> i reserve my time >> the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. the yield three minutes gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i want to thank the gentlewoman from tennessee and the other pro-life women speaking out in this debate today. since the supreme court's controversial decision in roe v wade, medical knowledge regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced radically.

even "the new york times has reported on pain focusing on the oxford trained neonatal pediatrician who has held appointments at harvard medical school and other distinguished institutions. as he has testified, if the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of just a nation, i assume there would be paying caused to the fetus and i believe it would be severe and excruciating. congress has the power to acknowledge these developments by prohibiting abortions after the point by which scientific evidence shows the unborn can feel pain with limited exceptions. hr 1797 does just that. it includes provisions to protect the life of the mother and additional exception for cases of rape and. the terrifying facts uncovered during the course of the trial of the late-term abortionists and the success of reports of similar atrocities committed across the country remind us how

an atmosphere of insensitivity can lead to horrific brutality. report contains references to a neonatal expert who reported that the cutting of be spinal cord intended to late-term aborted would cause them "a tremendous amount of pain." they found 64% of americans would support a law such as the pain capable unborn child protection act and only 30% would oppose it. supporters include 47% of those who identified themselves as pro-choice in the poll as well as 63% of women. in the 2007 case, the supreme court made clear that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman and that congress may show such respect for the unborn through specific regulations because it

implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify special prohibition. as "the new york times" story pain has been used to exclude some of the privileges and protections. the charmed circle of those considered fully human has widened to include members of other religions and races, the poor, the criminal, mentally ill. thanks to the work of the stock around others, the very young. when newborn babies are cut with scissors, they whimper, cry, flinch from pain. unborn babies also flinch from pain. delivered or not, babies are babies and they can feel pain at least by 20 weeks. time to welcome your children who can't feel pain. i urge my colleagues to support --

yielding,hair, before i would just like to note that we do not change the law. he is convicted for two life sentences in prison for murder under current law. i yield to the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee for three minutes. >> we are back considering crew linen and usual legislation that would curtail a woman's reproductive life. supreme court have protected them under the constitution. they struck down a nearly identical errors on a statute saying "since roe versus the supreme court caseload with respect to the decision on an abortion has been clear

regarding one basic point. a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable. exercising that right is constitutional." perhaps most truly, this provides no exception to protect a woman's health. it is so narrowly written and convoluted that even a physician wanted to comply with the laws would have trouble determining when the condition is extreme enough to qualify. she must bear the calamity by carrying her pregnancy theeat over the absence of the rape which would be provided only if the victim first reported it to the authorities.

we all know that there are many reasons why rape and often does not get reported. the humiliation, harassment, psychological trauma. the only reason we have been given is that women lie about having been raped. only not not competent to make this very crucial decision for themselves we are more competent that we should attach our judgment to theirs. this direct another unnecessary and cruel barrier. the exception applies only to win the victim was a minor. today believe that this was nice, consensual sex?

if they get pregnant at 18 bit it does not count? she was asking for dan deserves it? have no exceptions such restrictions. even the hyde amendment says " the limitations established the preceding should not apply if the pregnancy is the report of if's, auntspe, no is, or butts. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> reject what the constitution -- click the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee isnize >> at this time i yield two minutes to one of our bright .oung attorneys from alabama >> the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. to support hr 1797,

the pain capable unborn child protection act. this would at last prohibit dangerous late-term abortions of young children at 20 weeks. that is the stage of development where we feel pain. i say we for a reason. many supporters of this are taking to facebook and twitter using the hash tag to theirtrate and i applaud support of this bill. i use the phrase "we feel pain ," because too often we speak like it is someone else we are talking about, some other species. we're talking about human beings far enough along in development

if eland respond to touch. oneere all 20 weeks at time. every member in this chamber. we all reached a particular point in development in which the prayer for all hope for life becomes precious. havingabies right now been premature, they are laying in a protective environment reaching to hold the fingers of their mommies and daddies. babies at 20 weeks are still at the risk for being painfully killed. this must end because we feel pain. a few hours ago via facebook to my constituents to ask for stories about they want to share one. her baby was born at 24 weeks weighing only two pounds, three

ounces. after struggling her child grew strong and healthy and it was 19 years ago. her son is now an adult. is expired. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i would like to yield to the ,emocratic leader congresswoman nancy pelosi from california one minute. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized. everdam speaker, do you wonder what the american people think when they tune into c- span to see what business is being attended to on on the floor of the house? do you ever wonder what the american people think what is happening to create jobs? what is happening to agree to a budget to promote growth, reduce the deficit for our country, what is happening to

make progress for the american people? do you ever wonder about that when they tune in and see the debate going nowhere? is, just another day and the life of the majority controlled -- republican controlled congress. .ay without a jobs bill our constituents have made it clear time and time again that we must make us work together to grow the economy. , republicans refuse to listen. instead, we are debating legislation that endangers women's health and disrespects the judgment of american women and their doctors on how to make judgments about women's health. tos bill would deny care women and the most desperate of circumstances.

yet another republican attempt to endanger women. is disrespectful to women, unsafe or families, and unconstitutional. at the start of the congress, the republicans take great pride in reading the constitution, but then they proceed to ignore it. one example is this clearly unconstitutional bill. they claim to reduce the role of government, except when it comes to women's most personal decisions about their reproductive health. leading medical experts believe this legislation is dangerous and wrong. that is the message we have seen from doctors and health- care providers who point out that this would put medical professionals in the untenable

position when treating women in need -- women in need. that is the same message we have heard from national religious organizations who have alled on us to respect for woman and her family. i have a copy of a letter from 16 national religious group that speakerthen -- sent to boehner and myself that i wish to include in the record. >> without objection. >> just another day. more dead and the bills. less progress on the real challenges facing all americans. the american people want bipartisanship. they want progress. and don't want obstruction delaying tactics. a enough is enough, let's vote no on this dangerous bill. let's get to work together to

work on a fair budget that replaces the across-the-board cuts of the sequester. , grow thecreate jobs economy, and strengthen the middle class as we reduce the deficit. let us act now to put people to work. i will say it over and over. let's end the assault on women's health and work together to make real progress for the american people i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> the gentlelady from california reserves. he gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. >> i yield myself 15 seconds. when we talk about what is dangerous and wrong, let me tell you what is dangerous and wrong ofcondoning the actions what transpired in new mexico or what we found out from delaware to virginia, west virginia. the house of horrors goes on and on. at this point, i would like to yield three minutes to a member

of our house republican leadership team, the gentlewoman from missouri. >> the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for three minutes. lady from the gentle tennessee for advancing this legislation. i rise today and support of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. life begins at conception. throughout the years, science, technology have evolved in continue to advance, we are changing hearts and minds. we have more and more evidence that life does indeed begin at conception. we know that after three weeks, the baby has a heartbeat. after seven weeks, the baby begins kicking. by week eight, the baby begins to hear and fingerprints start

to form. after 10 weeks, the baby is able to turn his or her head, frown, heck out. by week 11, the baby can grasp and by week 12, the baby can suck his or her phone. by week 20, not only can the baby recognize his or her mother's voice, but that baby can also feel pain. child isling an unborn unacceptable at any time, it is especially important at the 20 week mark when a child is able to feel the pain of an abortion. madam speaker, it is not only the pain of the child we must he concerned with but also the pain of the mother. deemeder side has abortion a sacred right. they tout their champions for women telling them they have the right to do with their bodies whatever they want. the problem is that everyone

talks about the right to choose, but no one discusses the implications of that choice. i recently have the opportunity to speak with a woman who run multiple abortions between the ages of 15 and 26. she told me they told her everything would be over very quickly and that they did not about the psychological implications that would stay for life. not once did they relate to her the physical risks that she suffered later. that does not include the emotional damage she's suffered -- anger, depression, seclusion, the inability to trust. madam speaker, i am for life at all stages. i am for the life of the baby, and i am also for the life of the mother.

i will continue to work towards a day when abortion is not only but is absolutely unthinkable. i yield back. have a parliamentary inquiry. >> the gentlelady from tennessee reserved. for what purpose does the man from california seek recognition. >> i have a parliamentary inquiry. >> where the gentleman state. quick scan the speaker inform us when we might consider legislation to address the needs of college students whose interest rates are about to double instead of this bill, which is a direct attack on women's rights? >> the judgment has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. i would yielder, to a member of the judiciary congresswoman sheila

jackson-lee for two-and-a-half minutes. >> the lady from taxes is recognized for two and a half minutes. i ask unanimous consent to address the house. >> without objection. >> madam speaker, to those gathered here today, i have already heard my leader indicated partially why we are here, taking away from the serious work of this place and trying to provide jobs for the thousands and millions of americans unemployed, but i have another question. while we all floor of the house debating a dangerous and inhumane legislative initiative -- why are we on the floor? quick there are those who would rise presumptuously and arrogantly to suggest that they know my heart. why is someone

suggesting in this body but i have not experienced pain, do not know paying, do not know the pain of my constituency arco the same question can be asked. a mother,y know what whose health is in jeopardy is feeling? why would they be so presumptuous to suggest that we could not or that we are saying to some woman that you cannot do with your body is your desiring. it is between you, your doctor, your family. how outrageous is this legislation? it is patently unconstitutional. it is a violation of the right to privacy. this specifically said that the health of the mother had to be taken into consideration. ofs violates any kind adherence to the health of the mother. to refer to the heinous,

disgusting actions in pennsylvania to suggest that i thet care -- i'm glad justice system persecuted and andecuted this bill and said that dr. to jail, but i don't want america's doctors, mothers, people of faith to be turned around to the jailhouse because we are so presumptuous and arrogant. let's be very clear. the young woman, a diabetic who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus suffered from several major anomalies with the chance of survival, they wanted to induce labor, but her physician said she could not survive them they had to use another procedure. if they have not used the procedure like an abortion, she would not be able to have children again. do we want to go back to the time where rid -- women are running back to back alleys? can i get another 15 seconds?

>> the gentlelady from california reserves and the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you madam speaker. at this time, i recognize the lady from missouri for three minutes. >> the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. >> we do a lot of things here in washington and discuss many types of legislation. sometimes the impact of what we do ghosts lost in the debate. i want to remind my colleagues that this will impact people. there is an injustice occurring in our society one unborn baby who was six months along develops a medical condition. the doctor gives him a seizure in the well because it can feel pain and an operation is conducted to correct the problem so the baby can be brought to full form. the streety down

does not receive anesthesia and is ripped apart limb by limb by an abortion who crushes his goal. this is wrong. i rise today in support of hr 1797, the pain capable unborn child protection act which would prohibit an abortion of an unborn child that has surpassed 20 weeks on the basis that children at the stage of development can feel pain. the reality that it involves not a choice but the taking of a human life, late term abortions agonizingly painful and they happen all around the nation. says they can feel pain from 20 weeks of just nation and the pain felt may be

than perceived by full-term and older children. this pain is inflicted through a procedure where the doctor literally tears apart the little body of a child after removing it from the womb and crushes the child's skull. science in the american public are united on this issue. it has no place in our society. abortionmen believe .hould not be permitted in addition to the bill, there's also a risk to the mother. drawing the line at 20 weeks weeks is not arbitrary. the child suffers pain in the mother is drastically placed in danger. an abortion at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first

trimester. the chance of death is 91 times higher. this abortion is done in a residential condominium complex in baltimore and last february, a tragic end to her young mother and an agonizing death for her child. as a society, it's time to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves and to stop this hideous practice. band. gentlelady wilson's >> he gentlelady from tennessee reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition. parliamentary inquiry. >> when will the house consider legislation to address the veterans -- >> of the gentlelady has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. the gentlelady from california is recognized.

>> madam speaker, i would like to recognize a much valued is fromf the committee california for two minutes. themagine a world where federal government actually prevents women from receiving the medical procedures that .ould save their lives innocent, law-abiding americans with live and die by government decree. if you think this is some kind of orwellian fantasy, think again, and take a good look at the abortion bill being pushed by republicans today. narrow exception to protect life but not the woman's health. it could very well be a death sentence to countless women in the most effort -- most desperate of circumstances. this infringes on a woman's right to choose and it will

affect those most in need of help. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this nationwide 20-week abortion ban bill. i call on the republican party to stop pushing bills that endanger american women. >> the gentlelady from california reserves. >> at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana who chairs the republican study committee. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. >> i thank you for yielding. i rise proudly and support of life and a strong support of hr 1797. studies have shown that babies can feel pain as close as 20 weeks after conception. this is a major step forward in the protection of life. the pain capable unborn child act sends a loud message that

our great nation stands in defense of life. i am proud that americans united for life ranked in louisiana as the number pro-life state in the nation. pregnant isho is murdered, not only is the murder were charged with the murder of the mother but also the mercy of the -- murder of the unborn child. it's a proud day we are here standing in of those babies saying this country will not allow those babies life to be terminated. i proudly support this legislation and they urge my colleagues to support it as well. hashe gentlelady's time expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> may i inquire how much time remains? froms the gentlelady california has 14 remaining in the gentlelady from tennessee has nine minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california is recognized.

>> madam speaker, i would like to recognize another member of twojudiciary committee for minutes. click the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. madam speaker, today i want to give a voice to real women for anls who look abortion after 20 weeks. for disenfranchised women and often takes more than 20 weeks to encounter the roadblocks for what is constitutionally retracted. they risk losing their jobs if they request time off, lack the information about their bodies, thever never received information. each one of these women is unique. their voices have gone unheard of they are americans who deserve laws to protect them. i just wanted to share their stories. sandra and her husband had no

car, no internet, no healthcare. it took weeks to find an abortion provider. they had to save up for the procedure, child care, for the 80 mile taxi ride from clewiston to west palm beach. the facility they found could not help her. they had to start over, save up even more, take more time off to see a fort lauderdale doctor who could help them. at 17, she was in a witness protection program raped as a child and her daughter was taken. she was 20 weeks pregnant, but she wanted the chance to leave that passed behind her and it was only the compassion and generosity of her abortion provider who gave her that chance. today, she is taking care of herself and reconnecting with her daughter. 13, michelle had irregular periods yet when she skipped two, she got scared and told

her mom. she didn't know she was pregnant. her disabled mother was barely able to feed her and her four siblings as it was so they agreed she needed to have an abortion, but the whole process took time. finally in 22 weeks, they secured an abortion with a provider who could assume the costs. i asked my colleagues to please answer these women with compassion. click the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from south dakota. >> the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. >> a few moments ago, we heard the minority leader say we needed to do serious work, deal with bills dealing with the jobs and economy that the american people cared about. american support ending late-

term abortion. look at the graphic that we have that says 64% of americans believe abortion should not be permitted in the second three months of pregnancy. they believe it should not be last threen the months of pregnancy. americans recognize that hr 1797 needs to be passed and needs to be done because it's the right thing to do. i have always been pro-life. i have a duty to protect those who are the most vulnerable. we have seen atrocities committed against unborn babies, babies that were born alive, atrocities against the men and their mothers. the details of the trial only highlight the need to protect these babies from people like this and prevent crimes like this from ever happening again. this stops abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. scientific evidence shows that babies can feel pain at this point in the pregnancy.

but they were born and simply given a chance, they could survive outside of the womb. they just need a chance. the topic of abortion is very personal for many stirring emotions on both sides. if we disagree on this issue, i hope we can do it professionally. i don't find much of the rhetoric very respectful. they say there is a war on women. i'm not waging a war on anyone, my two daughters, or any other woman in this country. i would hope that stopping atrocities against little babies is something that we can all agree to put an end to. this would do exactly that and i encourage my colleagues to support its passage. >> the gentlelady from tennessee reserves and the gentlelady from california is recognized. excuse me. the gentlelady -- for what reason does the gentleman from >> i have ase --

parliamentary inquiry. under house practices and procedure, is it not customary for someone on the committee of jurisdiction to manage time on the floor? or is it because the republicans have no women on the judiciary committee that the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from tennessee manages time on the floor? the gentleman in new york is engaging in debate. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i am pleased to recognize a member of the judiciary committee from new york, an excellent lawyer and a new member of the house of one and atives for half minutes. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for one and half minutes. >> this bill is a violent assault on reproductive rights.

this is an intrusion and the doctor-patient relationship and it is a continuation on the republican war against women and an unconstitutional effort to 40-year supreme court decision. it is dead on arrival in the senate. the white house and the senate will veto it. a majority of the supreme court will declare it unconstitutional. we here wasting the time and the money of the american people on a few thailand extreme legislative joyride? not very goldwater conservatism. this is not even ronald reagan conservativism. mrs. conservativism gone wild. can only hope for the good of the country that our friends on the other side of the aisle can get the extremism out of

their system today so that we can return to the business of the american people tomorrow. i urge a no vote in yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady from california reserves. >> at this time, i yield one minute to nebraska. gentleman from nebraska's recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, there is something especially disturbing about the cruel violence that accompanies the termination of unborn children who, as evidence shows, could survive if they were just given the chance. of time.ot a waste this is not an exercise in extremism. we are having this date and it demonstrates that our society is actually failing women. our culture is conflicted. there is something very dark about the topic of late

abortion. it's uncomfortable to enter into this conversation, but we must. the marble -- the marvels of science have opened up a window to show us life in the womb, which the prophets of old tell us is sacred. the images of children developing week by week, month by month's feet to us more eloquently than any can. madam speaker, there are some lines where we should all agree capable. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from the district of columbia, eleanor holmes norton. >> the gentlelady from d.c. is recognized for two minutes. >> i think the gentlewoman from california for yielding to me.

try and failroups to use d.c. to nullify roe versus wade just last year and they are now choosing a single criminal case in philadelphia to go after the reproductive health of all the nations women. this bill, too, with its vulgar science, man- made myths about rape reported to the floor by an all-male majority of the judiciary. they are already losing ground with the challenges of forced on them and the language of the and the splitting of its manager. this bill is part of a parade of 20-week abortion bills moving through conservative states. none will succeed. not only not succeed

because they are clearly unconstitutional but because women won't have it. the bill goes down the same barackat helped elect obama president of the united states. >> the gentle lady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1797, an important bill. is supported by reliable scientific resources s t