tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 12, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EST
11:00 pm
do and make the case wherever we can and whenever that case can be made, whether by federal legislative leaders, state legislative leaders, voting rights groups, community leaders, that case does need to be made. >> is there >> is there an up front cost? an up front cost. it is not significant and over that the cost r is more than recovered. .t is a net savings >> we have a lot of instances here an up front cost is recouped over the next 10 years but people don't want to make expenditures in year one and two. but that is not a barrier in your eyes as of yet? >> no. electronic t states poll books have the potential to olve election day issues and officials want the technology. can you explain how it makes a
11:01 pm
difference and what is delaying adoption of that one? >> it is easier to describe how why itke a describe than has been a problem so far. they make a difference because that can be put takeselectronic poll book care of a lot of sort of antiquated paper that is in a place. much more l up information including signature i.d. and ion and photo cut down on traditional lane problems that have -- lane that have -- line problems. they are a low cost simple solution to putting a lot of paper in one place where poll t access it easily. >> how about the implementation? >> this goes into the morass we have fallen into with technology. is that the roblem certification program for new
11:02 pm
systems is fatally broken. new systems are having a great difficulty coming onli online. because the access it certifica takes so long and is virtually impossible to get some of the solutions are just proving very nettlesome manufacturers to find a market to put them in place. highlightedaware is in your report as a national eader in implementing the national voter registration act. delaware seems to seamlessly the fer information from d.m.v. to the election rolls. can you tell us more about this explain why it is better than what most other states do nd why are not more states doing it? delaware is particular because of our the inconsistent performance of departments of motor vehicles in implementing
11:03 pm
the responsibility under national voter registration or motor voter act. issue.s a significant one of our commissioners chris thomas intimately familiar with of the ce director national association of election directors has really called major, on to this as a major shortfall in compliance with federal law. and we are calling attention to fact that, a, there is no d.m.v., this ese d.m.v. performance cannot be are models lake delaware that states can look to ee how effectively it can be done and what a difference it makes in election administration. here really needs to be major consistent attention to the fact that this is a serious, serious in the operation of that t federal statutes, is to say compliance with those stats. >> my time has sparexpired.
11:04 pm
senator roberts. >> thank you, chairman. i want to talk about the long often here and we they are the result of some kind of real plan of some sort that areas are being targeted nd the lines are the result of a deliberate effort to disenfranchise certain groups. any evidence of that? second, are these lines management om problems or deliberate schemes to disenfranchise people? i will let bob address this as well. almost saw is that this was a management issue. any number of solutions that we put forward in to deal with the specific problems of long lanes. with d extensive hearings the jurisdictions, in the jurisdictions where long lines
11:05 pm
had occurred. we found that the problems are all identifiable and and there were no plots f conspiracy that caused the lines. we spent time in the urisdictions in south florida and held a hearing in miami, and what we found was that in the there were es where long lines in those counties that occurred in less than 1% of places in that particular county. hat would suggest resource allocation issue and a way to look at management techniques be able to es to improve that. mentioned things bob in his testimony was providing online tools for precinct officials to be able to gauge the course of the day and better allocate the equipment they have within a county.
11:06 pm
11:07 pm
[inaudible]. some states offer 45 days. is, is it really wise for voters to be casting month and a half before election day? don't we want the voters to cast based on the same set of facts? [inaudible]?lue are we obliged to recognize t t that? who bringing in people for wise don't vote or people who would be voting anyway? the thing i'm trying to point out is if you are voting 45 days about of the election day and within the 45 days several big with regard to the campaign and the voters who voted 45 days early had no that in in ctor
11:08 pm
regard to the election day period. i have asked you four or five and it is not fair. why don't you go ahead. senator. thank you. senat there are two points i would make about the early voting and issue you raised about whether or not it cuts off the opportunity for citizen prior to casting the ballot. he first is that without talking about the amount of ecall voting the state could provide, voters actively resist all need to points i would make about the early voting and issue you raised about whether or not it cuts off the opportunity for e funneled through on one day from 7:00 a.m.ing in 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. the original photd -- model is omething that runs up against the grain of voter expectation that they should be crammed into
11:09 pm
to vote. it creates a whole host of contributes to issues like lines. the studies int is voters who vote early are the voters who are the most settled on their choice. they have made up their minds. whether you call them the most partisan or i had logically committed but one -- identify v are the voters who are the most settled logically committed but they are likely it be moved by any sort of anticipated changes n the campaign agenda the remaining days of the season. you weigh nce when what voters expect and what they believe they ought to be offered in the for voters options against the risks they will be denied an opportunity for they really need for deliberation, our commission concluded that early voting in another wins out. >> i believe this is an area where the individual states
11:10 pm
best feel for how much early voting their voters want. across the political spectrum from officials of both who say that voters n many jurisdictions really appreciate, expect, to be able to have some options at the time they cast their vote. beterms of resources, it can more efficient for jurisdictions to have early voting and not have to skrpl everything on to -- jam everything on to election day. that is not always true but i of those areasne we aimed the report at state and local officials and they are the end up deciding. >> i thank you. an article by norm be more efficient is back in 2004, very still think it is relevant. voting line side early
11:11 pm
necessary but toxic in large doses. it details the dangers inherent voting and the points he makes, i think, are worth considering. to the attention of all of my colleagues. other questions but maybe weas expired the can get back on another round or i can submit them for the record. you.ank i graciously continue to chair the hearing. no problem with the second round. we have an executive session to nominate two people to the assistance commission, myrna perez.and we will do that off the floor at bout noon when we've a series of votes. let phme call on senator klobuchar. >> i want to start by thanking
11:12 pm
you hat consumer model developed that people shouldn't be waiting in lane and you can look at -- in line. did want to follow up on something that senator roberts you, mr. ginsberg. when you studied these when franchifranchise sen or was it management and you said it was management and i can states when we have problems in polling booths made.stakes are but i think some of the efforts right now in some states who have come out for early voting orth carolina and florida recently started efforts or enacted laws it cut back on voting or north carolina stopped same day registration or states ings you see doing. i'm concerned about the effect disenfranchised voters whether at the individual precinct level or not it is laws enacted with stringent license requirements and things. think some of that is going on and, number two, just
11:13 pm
done you want f to death done is there the olitical will in the states an congress when we see the things going on in states backtracking rom this idea that we should allow more people to vote? senator, two quick responses to your comment. -- i we were surprised don't want to overstate the case he we were struck by t testimony around the country, democratic and republican, in might be ons that thought to be much redder than or much bluer than red at the uniform wish when the lights were off or doors were closed or where the agenda was well-defined, wished to see election administration in fact rate public administration for the benefit of the voters. opportunity at all of our hearings for anybody who anted to be heard to be heard
11:14 pm
so we might have had an pportunity for discordant voices but by and large the hearings and other discussions been welcome as an opportunity for people to voice their wish that we had an be tion system we could proud of. outside of many issues there are controversial enactments that the parties with quite divided about. assure you if ben and i went off into a room in nonchair we would end up brawling about them. mode. in statesmanship it is painful but we are holding out. that is not the whole story. the second point i would make and this is a critical point if the key then some of administrative sort of features infrastructure, if for example we have an understanding that we are going 30 minute oward the wait time maximum that we
11:15 pm
rticulate in the report and address some issues that lead it long lines then aware going to vulnerability system to partisan mischief. senator roberts asked the could you have mrs. to create long lines. there is more vulnerability in those shenanigans if the system is weak and will break down under pressure. if it is strong it is less likely to break down under political ressure or design. >> thank you. fraught k this area is with partisan feelings. unfortunate.is think you cannot equate cutting become hours in early voting with trying to disenfranchise people. the fact of the matter is in north carolina and florida as an suggested one has ending early voting. what people have suggested is there are administrative concerns about having unlimited early voting.
11:16 pm
fair debate to have. it doesn't entail voter disenfranchisement. get in nasty rhetorical detours on this issue all too often. i will also point out in all the voting that we saw early doesn't increase turnout. unproven assertion having more hours increases turnout. same day registration a different matter, does that increase? different. it is hard to say because the states you mentioned as having voting do have a history of increased participation. so i think the laboratory of the to see if same day registration works or not is not taken on. i think in some of the states oout same is low turn did i registration with -- same ay registration would create problems for the administrators
11:17 pm
turn out to longer lines. so it is an untested area. i enforced years our election laws and looked every single painstaking and count of double and son 0% were father of the same name and we saw so little fraud in a major county over two million people. and there would be somebody who and voted twice or a felon who didn't know they couldn't vote. we had things like that. the most part people were not going out there to try felony and vote. so that is my general concern nd i'm glad about what you are doing because don't see that as the major problem as much as it s hard for people to vote to are -- or they don't want to lines. n they hear about the lines and they don't want to go out. i have one more question along
11:18 pm
of your recommend -- lines of your recommendation. i wanted to know more about what they identified as the security issues at schools. a lot of voting at schools in minnesota and it is the value place where people how comfortable to go and do you think we fix it? was one of his area the greatest areas of surprise to us when we heard from so many local officials that it was a problem. the concern is that since the at schools with shootings and violence having walking around in the schools and on the campuses was concern.of that is the reason that some localities, were cutting back the use of schools. t is a tremendous problem because in the majority of jurisdictions schools provide the best facilities for voting. is ample space and they are accessible, all the things
11:19 pm
polling place. so, the conflict between the to childrend safety and voters is a conflict that shouldn't be allowed to exist. and you would suggest like having volunteers there or something? >> to have a school holiday on election day so that it would be a training day for teachers. in effect youmean are not changing the cancel -- you would give them training and have it on with them time to vote as well. >> gentlemen, thank you. i'm sure my kids would vote for off.xtra day >> no, they wouldn't. know.now, i senator schumer mention lab tiers of democracy and i thought are laboratories of democracy. the problem is nobody reads the we don't share information. i commend you because i think
11:20 pm
what you have done is exactly function of collecting data and information across the states and sharing best practices practices. this is principally a state and issue. in echoing senator roberts we in a maine ion election are we had very early voting, i can't remember, a more before the election. the dynamics of the election changed in the last several we'd people trying to early vote to change it because of developments in the election. think there is a legitimate somewhat about how far in advance. ecause elections do tend to sometimes come into focus the last several weeks. that experience. i knew people that went to their own office and said how can i get my vote back? i want to change it. a veryuld not and it was distinct situation.
11:21 pm
long lines issue, how widespread is it? or is national problem it extremely localized? you mentioned in one district it of the precincts or something like that. searching for a federal shraugs to what is -- solution a very isolated electrical problem that needs -- local needs to be dealt with by local officials? >> we are not recommending a solution. we are recommending a series of reforms and best practices by state and local governments can keep the wait and hopefully comply with the 30 minute standard we articulated. is a problem by ously >> as ben pointed out scattered throughout the country. there are some jurisdictions don't have long lines and ome that are quite frankly
11:22 pm
having some stubborn problems with long lanes. that in data indicates the united states five million americans waited more than an and another five million between a half hour and hour to vote. 10 million americans and that is a significant number. haven'trisdictions that had that experience could be there cantly at risk if will, sort of, if you anticipatory adjustments like or example weak voter rolls or inadequate supplies or nadequately functioning voting machinery. > mr. ginsberg, do you have a comment? is this truly a national problem or something that is very localized. >> i think in our experience it was localized. any time you have 10 million people voting for long period of times that would suggest you
11:23 pm
a solution because it shouldn't happen. we had 130 million voters in the election and in affected 10 million so that is a significant it is localized. what we saw is there is not one that there are long lines. in different jurisdictions there places.ferent some jurisdictions will have 100 in ing places and put 10 each precinct and not take into registration of in a couple of precincts so you in one place idle and a line in another. in some locations you have problems.s the place where people are oting is just too small and it creates a line. there are any number of common sense solutions to the problems. we heard from both our friends and from vate sector electi election administrators and bob
11:24 pm
his testimony in and we lay out solutions that can be used on the local level the individual problems that occur. particularly concerned about something that you entioned, a trays i think was impending crisis in election technology. you mentioned federal certification. could you expand on what the issue is and what we can do it?ut >> yes. there are a couple of points to be made. want to add will some as well. the current certification system standards that were eveloped in 2005 and 2007 to approve new technology. that was before anybody had an tablet or many of the devices we use today. so, because the standards have been updated largely because of problems at the assistance commission, that a e rigmarole
11:25 pm
machine manufacturer has to go through it get new equipment be used by the different states has become time-consuming and extremely expensive. o, it is a federal certification process. >> it currently is, yes. jurisdictions,wo los angeles county and travis havey, austin, texas, that decided that they are going to because ir own systems things just aren't working on the federal level. before the process of federalizedn became it was handled by the state election directors. seems to have been a process that worked better and shrauolution going forward. so it is not necessarily a solution that is needed to the problem but something certainly needs to be done. it possible that the federal solution is to undo the
11:26 pm
prior federal solution? perhaps. it would not be the first time. your thoughts. >> i agree, we did not choose to be proscriptive. e didn't think it needed to be addressed a particular way. but away did point out that -- and this by the way is not as an adverse reflection on the election which has commission other duties it has performed extremely well. our report is replete with references to the top flight done.they have but here knowing that there is going to be continued conflict role there is a structural blockage that needs can't ddressed and we wait for some day we might hope fevers will isan subside and the election assistance commission will a new dawn in this area. too urgent and
11:27 pm
therefore some answer has to be found. >> senator roberts. second round. > mr. acting chairman, it occurs to me coming back at this oint that as usual you have focused on the very questions and our s going to ask itnesses, with their expert knowled knowledge, have already answered them. so, the question is, do i simply questions that you have asked and have them do it or simply ask permission to put this article ornstein early voting but is toxic in large
11:28 pm
doses i would comment it to the attention of everybody. i think it still is very viable today. want to thank the witnesses and everybody concerned with this. are a ce my questions duplication of the questions i yield back. klobuchar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a few more questions about recommendations. first one is internet feed idea. camera on rising waters on a river and everyone in the is try tunes in to see what happening so they can see it. the time for all weather. people are constantly checking when the storm is coming in tonight and a simple that people could very, with simple technology, check to see what is happening with precinct.nes in their could you talk about how you would envision that working? turning a camera on
11:29 pm
the people or just giving reports? > i think that what he would envision is the administrators ould be continuously assessing wait times and posting acceptable reports that citizens and plan when it would be most convenient for most efficient to vote. as you point out, senator, quite correctly, this is fairly straightforward. one of the ways away believe we thinkinge continuously about the introduction of technology to support the voting process. do you just think election dministrators in each precinct there is no wait times. > 20 minutes, half hour, correct. >> you had another one on of that and the sponsor and professional works upgrading in the approximatelying places training standards for poll workers. how would this work?
11:30 pm
>> again, it is something that really can be talked about by state but implemented by either the state or local jurisdiction. poll workers are a point of contact for most voters. having well trained poll orkers is extremely important to the smooth functioning of the system and just the way voters voting.out it comes down to training. and whether that is a top with local not administrators to be able to recruit poll works. the laments we heard from elections officials is how poll ult it is to recruit workers, to find enough to be in the polling places. suggestions me about using college students and students, angle high school students are more in showing up than college students. go figure. and to encourage businesses to
11:31 pm
to be able employees to help out as poll works on election day and to have training. aboutr report also talked importance of access of information in language other english including balance n other languages, bilingual poll workers. we have made efforts in with ota with voters groups and wire efforts to make accessible to these groups, why is that so important? >> we want to stress that the the er theme that commission struck -- and i think charge -- within the is improving the experiencer long minority voters to go to find there is nobody there that can speak their language is not consistent offering the experience voters deserve.
11:32 pm
as we pointed out, there is this t by federal law congress has tendered to these voters and statute that provides for protection are not universally consistent. poll the areas recruiting workers with language capability and on the next point up the efforts to ng compliance of the voting rights act provision protecting long a orities there is significant more to be done and it is critical to reflect respect for the voter. one thing you talked about in here is people serving overseas military and how having online registration materials with be so helpful to them. makes a lot of sense. do you want to explain that? inconsistencies mong the states in the sort of usefulness of their websites for eople serving in the military
11:33 pm
especially people serving in the overseas or living overseas. so there are some states that seem to have more robust sites others. websites is kind of the easiest way it communicate if you are or in the military, the postal than service or a direct delivery system. at least ld encourage the provision of registration aterials on state would be sites to be enhanced. >> thank you very much. >> i want to follow up on the question of certification both identified here is a kind of coming at us wave of replacement of machines the new technology and yet certification system is broken in could be a real problem four to six to 10 years. andhe problem the structure
11:34 pm
the lack of functionality of the the idea of it federal certification itself? see those two separate issues. if the e.a.c. tomorrow was fully functional, would this open the take care we would of this in an expeditious manner r should away seriously consider this as a state and local responsibility, why do certification?al mr. ginsberg, your tauhoughts. it's an area where federal certification process makes states in ich the some ways desire it. there certainly needs to be a able to ody to be uphill machines and give the -- give states s and some comfort in the quality of machines. underwriters will be tier?
11:35 pm
>> something like that. state directors forming a group is the model before the e.a.c. e.a.c. and its e is a straight question. >> but it is a question that is mportant because if it doesn't get fixed then away don't get get the don't certification, correct. >> yes. i'm partial to the state directors' solution for it. i think that can happen much ex-tkrbsly with the -- expeditiously with a greater need. role inuld be a federal the of the expertise and expertise that would need to be brought to it. but that is not necessarily hrough the current certification process. >> mr. bauer, your thoughts on question. >> i think it is important and is i do believe we would not
11:36 pm
ave arrived at this conclusion and made this recommendation if the e.a.c. in this particular hadn't been in some state of paralysis. so if your question is had this e.a.c. veloped and the was fully functioning could it discharge this role successfully and the answer in my judgment is yes. we had it take into account the may in the prove to be the case and we can't wait for a solution that may not be to us in the political sphere. other alternatives have to be developed on a fairly urgent basis. legislation take because right now it is just dam, right? it can't happen. what do we do? a problem that will come at us in the next two to four years. that is part of the discussion that needs to take place right now which is what steps should be taken and how
11:37 pm
fully hey be taken to develop the alternatives. we indicated only in broad brush what the alternatives grapple but awwe didn't with the details. >> mr. ginsberg said he thought the state ive where directors created a certifying agency would be an acceptable alternative. would that be seven -- you?ptable to >> i would be prepared to consider all the alternatives. -- one concern we had is to be tan to be a conclusion about the e.a.c. and its future. that is not our intention, intention.ot my any alternative that promises to be the most effective and efficient alternative is one i certainly with consider. >> even assuming the e.a.c. is this tly functional does need to be a federal responsibility i guess is the question i'm asking? don't know that i would define it as a federal -- by ibility by these
11:38 pm
necessity but i'm not prepared because i'm not sure i studied closely enough to determine which of the alternatives, the ben suggested or another might be the most effective. in my mind we need to do is focus on what is most effective. do something. the alarm bells are ringing. >> yes. might, senator, the way the system works is that different states have different standards. almost inevitably they say the machines that are used in their need to have been ertified by, right now, the existing structure. it is not that there is federal federal rule a that particularly blesses a particular machine when it gets done. there is still state legislation a central back to testing facility for the achines to be sure they are
11:39 pm
worthy of use. that can or cannot be a federal functi unction, that group that is judging the quality of the machines. a or if i may, it could be function that is not federally supported. for your ou both thoughts on this. if you have additional thoughts person-this.on i would like to thank you both important testimony and particularly for your work on this commission. it is important to the people of mark and important to our process and important to who we are as a country. work ly appreciate the that you have done on this and thank you very much. today's conclude hearing. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> without objection the hearing record will remain open five dditional days for statements and questions. thank you senator klobuchar.
11:40 pm
we don't have a quorum now so we the proceed to a vote on two nominations but we will recess subject to the call of he chair and take up the matters when we have a quorum. continuing will be off the -- i will be off the floor in a vote today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the senate passed a uspension of the debt ceiling until march of 2015. it now goes to president obama for his signature. what the senate voted on we spoke with a capitol reporter. reporter gressional
11:41 pm
with real clear politics.com joining us. a dramatic vote in the senate a clean bill to lift the celling for a year is heading to president obama's desk. it dramatic? >> we knew that essentially the in the ld pass but senate there are procedural urdles requiring a 60 vote threshold to move to final passage. sometimes they can work out deal where it just requires a majority vote but ted cruz a republican in the senate voiced threshold andthat that for a 60-vote and would require at least five republican senators to put their bill that line on a is politically hurtful to them. that was dramatic in a way we didn't know how many and
11:42 pm
republicanors on the side with vote to move forward with this bill. whether was most surprising to us was that minority leader a ch mcconnell, who is in re-election fight facing a primary challenge is one of voted to proceed with the bill. he, of course, is the leader of the senate ans in and john boehner the house peaker earlier this week did the same thing. >> what did g.o.p. leadership do to get the votes needed to pass? > we talked about it during conference meeting earlier today on the senate side. basically mcconnell and a couple ther republican leaders and epublican senators decided to voice support for moving forward gave over ll, which the 60-vote majority thresld
11:43 pm
needed.y o, the vote on the cloture motion was 67 votes, 12 proceed.ans vote ing ing to the final passage was on party lines. ll democrats voting to support raising the debt ceiling, all republicans voting against it. a tweet out saying were ng next to mcconnell senators who switched their vote to yes shedding some cover for leader.p. you mentioned this. hat reaction has there been to senator mcconnell's yes vote? >> the reaction was a little bit but also this is something that leadership does should do.ly the politics though of a midterm election year especially for mitch mcconnell and especially -- control of the
11:44 pm
senate is at stake. the republicans have a chance it take control of the senate. as it e was surprising is politically, can be politically harmful. remarkable to watch a handful of other republican --ators join with the leader to cover as well.e i would just point out though for clarification that this was proceed with the bill. all these senators ended up passage.ainst final but that procedural vote is key n getting this over the finish line. >> that is the house passing the ebt ceiling bill first and senate. what does this mean for the influence of conservatives in chambers? >> conservative outside vocal if theirry opposition to this bill. they have been vocal in the past boehner iten pushing attach something to the debt ceiling that addresses cover as.
11:45 pm
but house speaker exhausted all ifferent kinds of options, policy additions to this bill and decided that going with a the best for h be the party considering that they during the it government shutdown and in previous battles over the debt issue behindt this them and focus on items that jobs and party, namely the economy and opposition to the healthcare reform bill. conservative outside groups will continue to boycott the osition, criticize the speaker for the move. but within the chamber itself doesn't seem to be wide things on to the way panned out from conservatives. in other words, we are not eeing conservatives redevelopment against the speaker or the minority leader in the past. the telin huey-burns is
11:46 pm
congressional reporter with real .com. politics next "washington journal" we look at the economic impact of keystone xl pipeline. we will look at what to expect in president obama's second term. and former federal tphenergy egulatory commission chairman wi grid. security of the that begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span, away bring public ffairs events from washington directly to you putting you in the room at congressional events, white house conferences and offering gavel-to-gavel coverage
11:47 pm
of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. we are c-span created by the cable tv industry and funded by he local cable or satellite provider. like us on h.d., facebook and follow us on twitter. president obama signed of the u.s. house as a public a executive order raising the minimum wage for government $10.10.tors to at the signing ceremony he also alled on congress to raise the national minimum wage for all workers. this is 20 minutes. you.hank thanks you, guys. you, guys. thank you. everybody have a seat. white house, the everybody. >> thank you. know you had to come here some shovels buy and salt. t sounds like we may get a
11:48 pm
little snow. but i very much appreciate everybody being here. and t to thank first foremost the workers who are with me this afternoon. [cheers and applause] >> and i want to thank two for all hard working americans. e have secretary of labor tom perez. where is tom? rate here. know where he was. and we have outstanding to snow an who is used because he is from minnesota. [applause] two has been just over weeks since i delivered my state
11:49 pm
address.nion i said this year would be a year of action and i meant it. over the past 14 days i have an across the board reform of our job training therams to train folks with skills that employers need and match them up with good jobs filled now.dy to be i directed the treasury to calling mething we are tpnew wayke an i.r.a. a for americans to save for retirement. you can start with as little as $25 to $50 and start building up a nest egg. of and get tax benefits for doing so. we have rallied the leaders of ome of america's biggest high tech companies to make sure all kids have access to high speed and up-to-date they learn the skills for the new economy.
11:50 pm
we brought together business leaders who are committed to unemployed america americans, particularly unemployed who often are discriminated against in a catch 22.e they haven't had a job for a while and the employer is not at the resume because they haven't had the job for a while. the point is that i'm eager to work with congress whenever i find opportunities to expand opportunities for more families. can act on my own ithout congress, by using my pen to take executive actions or phone and the rallying folks around a common to e that is what i'm going do. [applause] so, that brings me to the issue we are going to talk about today. worst economic crisis economy has s our
11:51 pm
been growing the past four years businesses have created 8.5 million new jobs, the has come down.te but while those on the top are ever, etter than corporate profits have been high, stock market has been average wages have barely budged. so you have too many americans are working harder than ever before just to get by but they ahead.eem to get they can't seem to make all the ends meet. that has been true since long before the recession hit. reverse those trends. we have to build an economy that not just everybody, the fortunate few. restore opportunity for everybody so that no matter ho you are and no matter how you started out, no matter what you look like or what your last ame is you can get ahead in
11:52 pm
america if you are willing it work hard and take responsibility for your life. applause] >> so, the opportunity agenda i laid out will help us do that. agenda is more new jobs that pay a good wage. manufacturing and xports and energy and innovati innovation. part two, we have to train the folks with the skills to fill jobs. part three, we have to make sure every child gets a world class education. part four, we have to make sure rewards hard my work for every american. work pay off with decent security and wages and benefits is what we are about here today. earn ns making sure women equal pay for equal work.
11:53 pm
applause] >> it means making sure workers ave the chance to save for a dignified retirement. [applause] access to affordable health insurance that gives you or beeedom to change jobs your own boss and the peace of for that it will be there you when you get sick and you need it most. applause] >> so, if you know anybody that have health insurance right now, send them to health care care.gov. the website is working. [laughter] sign them up. you can get health care for less than your stone bill for a lot for a lot of bill folks. but it means in the wealthiest nobody who works full-time should have to live in
11:54 pm
poverty. nobody. not here in america. [applause] it was one year ago today hat i first asked congress to raise the federal minimum wage. that in minimum wage real terms is worth about 20% ronald n it was when reagan took office. 20% less. 1/5 less. some ofernoon i invited the folks who would see a raise f we raised that federal minimum wage. whiteoined me here at the house. like most workers in their situation, they are not they look like teenagers. some of them are very young-looking. but they are not teenagers taking on their first job.
11:55 pm
adults.e the average age is 35 years old. majority of lower wage jobs are held by women. many of them have children that they are supporting. who work americans full-time often to support a the minimum wage had kept pace with our economic roductivity they would be getting paid well over $10 an hour. the minimum wage is still just $7.25. it raise ess refers it, it loses value because there is a little bit of inflation, costs more even though inflation has been pretty little still costs a more each year. that means each dollar isn't a ng as far and they have little bit less. so, over the past year the was re of congress to act the equivalent of a $200 pay cut a typical olks for minimum wage worker. that is a month's worth of
11:56 pm
maybe two-months' worth of electricity. a makes a big difference for lot of families. in the news is that years since i first asked congress to raise the minimum passed laws it raise theirs. appreciate that. applause] >> you have more states and cities and counties that are raise their to minimum wage as we speak. and a lot of companies are doing too. not out of charity but because they have discovered it is good business. two weeks i visited a costco story in maryland. costco is a very profitable compa company. great.ck has done it has expanded all over the place. their philosophy is higher a way to boost
11:57 pm
productivity an reduce turnover. and feel es are happy like the company is invested in them they are going to do more for the company. they are going to go above and beyond. i was over at the costco store i was meeting folks at the cash off register and now were in and had ry positions been there 20 years. you could see the pride they because the ompany company cared about them. received a letter the next day from a woman who saw my to applytv and decided for a job at costco. they like li -- look like they d job.od so owners are recognizing that profits goand higher hand in hand. s america's chief executive i
11:58 pm
agree. so, while congress decides what hope going to do and i this year and i'm going to work this year and urge this year pass a law, ually today i'm going to do what i can working americans' wages. applause] i'm issuing an executive order requiring federal contractors to play a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour. [cheers and applause] this will make a difference for folks. right now there is dish wash are at randolph air force base in
11:59 pm
$7.76 an hour. there is a fast food work at making down the street $8.91 an hour. here is laundry worker in iowa making $9.03 an hour. when i sign this order starting as their contracts come up each of them and many a raise.s will get by the way, that includes folks paid in tips. they will get a raise, too. [applause] tip wages have gone up even slower than the regular minimum wage. just as it's good for company as i cross the country, this will be good for america's bottom line. for contractors and for taxpayers. the opponents of the minimum wage have been using the same
12:00 am
arguments for years. and time and again they've been proven wrong. raising the minimum wage is good for business and it's good for workers and it's good for the economy. puts more money in these folks' pockets, that means they've got some money to go shopping. which in turns means a business has more customers, which means they may hire more workers and make more of a profit. and let's not forget, it's the right thing to do. there's a simple, moral principle at stake. if you take responsibility and you work as hard as these folks work, you shouldn't be living in poverty. not in america. we believe that. [applause] and this executive order will cover americans with disabilities. because this principle doesn't just apply to some of us, it affects all of us. [applause]
12:01 am
so, i'm going to keep doing whatever i can to raise working americans' wages. and i would ask any business leader out there, any governor, any mayor, any local leader listening, do what you can to raise your employees' wages. to work to raise the wages of citizens in your jurisdiction. they'll support these efforts. a majority of americans, not just democrats, not just independents, but republicans too support raising the minimum wage. [applause] it's the right thing to do. so that's something congress should keep in mind this year. there's a bill right now in front of both the house and the senate that would boost america's minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. just like i'm doing with this executive action. it's easy to remember.
12:02 am
$10.10. $10.10. let's get that done. raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10, wouldn't just raise wages for minimum wage workers, its effect would raise wages for about 28 million americans. it would lift millions of americans out of poverty immediately. it would help millions more work their way out of poverty without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending. it's the right thing to do. just last month 600 economists, including seven nobel prize winners, wrote the leaders of houses of congress to remind them that the bill before congress would have little or no negative effect on hiring. on jobs. so it's not going to depress the economy. it will boost the economy. yes. [laughter] it about will give more businesses more customers with more money to spend it. will grow the economy for everybody. so, yeah.
12:03 am
he's excited about it. [laughter] so members of congress have a pretty clear choice to make right now. raise our workers' wages, grow our economy, or let wages stagnate further and give workers what amounts to another pay cut this year. restore unemployment insurance for americans still looking for that job. or expose them further to hardship. [applause] members of congress, you can help people make progress in their own lives or you can hinder that progress. and every american deserves to know where your elected representative stands on this issue. so ask your senator, ask your representative in the house, do you support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour? if they say yes, tell them, good job. they don't hear that that often.
12:04 am
give them a pat on the back, give them a hug. let them know, way to go. that's the right thing to do. if they say no, be polite, don't just yell at them but say, well, why not? ask them to reconsider siding with an overwhelming majority of americans. encourage them to say yes. give america a raise. i'm about to sign this executive order. when you hear me talking about my pen and my phone to make a difference for middle class americans, this is exactly what i mean. i'm going to do what i can, congress should do what it needs to do. i will not give up on this fight no matter how long it takes. america deserves a raise. working families deserve to know more economic security in their own lives. we've got to create new jobs, bring the middle class, build new ladders of opportunity for folks working their way into the middle class, just like these
12:05 am
folks are doing right here. there are millions of americans who could just use a little bit of boost. millions of americans outside of washington who are tired of the old, stale political argument or tired of folks just looking out for people who can afford big lobbyists and big campaign contributions. there are folks out there who want to see us restore an economy that works for everybody. and get back to our founding vision of opportunity for all. so, i know you guys will work with me. but go out there and organize some more. thank you, everybody. let's give americans a raise right now. i'm going to sign this. [applause]
12:06 am
12:07 am
>> labor secretary thomas perez was at the daily white house briefing to talk about the president's executive order and call for raising the federal minimum wage. this part of the briefing is 20 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. the president has said that this year will be a year of action. today he will take an important step to expand opportunity by rewarding hard work with fair wages. in a short time from now the president will sign an executive order to raise minimum wage to $10.10 to workers who are making minimum wage on contract. if you're a nursing assistant caring for our nation's veterans, if your staffing the parking lot at the federal courthouse or if you're working
12:08 am
concessions at our national parks, then you deserve a raise. as the president said in the state of the union address, if you cook our troops meals are washed their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty. the president believe the government should lead by example, joining many other private businesses who recognize that fair wages are the right and smart thing to do and the efficient thing to do. we estimate that the executive order will benefit hundreds of thousands of people directly by increasing their pay, but it will also improve taxpayer's return on their investment. higher wages make for a more productive workforce, and thus improving the quality and efficiency of services to the government. this is just the first step. every american worker needs a raise. that would take an act of congress. the administration will continue to push strongly, the bill will increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.
12:09 am
with that, i am happy to take any questions. >> secretary, do you have an estimate on how many workers are going to be helped by this federal contractors? >> we estimate it'll be in the hundreds of thousands. the reason we do not have a more precise estimate is as we finalize the regulations in the course of the ensuing months, that will give us a better handle on that. i have read studies that indicated it was in the millions. we believe that is too high and the assumption involved in that testament, including the fact that they had a $12 an hour minimum wage. those assumptions did not apply to the executive order the president will be issuing. we are confident our estimates are where the actual number will be. >> you said hundreds of thousands.
12:10 am
during what time frame? >> goes into effect january 1 of next year. not every contract will come of january 1 of next year. in the course of the ensuing time frame which will be months and years for contracts to come to the end of their life and be renewed, then you'll have more and more people benefiting. the president was very explicit about not wanting it to interfere with contracts that are already in place. >> i'm asking you a specific western. you give us an estimate and claim this will benefit hundreds of thousands of workers. so, is this during the first year, first five years, what timeframe? >> hundreds of thousands of workers as new contractors come in place. they will come in place over the course of years beginning january first, 2015 when the executive order goes into affect. >> over the course of eternity? >> 3-5 years. more will benefit year one, year two, year three, and even more
12:11 am
in the pursuing years. >> what percentage make the minimum wage or less than $10? >> we do not have a precise figure. we are still finalizing the regulations and preparing regulations. the estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of workers who will in effect from this. this means they are making below $10.10 an hour. >> you are raising the wages. what would be the costs? >> all federal agencies will do this within their existing budget. the reason why this is the efficient thing to do is because when employers are paying a fair wage, they have a more efficient workforce. so, we are confident that dislikes him any other private sector companies that it paid a fair wage and have low attrition and an effective workforce, we
12:12 am
will realize the same efficiencies here. >> you're not allowing the price of the contract to go up? >> all of this will be implemented within the existing budget agencies. it is not a bump up in the budget to account for this. the consistency of paying a fair wage are what we will gain from this executive order. the president has said any times that the federal government should set the example. that is what we are doing. >> there are some that hope that this would apply to legal contracts. can you explain why that decision was not made? >> the president made a judgment and i agree that it should be applied to new contracts. in the middle of the contract, there is not the distraction of having a wage inserted that wasn't in place when you negotiated the contract to begin with. >> would they be litigation over that?
12:13 am
>> the president wanted to draw an appropriate balance between ensuring that we have a minimum wage and also minimizing disruption on contractors and changing the rules in the middle of a contract we felt would be disruptive. that is why it applies to future contracts and doesn't take effect until january 2015. >> will there be some economic lag time before it can be enjoyed and translated to the broader economy? >> any law you put in place will have an effective date. this is no different than any other law, whether it increases the minimum wage, and effective date on the road, we have issued regulation to help workers. we want to work with the various stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of that. this is no different than any
12:14 am
other law that would address these important issues for people. >> this is obviously something that the president can do with his pen. how likely is it that you will get congressional support for doing a broader minimum wage hike? there's not a lot of advertisement of this among republicans. >> i look at where the american people are. regardless of your ideological stripes, there's a strong support of the minimum wage. is up with the proposition that no one who works a full-time job should have to live in poverty. the members of congress go home, they listen to their constituents. i was in new jersey listening to baggage workers who were working at newark airport and talking about how they are making choices between food and health care. a guy's son turned 16 and he had to look him in the eye and said he could not buy him a birthday present because he needs to buy
12:15 am
food. these are stories we hear across the country. the minimum wage has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. so, this issue has enjoyed bipartisan support. i'm confident that it will continue to and we will fight hard. again, people are working hard and falling further behind. that is not right. >> it doesn't enjoyed bipartisan support right now. what do you think needs to change to make that political calculus different? >> when members listen to their constituents, they will see that people are working 40-50 hours a week and they are on food stamps. they will see that we are subsidizing the banking industry to the tune of $900 million a year because you got bank
12:16 am
tellers that are working and collecting food stamps. the fast food industry subsidized to the tune of $7 billion a year. if we want to reduce reliance on public subsidies like food stamps, if we want to promote self-sufficiency which i think there is bipartisan support for, if we want to make sure we reward work and really acknowledge the dignity of work, raising the minimum wage makes a lot of sense. i think the american people are ahead of some in congress. i'm confident as people go back and listen to their constituents that this movement will continue to grow. >> this is not indexed for inflation? >> it is indexed for inflation. >> in the job training project, is there a time frame? for which that work will be completed?
12:17 am
>> we are working because we want to get back to the american people as soon as possible. i meet with the vice president with great regularity as we draw a blueprint for ensuring that people have career pathways and tickets to the middle class that come when you have access to training and upward mobility. >> thank you. are there people -- other federal government employees who earn less than $10.10 an hour now? people at the labor department or justice department or at the white house who are earning less than that $10.10 figure now? >> i'm not sure of the answer. i will have to get back to you. we are looking into ways to address those issues as well. >> last month the president talk
12:18 am
>> last month the president talked about helping out the long-term unemployed by encouraging companies to overlook their appointment history and the credit scores. why is that good business practice? >> i have met with many long-term unemployed in the course over the last two months. what i saw that these are people with immense talent. they find themselves in a predicament that is no-fault of their own. they are the quintessential catch 22. i cannot pay my bills right now. i need a job to pay my bills. the president told companies to help address this issue. it was a fascinating conversation.
12:19 am
what we realized is that there are so many companies who have practices that are benign, such as a credit check. i can understand why someone would want to do a credit check for someone, but the reality is if you have been unemployed for two years, you probably missed a couple of payments. we saw a willingness from companies to look at peoples abilities and take a fresh look. we also compare and highlighted many best practices, including the fact that we have the authority and are involved in very promising work where we subsidize wages. if an employer hire someone who is long-term unemployed right now, we will pay half the wage over 6-8 months. but we have found is that the program works well. that convening really helped us shine a light on this issue. we have a $150 million grant solicitation that is going out imminently to further promote those best practices. >> two employees who are otherwise equally qualified, one
12:20 am
who has been unemployed for one day and the other one who has been unemployed for 13 months, you saying the company should look at that? >> have the company appreciate that the person who has been unemployed for 13 months has tremendous talent. we have heard from companies that used to say, you know what, you still look skeptically at the person who has been out 13 months. we took a risk. they are some of our most productive employees. that is what we are trying to communicate. sometimes we put in place certain filters that prevent us from seeing potential in people. that is what this initiative is about. i was really heartened at the spirit of enterprise. it is similar to our action in hiring veterans. employers have really stepped up in a big way. i'm confident we will see the same thing happen here. >> i wonder why if the
12:21 am
administration feels so strong about this, why did they not do this before? it goes back to the executive order. is this something you pushed for personally? something that would've had a negative impact on the economy a couple of years ago? >> the president has been very, very strong in stating that we have to reward work with a fair wage. he has continued to work with stakeholders across the aisle in an effort to raise the minimum wage. over the course of the last year, that has been unsuccessful to date. i'm confident that the winds are changing in that context. the president thought it was important for the federal government to model behavior. we cannot go out and tell the private sector that they need to raise the minimum wage and we are not practicing what we preach. that is what the executive order
12:22 am
is all about. practicing what we preach and model best practices and demonstrate that you can pay a fair wage and have inefficiently run government and help put money in people's pockets -- and efficiently run government and help put money in people's pockets. >> there has been discussion about the potential of an executive order that would stop contractors from discriminating. if the president were to sign an executive order, could the department implement it? >> the president takes a backseat to no one in equal access regardless of race, gender identity. it is an issue that we continue to work on. >> there has been talk about the
12:23 am
existing order that can be applied to other workers. will the labor department take that step? >> that is under review. i have asked my staff to expedite that so we can bring it to a conclusion at that labor department. i'm hoping it will come to an end as soon as possible. >> in terms of -- the president has been in office for more than five years, why is this coming now? it is now and not in 2009 or 2010. what has changed? >> we were dealing with the great recession. bleeding 800,000 jobs a month. the president was focused on the recovery act and all of the
12:24 am
issues that were involved in trying to stop the bleed and prevent the economy from going into a depression. he succeeded in doing that. there are so many things that jay is more conversant in. the president has taken multitasking to new levels in this administration. it does not reflect a lack of interest in this. it reflects the fact that we were confronting a crisis. as the economy continues to grow and we have seen 47 consecutive months of private sector job growth to the tune of 8.5 million private sector jobs, the time is in the present judgment to work on the minimum wage and put more money in people's pockets and really address this issue of fairness. now is the right time. the president will continue to do his best to ensure not only
12:25 am
the effective implementation of this, but also to ensure passage of a federal minimum wage hike. >> on the hundreds of thousands, how many hundreds of thousands? >> as we develop the regulation, we will have a better sense of that. as soon as we have been better -- have a better sense, we will a you know. >> you are saying contractors will pay more money to their employees, but this won't cost any more money? is that what you're saying? >> federal agencies will be doing this within the existing budget. again, there is a pretty robust body of evidence that demonstrates that when you have a workforce that receives a fair wage, you lower attrition and increase efficiency and you can do more. that is why costco pays a fair
12:26 am
wage and ace hardware store pays above the minimum wage. i think there's a very strong body of evidence that demonstrates that. >> you're saying it will not cost the budgets more? but the contracts themselves cost more? instead of 10 contracts, would it become nine? the contracts could end up costing more. >> we do not know that. we do not know. agencies are operating within the existing budget. businesses will bid on these contracts. frankly, many of them pay the minimum wage or a higher minimum wage. this will not be an increase in cost to them. i think it will be inaccurate to
12:27 am
suggest without further evidence that would happen. remember, we have prevailing wage loss that have been in effect for decades every part employers to pay prevailing wages that are far above minimum wage. nothing contracting dry up or go away. when i was a labor secretary maryland, we sent increase in the number of contractors. when you promote efficiency like we are doing here, good things happen. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on c-span, a senate judiciary committee hearing on nsa surveillance programs. the senate rules committee holds a hearing on improving elections. later, a discussion about u.s. counterintelligence. websiteew c-span.org
12:28 am
gives you access to an incredible library of political events. find c-span's daily coverage of official washington or access more than 200,000 hours of archived c-span video. everything c-span has covered since 1987. our video is all searchable and viewable on your desktop computer, tablet or smartphone. just look for the prominent search bar at the top of each page. the new c-span.org makes it easy to watch what is happening today in washington and find people and events from the past 25 years. it is the most comprehensive video library in politics. >> the presidential privacy and civil liberties oversight word issued a report saying the nsa's bulk collection of phone records
12:29 am
may be constitutional but is not authorized by current law. the board members who wrote the report testified before the senate judiciary committee along with two members who refused to sign on to the majority's findings. the committee is considering changes to federal surveillance programs after details about the more -- them were leaked by edward snowden. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> we'll begin this hearing of the senate judiciary committee on the report of the privacy and civil liberties oversight
12:30 am
board on reforms to section 215 elephone records program and the foreign intelligence surveillance act. appreciate you being here today, all five members of the board are here and most important, your extraordinarily impressive report, which is all the more so because of the less than ideal conditions which you did it with very few staff and high time pressure. i am struck by the thoughtful analysis, which is exceptional, exceptional in its quality but also exceptional in the fact this issue has received so little thoughtful analysis over the time this surveillance and intelligence gathering program has proceeded and, of course, for years the program has been hidden from the public and the
12:31 am
legal justification of it was not available to anyone. in fact, the legal justification was not done, and that is more shocking even than the hiding and secrecy involved in the program. since the program was made public, we've seen legal justifications from the executive branch and opinions from the judiciary, but none of the publicly available analysis has addressed all of the crucial questions that you discuss in your report. so i thank you for that contribution, among others. i am absolutely shocked and deeply disturbed that eight years after this metadata program, the bulk collection program was authorized, the courts have still not carefully and thoroughly worked through the issues that surround the program. in our american legal system we
12:32 am
expect there will be such analysis, such legal issues before the executive branch acts and here there currently was none. even the two members of your board, who descended from the legal analysis, acknowledged that the board has raised significant legal issues, which could divide reasonable people, reasonable lawyers. the american people essentially deserve better, and that's one of the reasons that we're here today. they deserve better than to have the executive branch engaging in conduct that even its defenders say might be illegal. the second major achievement of this report is that it sheds light on the history of the metadata hony program. we learned from your report that the judge asked the phone records on potentially every american without so much of
12:33 am
writing a written opinion, which is incredible. absolutely shocking. in 2006, judge howard issued an extensive order allowing the government to collect phone records of law-abiding americans with no known connection to any crime. telephone records on every american who were not even suspected of committing any crime, and he chose not even to provide a sentence explaining his legal reasoning. that's all the more disturbing when you consider the legal context. in 2006, the attorney general was required by law to pass along to congress any major ruling, any major ruling from the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, only when they wrote an opinion. so when judge howard decided he wasn't going to write an opinion, this prevented
12:34 am
congress from learning the legal basis for a massive change in the government's claim to surveillance authority important and in fact essential component. there may be some americans who agree that the fisa courts should have an adversaryial process, but they would allow it only if the fisa court judge sked for it. and yet it seemed that the court who signed off on the bulk data program didn't think that the issue warranted an opinion. so i'm not blaming judge howard for that omission. judges really aren't expected to decide what's important. in fact, often can't do so without a lawyer raising an issue and highlighting it and arguing it and saying it's crucial.
12:35 am
l the more reason that the sdversarial process needs to have a constitutional opinion and the legal basis for this order was only not conveyed but the lack of an opinion prevented congress from learning about it. there are also reasons in your report to question the effectiveness of the bulk metadata program, and in fact we've learned more recently that perhaps only 30% actually of the phone calls were actually -- were collected. only a proportion of the supposedly comprehensive collection of phone calls was actually absorbed or collected by the government, which undercuts and contradicts representations made to the courts in justification of the program itself. representations made by the
12:36 am
president. are undercut by that potential fact. so it appears that the effectiveness of the program may be in question, also, which is an issue raised in your report and again highly significant. these kinds of issues deserve o be aired and analyzed more effectively and comprehensively than they have been, and one of the reasons we are having this hearing is to give you an opportunity to continue your conversation with the american public about these critical issues. i want to, again, thank you, not only on my behalf, but also for chairman leahy, who has provided a written statement. i'm not going to read it, but if there's no objection i'll ask that it be made part of this record, and now turn to the ranking member, senator grassley. >> i have a statement i'm going to read. before do i that i want to say
12:37 am
i have the same concerns that senator blumenthal just expressed, but also want to make it very clear that -- and if i didn't have those same concerns i wouldn't be upholding my oath to the constitution and the fourth amendment but also i think i would take into consideration a balance between our number one responsibility, the federal government, which is national security, and the requirements of our civil liberties. first of all, thank you for joining us and thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing, and i welcome the board members that are with us. the entire board. it's good that the committee has held many hearings on these surveillance authorities. the committee will undoubtedly hold more. the most important responsibility of the federal government is to protect national security while at the same time preserving our civil liberties. the n.s.a. continues to be of great concern to my constituents in iowa and
12:38 am
obviously across the country. over the last few months i've grown more concerned about why the department of justice hasn't prosecuted any of the few n.s.a. employees who willfully abuse their surveillance authority. which do have examples of where it's been abused and refer to the justice department. i haven't had an answer yet. did i write a letter to the attorney general about this back in october. still, no response. few weeks ago at a hearing i pressed the attorney general for an answer. he didn't have one. he committed to get me a response, but i'm still waiting. it's good that these abuses have occurred only on a few occasions but the american people need to know if the department has taken these referrals seriously. a month ago the president finally weighed in on these important surveillance reform matters. it was past time for our
12:39 am
commander in chief to become engaged on this issue. after all, surveillance authorities are critical to our national security. some of the reforms in his speech concern me, like the idea that we would recognize privacy rights of potential foreign terrorists. i don't quite understand that. on the other hand, other reforms the president announced seem very promising. for example, to the extent it doesn't compromise national security, increased transparency can help to restore the public's confidence in our intelligence community. indeed, not long after his speech, the administration announced new rules that will permit companies to be far more transparent with their customers about fisa court orders and directives. the president also announced reforms to the government's handling and the use of telephone metadata that it collects under 215. the government is now required to obtain a separate court
12:40 am
order every time it seeks to assess or research metadata except in emergency situations. this is a significant additional safeguard against potential abuses of metadata. additionally, the president changed to the program that the metadata be held by the telephone companies. he apparently believes this can be done without compromising the program's operational value. there are many questions about whether such an arrangement is desirable or even possible, but the administration is currently exploring options implementing this change, and it's my understanding they're supposed to have a report ready by march 28. it was against this landscape that this board before us issued its report a few weeks ago. the report contains a number of recommendations that i'm interested in hearing more about. for example, many of the recommendations in the report concerns increased
12:41 am
transparency. a very worthy goal. all but one was adopted unanimously by the board reporting today to us. over -- moreover, they are similar to the reforms that the president proposed. additionally, the report recommends that the fisa court be able to call upon a pool of advocates from outside the government. these advocates would provide an independent perspective but only in cases that the judge decides presents novel or significant issues. this recommendation was also adopted unanimously. it's also similar to the president's proposal as well as the approach in the committee that passed out of our senate intelligence committee. the board's remaining conclusions, however, was that section 215 metadata program is illegal and should be terminated. of course, this recommendation received the most media attention. it was adopted only by a bear majority of the board before us on a 3-2 party line vote. the board's conclusions on this
12:42 am
point is striking, given that it is inconsistent with the opinions of so many other authorities that have evaluated the lawfully of section 215 program. for instance, the board's conclusion is contrary to the opinion of the president of the united states who, as you know, proudly says and legitimately so that he's a formal constitutional law professor as well as even the department of justice taking that same position. it's contrary to the position of prior administrations that initiated the program. it's contrary to the administration of -- position of 15 fisa court judges. it's contrary to the opinion of two of three district court judges who do not serve on the fisa court but have nonetheless considered the issue. and of course, it is contrary to the opinion of two of the board's plebs. nevertheless, as we -- members. nevertheless, as we consider these reforms, i welcome of
12:43 am
hearing a wide range of views, and i thank the board for tony blair contribution to public service on this very -- board for their contribution to public service on this very important issue. >> don't know if senator franken would like to say any remarks. >> i'll wait until the questioning. >> very good. thanks. i'd like to ask the panel to please rise and be sworn as is the custom of our committee. do you affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. i understand you have a brief opening statement but before you do, let me introduce the panel, if i may. david medine, chairman of the pclb, has been the board's chairman since may of 2013. before becoming the chair, he worked as an attorney fellow at the securities and exchange
12:44 am
commission and special counsel at the consumer financial protection bureau. he was previously a partner focusing on privacy and data security at wilmer hale, senior advisor to the white house economic council and associate director for financial practices, focusing on privacy issues at the federal trade commission. and also was professor at indiana university and george washington university law school. he has a b.a. from hampshire college and j.a. from the university of chicago. rachel brand is chief counsel for regulatory litigation for the united states chamber of commerce. ms. brand has held a number of positions at the department of justice during the president george w. bush administration, including assistant attorney general and principal assistant deputy attorney general for regulatory policy officer. she worked in the white house counsel's office and clerk for
12:45 am
justice anthony kennedy and justice charles freese of the supreme court. supreme judicial court of massachusetts. she's also practiced law at wilmer hale. she has a b.a. from the university of minnesota and a j.d. from the harvard law school. elisabeth collins cook is counsel in the regulatory controversy and regulatory and government affairs department in the washington, d.c., office of wilmer hale. ms. cook previously served as the republican chief counsel on the supreme court, nominations for the senate judiciary committee and assistant attorney general for legal policy at the department of justice at the end of the bush administration. she served as a number of the board of governance at the terrorism screening center and law clerk to justice laurence silverman of the united states
12:46 am
court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and judge lee rosenthal for the southern district of texas. she holds a b.a. from the university of chicago and a j.d. from harvard law school. james dempsey is vice president of public policy at the center for democracy and technology, a nonprofit focused on privacy, surveillance and other internet issues. mr. dempsey previously served as deputy director of the nonprofit center for national security studies and special counsel to the national security archive. prior to that, he was assistant counsel to the house judiciary committee subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights and an associate at arnold and porter. he, too, was a law clerk. in his instance for judge robert broucher of the massachusetts supreme judicial court.
12:47 am
he served on -- as a member of several bodies addressing these issues, including the industry advisory board for the national counterterrorism center and the transportation, security administration scurep flight working group, among others. he has a b.a. from yale university and a j.d. from harvard law school. and finally but certainly not least, i'm particularly proud and pleased to welcome a native of connecticut, judge wald, who has served with extraordinary distinction for 20 years on the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia, including five years as chief judge. she has also continued her public service as a judge on the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia and a member of the president's commission on intelligence capabilities of the united states regarding weapons of mass destruction. she served in president carter's administration as the
12:48 am
assistant attorney general for legislative affairs in the department of justice. she also previously worked as an attorney at the mental health law project, the center for law and social policy, the neighborhood legal services program, the office of criminal justice at the department of justice and co-director of the ford foundation, drug abuse research project. judge wald clerked for judge jerome frank of the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. she received her b.a. from connecticut college for women and her j.d. from yale law school. i might just say she's been inducted in the connecticut women's hall of fame. we welcome all of you. we thank you for being here. i understand you have a brief introductory statement that will be submitted by the chairman and please proceed. thank you. >> on behalf of my fellow privacy and civil liberties oversight committee, thank you,
12:49 am
grassley. n, senator this is an independent executive branch agency tasked with ensuring that our nation's counterterrorism efforts are balanced with the need to protect the privacy and civil liberties. before beginning my testimony, i want to state our respect and admiration for the men and women in the intelligence community who work tirelessly to protect this country while maintaining our values. we have the highest regard for them. last june at the request of members of congress and the president, our board initiated a study of the bulk telephone records program conducted by the national security agency under section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act. the study included classified briefings with officials from the n.s.a., the department of justice, the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. board members also met with white house staff, former presiding judge for the fisa court, academics, private and civil liberties advocates,
12:50 am
technology and communications companies and trade associations. in addition, we received a demonstration of the operation and capabilities at the n.s.a. the board has been provided access to classified opinions by the fisa court and classified documents relating to the operation and effectiveness of the program. at every step of the way, the board has received the full cooperation of the intelligence agencies. consistent with our statutory mandate to operate publicly, were possible, the board held two public forums and solicited public comments. in our january 23 report, the board concluded that the section 215 bulk telephone program lacked viable need, implicates constitutional concerns under the first and fourth amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter and is shown limited value. as a result, the board recommends that the government end the program. the majority concluded that particular live telephone record searches can be used with existing authority.
12:51 am
two took that it's a reasonable reading, made in good faith by numerous officials in two administrations of different parties and constitutes a good faith effort to subject a potentially controversial program to both judicial and legislative oversight. the board unanimously recommends that the government immediately implement several additional privacy safeguards to mitigate the privacy impact of the present section 215 program. specifically, the government should reduce the retention period for the bulk program from five years to three years, reduce the number of hops used in contact change from three to two, submit the n.s.a.'s reasonable sprigs determinations to the fisa court for review after they've been approved by the n.s.a. and use to query the database and have a r.a.z. determination to otherwise analyze the corporate -- e which results querys queries. the fisa court modified its
12:52 am
primary order to require primary judicial approval before the database is queried. and consistent with the board's recommendations, the court reduced the permissible queries from three to two hops. the board's report also addressed the operation of the fisa court. the court's procedures have raised concerns it does not take adequate account of positions other than those of the government. the board believes that some reforms are appropriate that would help bolster public confidence and the operation of the court, including creation of a panel of private attorneys or special advocates who can be brought into cases involving novel and significant issues by fisa court judges. development of a process facilitating aplate review of fisa court decisions and increased technical assistance and legal input from outside parties. we believe that our proposal successfully ensures the ability of the court to hear opposing views while not disrupting the court's operations or about the role of advocate. the board believes to the
12:53 am
maximum extent possible consistent with national security, declassification of the fisa court with minimal reductions should be made publicly available. finally, the board believes that the scope of surveillance authorities affecting americans should be public while sensitive operational details regarding the conduct of government surveillance programs remain classified. two board members declined to join this recommendation. all of the board's recommendations regarding the operations of fisa court and six of the seven regarding transparency are unanimous. the board thanks you for the opportunity to testify before the senate judiciary committee today regarding our report. we'd be happy to answer any questions any committee members may have. >> thank you. i'm happy to give other members of the panel an opportunity to speak separately by way of introduction, but if not, why don't i just begin with some questions. let me ask you as the chairman, . medine, would the apparent
12:54 am
revelation that perhaps only a proportion of this telephone data was aptly collected, changed for your report? >> i don't think we can address in public session the pros and cons of that session but would be happy to meet in private session. even if the reports were true, it still means that hundreds of millions of telephone records are being collected, and so at least it's my view it would not change the recommendations of the board. >> would it undercut the accuracy of representations made by the united states government to the courts to justify this program? >> again, i don't want to comment on that. some of these matters remain classified. i think there's more to be said on that. i don't think it can be said in public session. >> let me put it different. wouldn't you agree with me that the united states government has misled the courts, whether purposely or inadvertently in justifying this program on the basis that all telephone records are collected?
12:55 am
>> again, i'm not prepared to confirm any of the reports that have been made. so i don't want to draw any conclusions about representations that were made in any court proceedings. >> let me then just move on to a separate line of questioning. is it fair to say from your report that the present bulk metadata collection program is unjustifiable under existing law? >> that's the conclusion of the majority of the board, yes. >> it is illegal? >> yes. it's not consistent with section 215 authority. >> so in order to continue it, if the congress chooses to do so, we would have to change the statute? >> that's the majority's view. although, again, the majority would also counsel that even if you change the statute and resolve the statutory issues, we still believe there are serious constitutional issues and very serious policy issues relating balancing national security with privacy and civil liberties. given there are alternative
12:56 am
legal authorities to be used, the majority' view is to abandon 215 and use legal authorities. >> so in addition scrap 215 and rely on alternative authority? >> exactly, yes. >> has the panel reached any conclusion in terms of timing as to whether our consideration and perhaps revision of 215 or other authorities should await resolution by the united states supreme court of some of these issues that may come before it in cases that are now in the lower courts? >> the panel hasn't addressed that question specifically. given both the legal and policy concerns, i think the interest would be to move forward and try to resolve those issues sooner rather than later. >> because we have no assurance knowing the united states supreme court, whether it will in fact address those issues considered relevant for the congress to act, that's up to the court to do? >> yes. we only have the district court
12:57 am
decisions now and have to work its way through the system. at least the majority believe that action should be taken on the program sooner rather than later. >> there's no telling whether or not the united states supreme court will resolve those critical issues and when it will do so? >> or how it will do so as well in terms of providing guidance. >> let me ask you and judge wald. n the issue of the adversarial process, i understand that the conclusion of the panel was advocate -- i've called it a constitutional advocate -- should be enlisted only when the court thought there was a novel or important issue. my view is that the constitutional advocate should make that decision and be involved whenever she thought an important novel or issue was
12:58 am
raised by a warrant. not necessarily or usually before the warrant was issued so as to not delay the process ut at least afterwards and now it gets to what happens in the ordinary criminal process where there is the opportunity to challenge the legality of a search or surveillance after the fact and the evidence can be excluded. isn't it often the case, let me ask you, judge wald, that judge sees important or novel issues without counsel saying in effect this issue is critical, it's decisive, it's unresolved by other courts or resolved badly, don't judges benefit by hearing that argument to be made by counsel? >> yes, senator, they certainly
12:59 am
do. because i was forewarned that this might be a question, i did a very brief look at some of my own experience 20 years on the d.c. circuit, and i looked at only one year's opinions which i was involved in. there were 33 opinions. particularly in the 1980's, and seven times out of the 33 opinions which i wrote that year, and i was only one of 10 judges. i don't know what the record would be of the other nine judges, but seven of those were sent back to the district court because the district court had not discussed what we considered to be an important legal matter. and i would say that that number might even be low because, as you well know,
1:00 am
there is a doctrine in the regular courts that if you didn't raise it down below you can't raise it on appeal. so the questions involved tended to be ones that were of jurisdictional basis. but, yes, it was not totally infrequent occasion. also pointing out the obvious thing that all of our cases did have counsel on both sides, and even with that kind of protection, i would say especially in the technological -- technologically regulatory complex cases which had a lot of different issues involving technology, i don't want to take up the committee's time, but i just couldn't help copying one sentence from one of these monstrous e.p.a. cases in which the court of appeals said this is the first
125 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News ArchiveUploaded by TV Archive on