not only 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 shows that an unborn child at 20 weeks

gestation can feel pain. coupled with the now known dangerous acts that abortionists -- it is clear that congress must act. we can all agree that a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can be in a crisis situation, not knowing what she should do or what choices she can make. we have a duty to protect american women and the unborn children of this country from harm. i urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill and support h.r. 1797. thank you, madam speaker. general predict the general lady from tennessee reserves and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i am honored to yield to a

leader for women's health, the gentle lady from colorado. >> the gentle lady from colorado is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. at a time when americans want their elected officials to focus on jobs and building our economy, here we are again focusing our efforts on limiting a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions. as i have heard time and time again from women across this nation, women don't want politicians imposing their extreme beliefs on them when they are making tough decisions. i keep hearing about poll from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. here is a poll. we just heard about it today. popularity is at an all-time low of 10% and bills like this are exactly why. last session we waited a lot of the american people's time

debating and voting on legislation designed solely to take a woman's health care decision out of her hands and that of her doctor and instead to allow politicians to step in and substitute their judgment. the time it could take majority six months of the new session, but here we go again. it is patently unconstitutional last week, after some of us pointed out, the bill's sponsors maneuver to add an attempted exception for rape and victims. to bill now requires a woman prove that she had reported the rape to authorities in order to have access to a legal medical

procedure. let me say that again. a woman would now have to prove she actually reported the rape the necessary medical procedure, making her into a two-time victim. this demonstrates an almost willful ignorance to the health needs of women across the nation and shows how the proponents have no respect for women's ability to make decisions. >> the gentle lady from tennessee is recognized. >> i would like to ask how much time is remaining on each side. >> the gentle lady from tennessee has five minutes remaining and the delayed from california has seven minutes remaining. >> i would be delighted to yield to my colleague from california, and nurse and valued

member of our delegation, two minutes. >> the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank my colleague from california for her leadership in opposing this unconstitutional and cruel bill. i rise in strong opposition to it. the legislation ignores very real medical challenges that are faced by so many women. erecting barriers to women who are trying desperately to access medical care, who are making some of the most personal and difficult choices and decisions, this is a cold hearted political maneuver that is being played out upon this house vote today. women need the confidence to be able to make these difficult decisions in council with their doctors, with their families,

with their spiritual advisers. politicians have no place in that equation. if we really water to protect life, let's support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, improve maternal health, improve funding for early child care, for support for women who are raising children in the most difficult circumstances. that us trust women to make decisions that are right for them, and let us show little compassion instead of offering condescending lectures, as the other side did last month to a very courageous witness who shared her life story. it is long past time women trust women to make their own decisions. >> the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. >> at this time would continue to reserve.

>> the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the am pleased to yield to gentleman from massachusetts, a former prosecutor indicted member of our congress, two minutes. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. for 12 years i have worked with victims of rape and. for those who think you are carving out an exception for rape and, you are not. if you are truly curving out an exception, it not be making it contingent on things that silence victims, things that have no control over. like being traumatized, like being threatened with your life if you talking, like not knowing the law because you are a minor and a victim of statutory rape.

these are the reasons why more than half the rapes are never reported. as a district attorney, i have had cases where the victims did not even report, yet we were able to convict the perpetrators with other evidence. reporting was not even necessary to convict criminals, but in this bill, it is necessary for a crime victim to exercise their constitutional right to privacy. who supporty, those the language in this bill don't understand that rape and are crimes. these are crimes of violence, crimes that should bring penalties to the perpetrator. this bill brings penalties to the victims. i yield back.

>> the dimon yields back. the gentle lady from california reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. >> at this time i will continue to reserve. >> i wonder if the gentle lady has additional speakers, because i would reserve. we have no additional speakers at this time and if she has additional speakers -- >> thank you, madam speaker. we have no additional speakers, theif you want to -- if gentle lady would suspend, the gentle lady from california has four minutes remaining in the gentle lady from tennessee has five minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> thank you, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. waysthink this is in many

a very sad day for the house. as we know, last week there was an uproar in the country relative to a statement that few women become pregnant from rape. that of course is not correct. there is no science to report that. of course this week we have a bill that has been altered to add a very limited exception for rape and that would be available only if the victim reported the crime to authorities. of course as our last speaker is indicated, this actually makes the situation for the victim of a violence, a victim of rape, more onerous than for the perpetrator of the violence. something that i think is really quite wrong.

bill attacks the rights of women guaranteed by our ,onstitution to seek a safe legal procedure when they need it. i have two children. i was thrilled when i became pregnant. most women are thrilled and look forward to a safe childbirth, but for some, pregnancy can be dangerous. and the restrictions that are imposed in this bill that do not have adequate health exceptions can endanger these women. at the subcommittee, we heard from a witness, a professor at george washington university, about her story. she courageously told her story of seeking abortion care after her much wanted pregnancy was diagnosed with severe fetal

anomalies at the 21st week. in fact, an anomaly that would mean that the much wanted child would not survive. then in fact her health could be compromised had she proceeded. under this bill, she would not have the opportunity to preserve her own health. she would be required to carry a nonviable fetus to term, and i just think that is wrong. i don't think that is something that the country is asking the congress to do. idea that the exception for only applies to those under 18 is another mystery. and rapedis molested by her father at age 18, at isue less worthy of the --

she less worthy in the protection of her help and the right to get abortion care than her sister at age 17? i think not. allimply makes no sense at for that provision. i would like to comment also briefly on the repeated discussion of dr. kermit gosnell. he is a monster. there's no one i have heard in this congress or in this country who defends what he did. in fact, he is in prison, serving a double life sentence for murder. what he did was illegal, in addition to being abhorrence in every way. we don't need to change the law to put someone like dr. gosnell behind bars. in fact, he is behind bars right now. i think that the use of this

case as a rationale for denying american women health care that they may need is terribly wrong. on the urge a no vote bill. but the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> this has been an interesting debate. we have heard every descriptive adjective there could possibly be coming from the negative of why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think this debate is not appropriate. i do think some of the most interesting has been the parliamentary inquiries to ask about what we are doing about jobs and student loans and veterans. after tell you all, i agreed this obama economy has been brutal to especially women and the female work force, and indeed, we would love to see our the senate and

administration work with us on those issues. but let me refocus us on why we are here. it is here because imperative that we take an action and that we address these gosnell-like abortions. we have still not for today and talk about what transpired with the conviction of kermit performing illegal abortions beyond the 24-week limit, manslaughter for the death of a woman seeking an abortion at his clinic, three counts of killing babies born alive and dozens of other heinous crimes. we have heard about how the snipped, the heads are punctured. even heard a statement from his attorney who said 16 or 17 weeks should be the limit.

we are going at 20 weeks. we have heard of other atrocities, whether the case in texas, the case in new mexico, pro-choice nurses out in delaware recently quit their jobs to save their medical licenses. they said the clinic was ridiculously unsafe, where meat market style assembly line abortions were happening. recentlybortionist stated he has performed more than 20,000 abortions on babies after 24 weeks gestation. and he is perfectly happy to do elective abortions and davies said seven months gestation. we know that at eight weeks, babies feel pain. they have these prenatal surgery, we know they are given anesthesia.

we know the response to pain and we know these late term abortions are incredibly painful. so that is why we stand today. we want parity for these babies. for these unborn children. we can see them. we have seen some of the ultrasound. what is so amazing when you see these ultrasounds and when people are waiting for the arrival of these precious children, they go ahead, they named them. they are expecting them. they are waiting for them. and they know that these children feel pain when they are harmed. finance tells us so. the american public is with us on this. think abortionn

should be eliminated when these unborn babies feel pain. sayof all americans, 60% second trimester abortions should be eliminated. 80% say third trimester abortions should be eliminated. so for those reasons, that is why we stand here today to support these women and these unborn children, to end these atrocities, to stand together to make certain that that first guaranty, the guaranteed to life, the guarantee to live, so that you can pursue liberty and enter into the pursuit of

happiness. that is why we stand here today. madam speaker, i have been honored to work with my colleagues. i know some don't like the fact that a former judiciary committee member has come to the floor to handle this bill. have been so honored to be joined by so many pro-life women as we have discussed this issue, as we have come together to stand for this. i yield the balance of my time. >> all time for debate has expired. >> the house went on to passed on mostly a measure party-line vote. the bill would prohibit abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, with limited exceptions to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or, as long as they have been reported to law enforcement.

lastonversation from week's faith and freedom coalition conference. this is a 25-minute event. [applause] >> good afternoon. i just want to say we are so grateful to be here. excited to be here talking about advancing the pro- life movement. one feminist said, no one wants an abortion and she wants an .ce-cream cone or a porsche she wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. matthew 25 tells us to care for the least of these, and certainly abortion is an issue for both the unborn child and mother who is desperately

seeking a solution. it is in this context that we came up on the tragic anniversary of roe versus wade, 40 years this past january. let 55 million babies who have been aborted and millions of mothers who are still struggling in broken from it. we know there is a billion dollar abortion industry profiting from their pain and loss. planned parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, performs an abortion every 94 seconds and currently receives over a million dollars a day of your money in my money. all of this is devastating, but we have some good news today. on the issue of abortion, we are winning. we are winning, so much so that time magazine in january came up with a cover article that said 40 years ago, abortion rights reject activist won an

epic victory in roe versus wade. they have been losing ever since. [applause] take a pro-life position, especially young people. 72% of teenagers say they believe that abortion is morally wrong. we know that in 2011, 92 state laws were passed, a record in 24 states, and in 2012, 19 state laws were passed on the issue of abortion. more than half the states have pro-life majorities in their legislatures and pro-life governors. we are advancing. this panel is about events in the pro-life movement but we have lots of room to grow and

lot more to do. we have some really wonderful, row with women. i will let him introduce themselves and give us a few minutes of what they think needs to happen next to advance the pro-life movement. >> thanks for having me. i am an author, commentator, blogger. it is an honor to be here. i also work with a wonderful conservative women's organization and served on their board. that are fabulous. they promote conservative women to leadership positions, give them the support that conservative women need, because we get attacked far more than you guys do. we need lots of groups. on the issue of what we need to do to advance the pro-life movement, there is so much we need to do.

we need to instruct our leaders on how to remain courageous and not run as fast as they can win mainstream media tells them to, but stand up and champion like. we need to expose the hypocrisy of the west, when they claim to be the ones who are champions of women's rights and women's health. give me a break. they don't even support basic healthcare regulations for abortion clinics. we need to expose the fact that the left does not give a hoot about will -- about women's rights. one. i make in my book that we are ignoring is the fact that the obama administration's foreign policy agenda is to promote abortion on demand at all points in time for all women internationally. that they at the fact do not even acknowledge that a large portion of women around the world are in virtual slavery in the name of islam.

these women cannot even walk outside their house without a male escort. yet we are going to make sure that they have abortion on demand. that is absurd. we need to look at providing women around the world with basic human dignity and human rights. let us support the right of these precious unborn babies. let us point out that the democrats on the left do not care about women. that is the message we need to take out there and champion. i think it has to be women to take that message out there. >> i am president of the national black pro-life union. you can also check out my website. recently many americans celebrated the guilty verdict in case.iladelphia

kermit gosnell preyed on women and young girls of his own race. morgan than 30 years, before more than 30 years, he participated in an perpetuated the epidemic of black on black crime, which is a national problem that has become increasingly more pronounced over the years. he ran his bloody planet in a black neighborhood where he made millions of dollars killing black children. we are heartbreaking testimonies, and i was there, so i heard this testimony for myself, a baby screaming and crying while being killed, babies be headed, babies flushed severedlets, a tiny feet displayed in jars like souvenirs, and the media for the most part looked the other way.

the top stories were about o.j. simpson morning yet another trial. gosnell sentencing, there was a sigh of relief from all of us, of course. the pro-abortion side is saying i am so glad that is over. it is not over. kermit gosnell is not an anomaly. houston next week to decry the actions of the abortionist who has been known to forgo the snipping procedure, opting instead to twist the heads off of babies with his bare hands. it is not over, folks. we have a unique opportunity to gain solid ground in the abortion debate. it will not happen with namby pamby, conservative politicians who are convinced that the only

way to win an election is to sit on top of that really high break offense. we need politicians who are powerhouses. andeed pro-life communities we need the pro-life community to come together and stand in unity, each and everyone of us. for those of us who consider ourselves christians, we need to stand only for the things of god, knowing that he is all powerful and almighty in by his grace, we must have courage and we must be fearless. >> thank you so much. i am a former congresswoman from colorado and i do have the scars to prove it, in case you wonder. i am now vice-president , working hardairs

to let pro-life women. what an opportunity before us today. i am so glad you brought up kermit gosnell. in the pro-life movement, many of us have been in its sense roe v. wade. talking about this issue. when the nation has to look at something like partial birth abortion and see the diagram and really think about what went on there, then use of legislative action. you saw the bill signed into law by president george w. bush. right now the curtain has been pulled back. god willing, the media will spend -- has been more cooperative in covering this sensational stuff. i am so thankful for the ones that did. the curtain was pulled back and people in this country had to

take a look at what was really going on in that facility that was called a clinic by a man who said he was a doctor that was giving health care to women. you can hardly read through the grand jury report, when commons have been made this morning, we recoil and we can hardly take it all in, but the nation needs to look at that. it is all about money. so there is legislation in congress right now champion by trent franks from arizona. what a great pro-life leader. we have an opportunity now to a 20-ortions nationwide, week ban. we are talking about olague term abortion bill. people need to look at what is going on in regard to robie wait until now. what has happened in the abortion industry? when you think of the graphic

description of what went on in that facility, believe me, americans are with us. americans that are becoming more and more pro-life. more pro-life women and young people, that wonderful thing, the 4g ultrasound. i saw my grandchildren. i saw pictures of my grandson is it before he was born right there in the apartment. it is incredible. science is on our side. we are moving in the right direction. not only do we want this bill passed, we want hearings. we want people who were in the gosnell call to talk about their experience. we want people that could not take it anymore to come and tell what they saw. survivor toortion

come and tell their story. this is the time for the pro- life movement like we have not had in decades. we must seize the moment and move legislatively to address this horrific situation. it is happening around the country. war news is coming forth every day. we must address this legislatively. i believe the american people expect us to do so. [applause] you brought up bill h.r. 1797. it will be on the house for on tuesday. before you leave today, everyone of you call your congressman, go see them. if they are pro-life, have them speak. we need this to pass. the will do a lot to curb situation. these are late term pregnancies

that we are talking about abortion is occurring in, when you can feel feel pain. let your voice be heard. if you do not speak, someone else will speak for you and you will not like what they say. the other thing i want to touch bigi want to talk about the abortion industry. they are addicted to our tax dollars. we are giving them a half billion dollars a year, making all of us complicity in what they are doing. it is only going to get worse with obamacare. how is it that planned parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, does one in every four abortions done in this country. it is able to maintain a thin veneer of respectability and still is able to convince people that the crux of their business plan is not abortion, which is absolutely false.

tell us what needs to happen and what kind of educational process and anything out you want to add. whohen you have a president gets up there and says god bless planned parenthood, it is a stunning thing. it sure does help when a planned parenthood staff member says if a baby is born alive and is on the table, it is up to the woman to decide whether or not we are going to say that human being. it is important that that video gets out there and that everybody hears. this is an actual policy of planned parenthood. they are barbarians. one of the things we need to do with the issue overall is focus on the young people. the left is so much better about focusing 20 years down the road.

by doing so, they are winning. we are going to lose those young people as soon as they go to college. as soon as they go through sensitivity training, abortion sensitivity training, everything in our campuses is oriented toward promoting the billion dollar abortion industry. it is not about the right of women to control their bodies. it is the right of planned parenthood to make billions and billions. if we don't reach out, frankly grade school, high school, our college campuses are indoctrination camps for the abortion industry. i see the young women out there and i note you know what i am talking about. because we have

to fight for that round. what happens in congress next week or next month is a very temporary thing. if young people believe that abortion is a woman's right and somehow we don't care about the rights of the unborn, we are doomed down the road. focusing on young people and informing about what the abortion industry is all about is the most important thing. if you have some young girls that want to get involved in the , please comement to our website. that are willing to stand for live because they believe in purity. then they have community when they are together.

to hold important people accountable whether it is on a local level, people that you elect to your local offices, people who are appointed. you think about what happened with kermit gosnell, the fact that someone from the abortion facility that work there try to make it known what was going on there. hold them accountable. go to these cities, the investigators, what ever you have to do. it cannot wait for everybody else to act. is just making sure you are raising your children. if you don't want the other side feeding all this garbage to your kids, you have to do your job and make sure you raise your children. , hold ony teenagers

tight. >> i am very hopeful with the movement gaining more young people. america is pretty evenly divided on abortion but a little bit pro-life. what happens when we reveal what , whether iting on is taxpayer funding of abortion. supposed to be for women, talking about the war on women. what about the war on women in the womb. late term abortions, we have to keep bringing these things up and make people think about what is really going on in the abortion industry. americans don't want taxpayer funding of abortion. they don't believe in late term abortions. they are absolutely amazed that anyone could think of taking the

life of a baby that could feel pain, whether in the womb or out of the womb. these things are something that we have an opportunity to show people what really goes on in these clinics. bless lot of rose and her work. we have to keep bringing the facts before the public. dirksen once that when i feel the heat, i see the light. i expect each one of you to contact your congressman to tell of your family and friends to do this, to act on the bill right now. americans are with us on this. we have the time and we have to just keep chipping away at that image that the pro-abortion crowd and planned parenthood has. we have to get the truth before the american people and they are not going to like what they see.

the phony war up lastmen from the presidential cycle. we heard it one more time. we talked about how the are often bullied into silence or afraid to speak on this. if there is one thing you could tell them, one fact you want them to know, what would that be? part is the message you want to give to every member of congress, every governor out there about what women truly think on the life issue and what is the real -- >> if you are going to run for office, don't bother running if you are going to leave your backbone in your state. [applause] the things that you work for,

the things you get elected for, i am going to do this or that, i am strongly pro-life, and you get up there where really makes a difference and then you backed off because you are afraid of maybe not being elected for another term. i think that stinks' and i think you do not belong in office anyway, and we have to be able to say that to our representatives. [applause] we have to continue to hammer that home. >> you have to kind of put yourself in the place of a candidate or an elected official who has a different world view perhaps than the media that is right there with the cameras and microphones. i believe it is very important that elected officials think about the issue of the sanctity of human life, think about abortion and figure out and

articulate to state it. there is someone waiting there for you to miss a beat, especially if you are a man. that is why susan b. anthony of an elected pro-life woman is immeasurable. out their women to respond and it is very wise for us to have our pro-life women leading the charge on this. i believe they can do very well and i think you are going to see some amazing women on the house floor when the vote comes up next week. stay tuned, a pro-life woman in this position again, her work is in measurable. for thatnot only unborn child but for women and women's health care, we are gong to have a good week next week. but there is this resistance that i see among our side,

conservatives on the house and in the senate to promote women within leadership. there are some incredible when and and we will see the next week. they need to be in real, authentic leadership positions. think.how politicians they think about how are they going to win the next election. they love holding on to that power. they should look at their constituency, because if you if we abandontes, the pro-life position, you are going to lose african-americans to vote because of the pro-life issue. i know we get miniscule portions of black america and hispanic

america, but a lot of those voters are voting for our side because of our principled position on the pro-life issue. if we abandon that, i guarantee those politicians that a lot of us will stay home. we will not go for the lesser of two evils anymore. warhen you talk about the on women, have to understand the war there talk about is minority women and for women. don't have blacks representing what you are , forget it, you are missing the whole. the other side is going to bring down black women.

>> we are running out of time. good.s so i does want to wrap up and remind you all to thank your pro-life members. thank marsha blackburn who will manage the bill next week. membersry one of your of come with. the last thing i want to say it -- every one of your members of congress. william was the 18th century abolitionist member parliament in great britain it was fuelled by his faith. he did what he did because he believed in caring for the least of these. that is why we care about the issue of abortion and women. i will remind you to not grow weary in well doing. it has been 40 years since roe v wade but it took 46 years to win on just the slave trade, not the

abolition of slave -- slavery altogether. he literally found out that he had won on his deathbed. so i say to you, we will fight for life with the last breath in our body. make sure you do, too. thank you, and god bless you. >> the g8 summit in northern ireland just wrapped up and president obama has travelled to germany. tomorrow morning he will hold a joint news conference with german chancellor angela merkel. we'll have live coverage at 6:30 eastern on c-span3. later, president obama will give a speech at the brandenburg gate at berlin. it comes 50 years after president kennedy's speech at the same location during the cold war. president reagan also spoke at the brandenburg gate at 1987. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern.

>> let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct the attention to our common interests, and the means by which those differences can be resolved. if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. theyl free men, wherever may live, are citizens of berlin. therefore, as a free man, i take ien einn the words ich b berliner. time he isame preparing the ground for a real shot at they taunt -- at detente. also buildingme

of events whose in seeking a way toward peace with the american university speech. >> looking back on the 50th anniversary of the j. f. k. speech -- peace speech, part of american history tv every weekend on c-span3. >> said of the white house council of economic advisers spoke about the u.s. economy at the wall street journal cfo event on tuesday. here is what he said. >> the u.s. economy has been growing for four years. that is better than not growing. certainly better than europe, for example. we are still not back to where we were before the recession. something like 2.5 million fewer jobs today than at the peak before the recession.

as you look over the next year, do you think there is any reason to believe that the pace of the economy is going to quicken, that we will see the next 12 months be substantially better than the last 12 months, or due to the slow crawl to 2.25%? >> in terms of gdp, we are above where we were at the previous peak. in terms of employment, we lost almost 9 million jobs during the great recession, about four million during the first 10 or 12 months of the president's first term. we have regained over the last 39 months almost 7 million private sector job so we are on a better path and we have been on. our forecast is, given headwinds that we face, because frankly government austerity, because of , that will be

ahead win for the expansion in 2013. i would expect unless we can replace the sequester with a smarter policy that this year it will look a lot like last year in terms of job growth and gdp growth. we had more support from the congress, we would have a strong work year. i think of this request remains in place, that will lead into next year because of the way it works. it will not be as severe a head wind next year. think you will see growth closer to 3% next year. the growth rate would have been close to 3% issue without the sequester. >> robert moeller testifies on capitol hill tomorrow at an

oversight hearing. he will take questions on the data collection program run by the national security agency. live coverage from the senate judiciary committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. removeas essential to france from canada for the united states and who became to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. led by franklin recognize the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago. theamerican achievement of 2.5 million free people, for them in effect to get the british to evict the french from their borders and then the french to help them evict the british, to manipulate the two

greatest powers in the world was an astonishing achievement. 7:00 p.m.y at eastern, part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> next, confirmation hearing for president obama as pick to head the federal communications commission, thomas wheeler. he testified before the senate commerce committee chaired by senator jay rockefeller of west virginia. >> the hearing will come to order. you lead an agency that the most

challenging and complicated issues pending since the telecommunications act of 1934. i don't say this lightly, obviously. the decisions the sec makes under your leadership, should you be concerned, the future of the nation's telephone network, public sector, the wireless industry, broadcast, the internet, are at stake for years to come. of all the pending issues before the commission, the current futureing, and one rulemaking are of utmost importance to me personally. incentive option proceeding will create the revenues to fund a nationwide public that the network. i feel so strongly about this and i have ever since september 11, 2001. before that, really, when we went into kuwait, none of the branches of the service could talk to each other. it is mammoth undertaking, and i understand that.

it has exposed millions of children to the transformation of power of information in extraordinary ways. everything from distracted driving to the moral character of our generation is coming up. as a call for several months ago, and the president more importantly said in his recent remarks in north carolina, the fcc can help make sure that our school libraries can meet the date and current committee needs necessary for today and for the future. updating the program to meet the needs of the 21st century is necessary for children and national competitiveness. seeing the combination of these two initiatives as my highest priority, i hope it will be yours as well, too. too much is at stake in these proceedings not to get them right. if the sheer magnitude and complexity of the issues were not enough, you face an agency

that has becoming -- has become increasingly polarized and politicized. some even question its relevance in a digital age, but i think agency is more relevant and important -- an important than ever. .he fcc is a regulatory agency i believe that too many have forgotten that the agencies' fundamental responsibility is the regulation of communications networks. these are important policy goals. you cannot have universal service without regulations. you cannot ensure competition without regulation. it cannot have consumer protection without regulation. across communication review networks evolve and technology and says, the mission of the fcc does not. the rules and regulations that we have in place now may not be the rules that we need for the future, but that does not mean

we should not have any, as so many in the industry seemed to advocate. agree thatcan all the rules of the agency need to a job -- need to adopt, should conditions change, evolves, so that every american, no matter where, as access to broadband. as so easily said and so easily avoided by all forms of those undertaking it. promises made and promises not kept, that is the pattern i have found. i am sure in the rural state pfizer is a deficit of attention. the rules the agency needs to adoption guarantee that every job in america can harness the power of the internet and do it safely.

the rules the agency needs to adoption of our consumers with the information they need to make informed choices. the rules the agency needs to adopt should continue to create the conditions for job creation, innovation, and investment. the fcc made progress on achieving these goals but an awful lot of work remains to be done. thechallenges will emerge chairman must be more than the hors d'oeuvre industry interest. and they are very effective in making their cases. bottom line, long history. you must use the vast statutory authority to advocate for the .ublic interest

also the parent and the student, all those without an army of advocates to lobby on their behalf, we are consumed here about people that come to visit us representing wireless this and that, megahertz, bandwidth, whatever, and that is fine, because they are a big part of the puzzle. of what is the goal? accessl is to provide for and protection to the people who use this and those who are not using it, who should be using it, in my judgment. it will bring to the job a long history of distinguished career in the communications industry. as a pioneer in the cable and wireless industries, have been instrumental in the growth of both of these critical sectors. as an entrepreneur rebuild businesses and created jobs,

most importantly understand the power of technology, how it has already transformed our lives and continues to do so each day. your career is one of innovation, leadership, in public service. i believe that as chair of the fcc, you can use your experience and skills to harness the bass the. of the at sees use it to spur universal the deployment of advanced technologies, foster growth and innovation, and protect consumers. thank you. you, chairman rockefeller. mr. wheeler, i want to thank you for your interest to service the next chairman of the federal communications commission and bring your considerable experience to the agency. we are in the midst of a technological revolution holds great promise to improve the lives of all americans.

today, grandparents who live thousands of miles away can see their grandkids grow up through the internet and video applications. small-business owners use smart previously only the world's largest corporations could use. and doctors are able to diagnose and help folks without patients traveling hundreds of miles to see a specialist. when we met last week am a we talked about south dakota. i want to extend an open invitation for you to visit. there is no substitute to seeing firsthand the challenges and the value that new technology holds for americans living in rural states. you can replace the old sign that you happen to come by a few years ago. you have written, that the communications act and its enforcer are analogue legacies in a digital world. , regulationto say designed around 20s -- 20th

century is not a perfect tool for dealing with multiple service providers. i think that frames our big picture discussion perfectly. coming from someone aspiring to lead now, that same agency using that same outdated law begs several questions. the first is, will you work with congress and seek to amend the law? the two previous chairman's have chose to intervene based on questionable legal means. first attempt was struck down in court. , ithe commission loses again hope you will take a deep breath and come to congress for legal clarity, instead of wasting more resources. i certainly hope you would also our modern-ain from

day economy. you have been criticized for suggesting the fcc used merger conditions to create effective regulation for an entire industry, or, at minimum, underscoring its desire to do so. i hope you understand the hesitancy of law agencies discussing a -- using a backdoor to impose a regime and skirting the regulatory issue. congress never intended for the fcc transaction to be used as a backdoor policymaking tool. we already have too many federal agents carrying out their agendas and we do not need the fcc to be another. third, a visionary. as industry leader and having served on the advisory council, you have seen the firsthand attentional of the internet. there is no debate whether our 1996,t laws, written in 1992, or 1934, anticipated a

converged world in which american consumers could choose between multiple wireline or wireless committee stations. all should be reviewed in this era, reflecting not just today's. your term happens -- has the potential to be pivotal and i invite you to share your ideas toward modernization. many members of the committee have had an opportunity to meet. i know others would like to do so. we do not have enough time to address all the questions members might have. there will be another opportunity for them to explore. toppreciate your desire process the nomination in a timely manner in order to get to the commission back to his full membership as soon as possible. i await the additional nomination and i am ready to

work with you and colleagues to move forward both nominations in due course. thank you. i look forward to the testimony. >> please proceed. >> first, we start with a technological challenge. turn the mic on. >> thank you very much for the privilege of being before you today. it is an honor to be nominated by the president and to be considered by this committee for the position of chairman of the federal communications commission. , itou have both referenced has been a privilege to meet with memory -- many members of .his committee if confirmed, i look forward to continuing the dialogue's. together, we are working in one

of the most exciting, if not the most exciting technological moment in our nation's history. to be joined by my family here today. please allow me to introduce carol wheeler, my best friend, and the biggest hearted, wisest person, i have ever met in my life. a, if confirmed, this will be a public service both of us perform. >> this is a very family- friendly observation. [laughter] are thee and melvin of hunter and schuyler,

who appeared on the scene three weeks ago. proud grandparents, .oining their two-year-old melvin is from ireland. the other grandparents communicate with their grandkids exactly as you just said, via skype and the internet. end,heeler, sitting on the is somebody i am incredibly proud of. a big monthas because melvin and nicole had twins. also because max graduated from the program at george mason university. this was a team effort. i appreciate the opportunity to introduce the team to you. i am excited by the opportunity for public service.

for almost 40 years, my has revolvedlife around communications technology and its various iterations during that time. in the process, i have seen the play, either as brake on growth or a innovation. in 1976, i stepped onto this career path, first as executive vice president, and then ceo of the national cable television association. i fought against the rules limiting cables ability to compete as a service. i work for the ability of competitors to bring services into the home. i helped lead the industry support, what is today the underpinning of the jurisdiction over -- over the 1984 cable act.

caught in the excitement, i became the ceo of the home computer network, the first delivery of high-speed data over cable television lines. , it is hard to be the home computer networks when there are few home computers. the market forecast did not come to pass. went by the wayside. i was able to continue in the new digital world, including bringing to market the first digital video system and the first satellite delivery of digital video. in 1992, the cellular industry recruited me. it was an exciting time as we build markets around the new concept of competitive, local toll it -- television vacation service. byt competition was expanded

the offices of 1994. wireless was increasingly used in place of wireline. wireless data turn the phone into a pocket computer. all of these development wrought with them new policy challenges. what i learned from my business experience will make me a better , should the senate confirm my nomination. the lessons can be summed up in two concepts. the first is that competition is a power unto itself that must be encouraged. competitive markets produce that are outcomes than regulated or uncompetitive markets. i have seen firsthand the results of competition. spurredompetition cables expansion in the digital services. competitive local exchange carriers and cable television provision of internet access

spurred telephone companies to expand their digital offerings, and the introduction of licensees spurred cellular carriers to go digital. i am an unabashed supporter of competition. i believe the role of the fcc has evolved from acting in lieu of competition to dictate the market, to promoting and protecting competition with appropriate oversight to see it flourishes. the second lesson is that, while competition is a basic american value, by itself, it is up -- not always sufficient to protect other basic american values. in a telecommunications world, this committee has identified and congress has identified issues that include improving access to broadband networks, universal service is a key of the telecommunications

act. we did it for electricity, phone service, and we can do it for broadcast. has long ande regularly recognized another value. of technologye to enhance public safety and public services. it makes no sense that first responders -- carry their own smartphones because the gear they have been issued cannot do what technology otherwise makes possible. likewise, it does not make sense 80% of schools report the available bandwidth is below their instructional needs. assisting those who are disabled or disadvantaged is another american value. this committee's work on the medications accessibility act is a classic example of making sure our

values and technology are in sync. protecting consumers is the heart of the congressional instructions in the telecommunications act. it manifests itself in the half of one million consumer inquiries and complaints the commission handles annually. it is the fact that our society depends so much on our networks that makes the work of the fcc so very important. a commission is a bully led by a well-informed and dedicated group of commissioners, supported by an excellent staff. our public service exemplars, should the senate determine -- my nomination, my life experience has prepared me to

participate with these medical -- dedicated professionals to carry out the intents of congress in this area. i am humbled to be before you today. should you so decide, i look forward to the opportunity of working with this committee and with each of you to advance the networks and services defining our tomorrow. thank you. >> thank you. the senator is, in most respects, the superior person to me. for that reason, and because he has to do an amendment on the floor, where we are about to vote, i want to call on him to ask for his question, while warning our colleagues this is an amazingly important meeting.

easy to go down and vote and slip into the many things one has to do. i am eagerly looking around the room wondering how many eyes i will be staring into after our vote. we come back right after the votes and continue and i ask your forbearance. >> thank you. i appreciate your kindness and wanted me to go, although i do not think my presence on a war will affect in a positive way the outcome of a vote on my amendment. i appreciate it. on your blog, you indicated in 2011 the fcc could have proposed provisions that could have later expanded the entire wireless industry. your post could be read to see -- to read they should do what they cannot do in their agulatory, to propose

regulatory regime on wireless. that is how you characterize it. this concerns me. fcc's transaction review authority should be used only to address public -- public issues. rather than issue strong arm rather than to fecteau, shouldn't they instead use their authority to implement industrywide policy echo >> thank you. i appreciate you raising the issue. i understand your concern. what you have cited was hypothetical speculation. what a regulator must deal with are the realities of a specific and the law and precedent

that deals with merger review. there is scarcely anything more important that comes before the commission van merger review. that review must be conducted precisely based upon the facts in that specific instance, based has the mandate congress established in the act, and based upon precedent. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed as chairman, those will be the guidelines i will use in merger reviews. want to quote from your blog post. you assert the merger conditions, and i want to quote again, could have been lifted into subsequent consent decrees for other carriers for other

spectrum auctions, under the logic that if at&t could live with them, so could anyone else. to me, that would appear to be exactly backwards. is it not large players like at&t that could have more -- more easily handle merger conditions, whereas small and medium-sized would be >>dicapped by regulations? the is one of the reasons kind of observation i made that you talk about specifics of that merger agreement that is being ,eviewed, is important, because these are issues that have to be dealt with with caution and care and have broad impact.

of thecific review specific issues in the case, guided by the statute, is the rule that the agency should play. >> you know i am present a rural state and at -- as do a number of my colleagues on both sides. tom firmly committed expanding telecommunications opportunities to people in my state. i am wondering how you will approach the challenges that rural america faces. thatnator, it seems to me we have made the jump from voice to broadband. the commission, with the help of this committee, have made that jump.

there is expansion of broadband threeon, but there are goals i think are particularly important. one is the extension of just reference. the second is the expansion of broadband as technology allows .aster and faster speeds the third is the exploitation of broadband. anyone without the other is an incomplete solution. , or inrural america urban america, it is expansion -- extension, expansion, and exploitation. they will be the key to our broadband digital future. >> if i might just touch on

this spectrum issue, it has been over five years since an auction was held to put spectrum on mobile broadband into the marketplace. do you think that is an acceptable track record and what do you intend to do to improve? >> thank you. there are a couple of auctions teed up, not the least of which is the incentive auction. it will be the first time in the history of the world -- that is a grandiose statement. it will be the first time an auction like this has been tried. this committee and the congress have directed the fcc to do that in an expedited manner. a chairman has set the schedule for that. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, it is my intention to

ve of theou agree the goal incentive auction ought to be to maximize net revenues in order to cover the cost of first ,et generation 9/11? >> senator the incentive auction has never been tried before. , liken it to a rubik's cube that over on this side of the cube, you have got to provide an incentive for broadcasters to want to auction their spectrum. youhis side of the cube, a producto provide structured in such a way it incentive i is the wireless characters -- carriers who want to bid for that spectrum. in the middle of this, on an

almost real-time basis, you have to have a band plan constantly changing to reflect variables going on here. that is why this has never been tried before. this is a monumental undertaking. to create pieces value for the broadcasters and for the wireless industry, and to pay for first net and provide something for the american taxpayer all have to go through this incredibly complex rubik's cube. >> i will take that as a yes. my time has expired. thank you. >> i will ask two quick questions. then i think we better leave and come back. i have your permission to go ahead with the question? thank you.

as i mentioned my remarks, the program is just seminal in my life and with me in terms of public policy. to bring affordable access to telecommunications and internet to libraries throughout the entire country, the president wants to make it to 99% and i am all for that. he reaffirmed this sentiment when he called to take the steps necessary to make sure all americans to deaf students so digital technologies can benefit from them. is a a bold statement and a good one. earlier this year, i received public comments from all the commissioners to work with me to update and strengthen the rate of graham. that is not frivolous. not make them stand and take an oath. it is one by one, yes no, yes no.

they were all yes. that does not always guarantee the result, because of the internal problems that arise. me, it involves a commitment. i asked, if confirmed, which i am certain you will be, would you also commit to working with may? it is basic but i need to ask it, to protect accomplishments, as well as obscure -- a short additional support to meet the needs of our schools and libraries? fax the answer is yes. >> good. >> the hand on one word answers. can you just give me one sentence of why you said yes? >> yes. i have been a supporter since it first happened in 1996.

i think it is for basic reasons. as i mentioned, when 80% of the eu rate schools say they are not getting the proper bandwidth for their instructional needs, something needs to be done about it. is the program that started in 1996. a lot of things have changed since 1996. it is not good enough for us to have 1996 textbooks in the classroom. i do not think it is good for us to have 1996 connectivity in the classroom. press good. one more. when congress authorized voluntary off -- it was part of a larger goal for providing funding. the me interject. , olympiaassed the rate

snowe, being one of the causes, i wrote each of the telecommunications cubbies at the time, there being more than, and asked them to write a letter to me promising they would not challenge this public policy in court. got letters from every one of the ceos promising not to challenge in court, after which, they all challenged it in court. they all lost in court. but that is a part of what i bring to all of this. .romises made, promises kept it is important. so the auction thing is incredibly compensated. getting it right is really hard. for me, the successes of the offices -- of these would be judged by their sufficient funding.

i know you have watched this policy debate closely. you will appreciate my question. if confirmed, you understand the need for auction rules to provide sufficient funding for first net? >> yes, sir. >> can you act judiciously to amend these and avoid unnecessary delay? >> it is crucial the incentive auction -- the incentive auction move quickly. ask myll go ahead and two or three questions and get out of everybody's way. is that ok? ask am next, i will couple questions. i may have more for the record. first i want to ask is more of a .tatement than a question we are tomorrow getting ready for a hearing in the same committee on railroads. one of the things that came up, we are getting ready for the positive train

control, which the law currently says should be implemented by 2015. the commission will have to ,omplete the permitting process including environmental impact studies and historical impact new wireless2,000 polls and towers. i am told the historic impact studies may even have more residents here because of tribal lands and other things because -- than other studies. it is also my understanding the normal mom -- number of permits is somewhere between her towers and two or 3000. if the commission goes through the regular permitting process for these polls, most of which would be located on the current right away, it would take 10 years to complete. is on to make sure that your agenda as you are thinking

about that, this is a case where one set of procedures would make it impossible to comply with the other law. i'd you not know if you have had a reason to discuss this with anyone or not, but if you want to comment, that would be fine. >> i have not and it is on the list. >> 22,000 permits, unless there is an x the guided permitting process that goes on so that positive train and fulton happened. on retransmission, everyone knows retransmission consent is a controversial topic. this committee over the years has spent countless hours debating that. the chairman and his predecessors have always taken the view that the fcc's current authority to alter retransmission consent rules in any way is very limited and that changes to the policy would have to come from congress. is that a position you share? >> i look forward to looking

into the issue and trying to get my arms around it, particularly in light of recent court issues and pending second circuit action that has been brought on a related issue. not trying to josh your question, but i think this is something that is a situation that is in flux at the moment that i have to get my arms around. class is there a possibility -- >> is there a possibility the commission had more authority than they had previously thought? >> i would hate to second guess a court in advance. >> you are waiting for the court decision to see where you need to come down on that. the third question i want to , i will submit questions later, in a merger situation, there is 180 days shock climate role. .ho you plan -- rule

do you plan to continue the conditions to the merger that do not directly deal with competitive issues? i have got a .ouple of examples >> i understand your example and it is not this similar to the kinds of things we exchanged ideas on. i believe the merger review process is a specific process that deals with that specific case. the facts in that situation, and is guided by the law and precedent. and that ought to be the defining four corners of any consideration. is the merger review element? >> the necessity

is the broad term, but it includes cup petition, consumer protection, and viability of markets, etc.. >> thank you. i will have more questions later. we stand in recess. thank you for holding the gavel so i can ask is questions. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> ok, we will resume. the chairman is on his way.

>> thank you. thank you for your patience wait an you had to extra hour for us. we had votes to take. i also want to thank you for and visiting with me and i appreciate you took the time to have a conversation tonight. i look forward now to continuing that. when we met the other day in my office, i explained to you i do have an interest in looking at alternative funding. differentg at a mechanism for the universal service fund. would beink that that one of your priorities if you would be confirmed? what options do you see for that alternative funding? >> thank you. we discussed, recognize your expertise on the

matter, having served as chairman of the committee in the legislature. i was fortunate enough to be able to serve on the first ward of the universal service administrative corporation. lord of thest universal service administration corporation. i have seen a lot of happen since then. there were significant iterations. it seems to me of pressing importance to continue the evolution of universal service. to look at that evolution holistically, if you will, that we have tended to look at , like the oldice story about the different fellows feeling the elephant, s it is a snake

and one thinks it is a tree. we should look at the whole elephant and ask ourselves what should happen since the onset of the program in terms of tech knowledge he, marketplace, business models. that suggests we ought to be looking at new approaches. funding,ically for though, what options are out there? what would be a source of revenue? >> it is a whole -- they cannot quite be separated here. but, clearly, one of the facingges that is universal service going forward is the transition. fees assessed on telecommunication services and fewer things are, that is an issue that has to be addressed. but it is an issue that has to

be addressed holistically, with both sides of the equation. >> thank you. the chairman felt we could have this incentive option done by 2014. do you think that is a realistic old moving forward? >> i will make every effort to meet that schedule. in of the big frustrations my current situation is that i know what is on the public record, but i have no idea what other things are going on and what other decisions and fax are being used by the commission. i look forward to getting those pieces of information and making that decision. thatnk this is something needs to move on an expedited

basis. >> good to hear. thank you. some groups are pushing the fcc to use its rulemaking authority to enforce the provisions in the sales disclose act, which would require the disclosure of donors for campaignoups purposes. are you concerned that in serving the fcc -- inserting the fcc into this politically charged debate, when congress has its rest of the decided not to act, would that undermine the support for the fcc? >> one of the things i have learned about, and i said it in my statement, i have spent 40 years in telecom. i would assure you this issue is not one i have ever seen come on my radar before. i know it is a strongly held position. with differing positions.

what i know i am going to do is i will learn more about it and delve into the issue. but i am not unaware of the tension that this issue creates. >> do you think it would be a proper role for the fcc to bypass congress, were congress not to act? do you think it is within your charge that you would then act as an agency in a rulemaking process for congress if decided not -- if congress decided not to act? >> it is the job of the agency to act within the structures congress has created. as i understand the issue and the debate, there is debate on whether or not the authority exists and resides in the commission today. that is something i want to learn more about. >> what is the biggest challenge >> clearly, you talked

about the auction. there are so many components of the effect of the auction, that you have to say the auction is a top right arty. i a more negative scale, have spent a lot of time dealing with the fcc in my life. make important the agency decisions in a timely fashion. fore is nothing worse investment innovation, job creation, all the things that flow from investment, van businesses not knowing what the rules are.

i would hope in an overarching scope of things that we would be able, with my colleagues, because i am very aware this is , with myion, but colleagues, that we would be able to identify issues. >> thank you. it has been a pleasure to meet and visit with you. i wish you well. i hope you will come to nebraska, as i mentioned during our previous conversation, we are leaders when it comes to telecommunications and broadband, and yet we are very sparsely populated in many areas. the population is focused in the eastern part of the state. i hope you will come and see the diversity of our state and how we have addressed the needs of the people. >> i look forward to that. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you. much.nk you very

i appreciated. thank you very much for for spending the time with me a few days ago. i appreciate your willingness to do public service and also your supporters and family for their willingness to allow you. i know with that is like in the pressure it will add to your family. thank you very much. me, if i can, pick up on two ends. first, i want to talk a little bit on what the senator fisher said on rural states. our state is considered more extreme rural, to say the least. the high cost to do business up , it is very expensive. we have found not a lot of understanding and total by the fcc in this area. there have been documents and reports indicating it is cheaper to build, which is false and incorrect.

i want to get your sense, your understanding, on the record here, of how we can work with the fcc, or how you see the fcc working with these extreme areas that have a high cost to develop, and get a predictable stream. what happens now, you cannot with onee investments year horizons. you have got to have multiple years. ,e find it difficult especially with our small co- ops, for example, working with alaska, or our large companies or the utilization of satellite. can you give me a sense of your feelings in regards to being able to make access to rural areas. we understand the cost will be higher. >> thank you.

i do understand the decision was about costs and i stretch my head -- scratch my head the more i learn about it. counterintuitive. >> we would say it is out of whack. >> i hear you. i also think alaska holds great promise for new technologies. as you know, i am proud of the fact that i many years ago turned on the northernmost cell and in north america watched. it was amazing. i watched how that could change a community, the excitement it theght to a community, polar bear patrol, which i never knew anything about, that was

enabled because of this new technology. that newromise communications technology is lied in many areas -- wide in many areas. thehe fcc has eliminated consultation, which alaska has to drive as a nation, but a cross-country, a sizable amount. in alaska, there is a sizable amount. what will you do -- i want to ask you a bunch of questions and i know the answers and do not one to waste my time. i would rather's, are you willing to help this step act into what should be part of the

-- that is the travel consultation. you look at the areas that are connected. predominantly, it is travel lands. , the fcc wipes out the funding. give me your thoughts. >> that is an easy set up question and an easy answer. it is hard to serve people if you cannot consult. take that. we will work with you. >> i look forward to that. >> today, my colleague from alaska had shared an oversight on the fcc and universal service fund. nois very animated because

one from the fcc decided to show up to the hearing, which, from our perspective, we had people fly 5000 miles. to come to the hearing, when the d.c. folks are just down the street, and they could not find it in their time, their somewhat dizzy schedule, and i get that, but it is amazing to me. as chairman of the commission, will you do everything possible under every circumstance -- they do not show up because they do not want to have the discussion. too bad. they have to have the discussion. it would be uncomfortable. i have a lot of discussions every day that would be uncomfortable. , whereverensure possible, that members of the fcc will show up on these hearings? he is not a happy camper over there, so i can only imagine. luckily, he is not in the confirmation hearing. would you do anything you can?

>> it is the same of the consultation issue. it is all about the dialogue or the answer is yes. >> i have a few seconds left. let me say, we would also love to invite you to alaska. you have been there. i know that. inould be very interested seeing you participate in coming up to alaska and see what we are trying to do with new technology, if you would at least consider that, i would look forward to it. i know you saw it. one of the last questions over on this side was about the fcc's role in regards to the act. , another one a few letters off, requires us to put our voice on that. , corporationsl -- ill logical, corporations want to put their voice. they are supposed to bp will

they must have a voice somewhere. >> is that a question? >> it is rhetorical. your point is good there are very strong feelings on both sides hurt if we are required to then theoice on, corporation is -- i hope they see their voice, that they find their voice and put it on and add. i leave it at that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to point out i know there is an interest on this political advertising. the fact is there is a petition in front of the fcc, that is and it will not be appropriate for you to respond. there is a live petition for rulemaking, filed by media

years projects, filed a ago, asking the commission to examine the commission's authority under the communications act, to require more disclosure. you were asked that i senator fisher. in an essence, you deferred. therek, given the fact is an ongoing, rulemaking, that is an appropriate thing to do. i just want to mention, when we talked earlier, we talked about the need of the federal and the commercial of the spectrum. i was pleased to see, just this past week, the administration announced an initiative that seeks to promote a sharing in order to get more efficient use

of the scarce spectrum resource. i am assuming, if you are confirmed, that this is something you would go about contributing to this spectrum ,nitiative through engineering your engineering expertise, and your authority as a commissioner under the communications act. >> yes. have learnedwhat i is that technology is constantly evolving and the challenge is how policy keeps up. with what knowledge he makes possible. that is a classic ample right there. >> thank you, senator. we will have senator cruz to be followed by senator leventhal. >> thank you. welcome. >> excusing for a second.

did i bypass you? who did i bypass? just tell me. >> i will happily defer to my friend from new hampshire. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, while we have the deferrals going on, i want to mention one thing. i understand it is your birthday today. ?s that right? >> >> no. [laughter] >> haps you could text him happy birthday. [laughter] >> i want to thank my colleagues. i want to thank you, mr. wheeler, for taking on this

important role. when we met privately, i talked to you about my concerned about the universal concert -- service fund, and how little return on the investment my constituents get in new hampshire. we are a country of 50 different states. i know there will always be some inequities. new hampshire gets $.37 on the dollar of what people in new hampshire put in before the universal service fund. only four other states get a lower return on their investment and, frankly, they do not have some of the rural areas we have, nor do they have any unserved areas. , if would like to ask you you are in the position of a nomination, an important role, do you believe the fcc has the ability under the law today to work with net donor states like

mine to address what we feel is an inequitable program? also, can you share with me your what needs to be done to fix the inequity and to make sure we are furthering -- further considering and how it is allocated. i can tell you, i am happy to have you visit some of the rural areas of new hampshire, but despite the fact we are only getting $.37 return on every dollar a person in -- in new hampshire put in, there are many areas in my state who do not have rock band access in inal -- broadband access rural areas. >> i am not familiar with the specifics of new hampshire. thater, it is essential universal service be looked at

and theality distribution as well as the contribution formulas looked at in the light of the realities of today. i was and i discussed, on the first board and i lived through a lot of the early difficulties and the great thing since world has moved on some of those struggles in terms of what is happening in the market and what is happening with technology. we need to make sure the rules have, as well. >> can i ask for your commitment to work with people like me? it is hard for me to look people in new hampshire in the eye and say this makes any sense for my state to address the problem of the inequities within the current universal

service fund. >> i look forward to looking -- to working with you on that. >> thank you. i also want to ask you about the broadband deployment issue. i talked to you about it in the rural areas of my state. i know a ranking member soon touched on the issue. currently, the commerce spectrum and management committee is working on clearing federal spectrum for commercial broadband use and the work has been slow going. thisted to ask you morning, the former head of the nia under president clinton criticized the administration for moving too slowly when it comes to freeing government spectrum. one of the issues we have talked ,bout, a very valuable band particularly the issue of the 1755 to the 1780 band, and the

fcc has less than three years to auction and license this band. , we are behind. ,hat do you think, in your role that we expect and hope you will , to reallyd for light a fire under the issue of the scarcity of it. we want to see the private sector growth by having more available. also, by the way, making sure they have what they need to protect our national security. if you could help me with that, i would appreciate it. >> thank you. that is a huge question. let me see. , i was there when the last federal government to arum was reallocated

private sector. i was representing the wireless in that situation. i understand the challenges involved and i understand the good faith on oath size. i understand how incentives have .o be created it is not my first rodeo. i look forward to participating and working with an tia, who is responsible for .he allocation the fcc is then responsible for the assignment. sometimes, a reallocation requires a reassignment, so there has to be a pairing of the exercise. i also want to comment to you and all your colleagues here that thinking back to 15 years ago, and talking about spectrum

with the members of congress, the understanding and the grip of both sides of the spectrum debate that exists today in the congress is far different than it was. i think that is true if there is you are the key to keeping and the administration fcc moving on this. on your specific question, so 55, 2 2180, yes, they need to be paired. the congress said you would have this done by february 2015. the lower part is actually part of a 95 mag reach from 70 --

1810 -- ihe way up to am sorry, 1850. parsing that to deal with the first part of that, 1755 to 1780, is an important thing to happen. we should not have to wait for everything to be cleared. >> thank you. i appreciate you being here. i want to thank your family for supporting your service. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i was going to sing you happy birthday. the senator -- there we go. --ant to welcome our non-ami our non--- nominee. one of the things i think you know that is a concern to me is that consumers should be able

to keep the cell phone they purchased and used a cell phone that they purchased, even if they move somewhere or their service area changes.

..

>> 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. 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. the 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 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? >> only for numbers -- phone numbers. the department of justice provides a rich oversight auditing. >> thank you.

general alexander, is the nsa on private company servers, as defined under these programs? >> we are not. >> does the nsa have the 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 clich?, frequently, after 9/11, about connecting the dots. with 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 succint 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.

we are doing it to protect our 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. we have 90 day periods where 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. but we worked hard to do is to 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. we have individuals who work on 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? >> this is a 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.

when one of those persons 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. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and 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 new cases, it including the operation wi-fi case. one of 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,

the nsa -- 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. >> on that plot, it was under

the 702, targeted against foreigners. 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 -- 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? >> not in the example that i am citing here. >> i am sorry. the group in somalia which he was financing -- that is what they do in somalia. 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. releasing more 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. >> have you previously collected anything else under that authority? >> under the 215 authority? i am not sure, the long the -- beyond the 215 and the 702 that answers about what has and has not and declassified can be talked about all stop -- about. >> you have said there were cases where there was data inadvertently or mistakenly collected, and subsequently destroyed. >> that is correct. >> and there 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 of justice, oh dni -- odni, and 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] >> he said with a special 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. if we have to disseminate data 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?

also, the president kind of 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? >> the judges sit kind of in 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. >> i guess the crux of my 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, 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. >> an important part of the oversight process at the department of justice and the odni is, when compliance 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? >> i do not think the hearing 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. >> how many people were in the 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 alexander that the erosion of 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. like most legal opinions, you 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. the director of national 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. 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. you would have to, under the 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. >> i will 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. i am not what -- 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. >> thank you, 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 designed 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 also charged with looking at the 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 an -- citizen figure that we have deleted all of these things we are supposed to delete? >> i believe they can. we have a fairly comprehensive system at the nsa. whenever 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. if it is fisa data we talked

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. we have purge lists, if we were 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. >> any indication that the fisa court has the resources necessary to run its oversight piece?

>> obviously, 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 diligence, before it even gets 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 does 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. the fisa is a particularly rigorous authority, but they all have checks and balances that transcend nsa. if i can add to that, i 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. person 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? >> i think either maybe i 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. if we want to pursue electronic 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. >> what does the government have 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, 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? 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. we 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? >> 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 worthwhile having the court at

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 dead mexican citizens. you at least have to into or got phone records from ap reporters, fox news reporters, including from the house gallery within this building. last week, as you know, ag oh is being accused by the judiciary committee a possibly lying to the committee. -- ag 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.

i have told you the examples i gave you, how important they have been. the first core al qaeda plot to 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. 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. an oath to do that, and we take that oath seriously. >> we know from the mandy and report that came out that other governments are busy doing this and expanding their psycho warfare techniques. i just want to say that it is so violent, as the chairman has pointed out, for the folks in the work that you are doing at .he nsa, how important it is so thank you for your service, general. i yield back. >> i would dispute the fact that other governments do it in anyways, shape, or form him a close to having any oversight whatsoever of their intelligence gathering programs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank