internet. we will get an update on allegations of the cia searching senate computers. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ good morning to him everyone on this wednesday. kathleen sebelius will be testifying on the house side. it healthcare.gov enrollment is falling well short of the administration possible. -- the administration's goal. live coverage on c-span three at 10:00 a.m. john kerry will appear before the senate foreign relations agency's on its budget. the testimony follows a house

and senate voted yesterday condemning russia for ukraine intervention and calling for sanctions on russia. live coverage as well on c-span three this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. we begin this morning with the -- senator feinstein accusing the cia of spying on his staff. we want to get your thoughts this morning. send us a tweet, post your comments on facebook and you can also e-mail us. ay is on our news desk this morning. to help us better understand the story. let's begin with what happened here. guest: we are still trying to

parse out very much of what appears to be a he said she said. it has to do with reports that the senate intelligence committee work for -- worked on for years, costing $40 million reviewing 6.2 million pages of top-secret cia reports. under the bush administration, the cia's interrogation and detention program. a program that involved the use of techniques like waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists in an overseas prison run by the cia. the cia required the senate committee staff to use a secret electronic reading room somewhere in northern virginia. in which to review all these documents. they review these documents on

computers and a network that was provided to them by the cia. according to senator feinstein, under the agreement that said that there is a segregated part of this computer system that was to be accessed only by the senate committee staff and cia i.t. personnel, but that any personnel to cia obtain information that and get involved in any way on the drive was tomputer be cleared by the senate staff first. there was twohat occasions in 2010 when the senate staff was going through this massive dump of documents that were provided to them by the cia and some documents,

suddenlyof pages, were unavailable to the staff and removed by the cia from these computers without the permission of the senate staff. this is according to senator feinstein. the cia at first misled the senate staff about what happened to these documents, including telling them that they had been withdrawn at the orders of the white house, which denied it had ever done so. -- senatehe cia committee staff finds in their , copies of summaries that were part of what was known as the panetta review. it was an internal review by a

team of cia analysts of the documents that were being given to the senate staff. apparently, in the summaries, they were personal notes of these analysts about the contents of the documents they were reviewing. in these personal notes, according to senator feinstein and other members of the committee, these analysts were essentially concurring with what eventually were the key findings of the report that the senate committee produced. produce veryues little intelligence that was useful at all in tracking down al qaeda. the cia then misled both the bush administration and congress about the efficacy of these methods.

the staff have these documents as early as 2010. we fast-forward to late last where, according to a letter that was obtained that was written by the cia director to senator feinstein, she informed the cia and send a a copy ofking for this panetta review document. said theser documents were not supposed be accessible by those staff. he went to see her about the fact that the staff apparently had these documents and is close to her that the cia had in fact what was supposed to be

this restricted, segregated computer network that was supposed to be accessible only by this staff. we found out that the staff, because of concerns that the cia in the past had in fact destroyed evidence connected to the interrogation program, the staff decided to print out these documents that the cia said they should never have had. and took them up to their secure spaces up on capitol hill. was actuallying raging behind the scenes in terms of a power struggle between the senate committee and the cia over the senate committee's oversight role and powers. we published the findings last week. host: why is this just coming to

light now? there has been lots of back-and-forth behind the scenes here it nobody has disclosed to reporters or the public. found out about it. the new york times found out about it last week as well. i can only say that there was obviously an effort on the part of both parties to try to keep this under tabs. , according to this director tothe , whenr feinstein, the cia confronted by the committee staff with these accusations that their computers had been spied on, referred their accusations to the cia i.t. office who then conducted an investigation and

to thecriminal referral justice department. it was a request to the justice department for a criminal investigation. by what isllowed known as a crime report that was sent to the justice department by the cia general counsel's office in connection with the removal of alleged unauthorized top-secret documents -- the alleged removal of unauthorized top-secret documents. that was referred to the justice wepartment and reported that there is now an fbi investigation. it is a really messy situation. battle thatgoing has been going on for as long as

we have had the political system abilityhad -- over the of congress to exercise its constitutional oversight powers on the executive branch. in this case, on an intelligence agency whose business is done in the dark. therefore comment seems both , it seems both sides -- you have senator feinstein coming response --icly in this stunning speech on the senate floor in which he said the cia may not have only undermined the constitution but broken the law. host: i want to show our viewers of what she had to sand the floor. she came to the floor and spoke for 40 minutes. go to our website if you missed the speech. we have the whole speech on our website.

you can watch the whole thing in its entirety. we want our viewers to weigh in on this. we will get to your phone calls and your comments here. but first, a little bit of the intelligence chairman speech on the senate floor yesterday. the legal and constitutional implications of the cia's actions. based on what director brennan ave informed us, i have gr concerns that the search may have violated the separation of powers principle in the united states constitution, including the speech and debate clause. it may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective

congressional oversight of intelligence activity or any other government function. i have asked for an apology and a recognition that this cia search of computers used by its sversight committee wa inappropriate. i have received neither. besides the constitutional applications, the cia search may also have violated the fourth amendment, the computer fraud and abuse act, as well as the 33, which order 123 prohibits the cia from conducting domestic searches or surveillance. days after the meeting with director brendan him of cia inspector general learned of the cia search and began an into the cia's activities. i have been informed that mr. buckley has referred the matter

to the department of justice. host: the senate intelligence the cia upaccusing several different possible violations. what about executive privilege ? guest: that is one of the things at the center of this debate. there are a bunch of documents -- i don't believe they are the documents that are the ones she's talking about in terms of the panetta review -- but a separate set of documents that the cia had originally given access to her staff and then drew and claimed these documents were covered by executive privilege. been able toave

determine, there has been no official claim of executive privilege at the white house over these particular documents. that is an issue that is separate from the issue of the panetta review documents. host: here is a couple of tweets from viewers. kept the secrets until they came to light and cia isnounce them." "the not allowed to spy domestically, so i am concerned." let's go to john in pennsylvania. independent caller. nutshell,is, in a feinstein was complicit in covering up the whole torture business and the reports on torture. and then obamaem is complicit in this, too. feinstein was just trying to protect the cia, which has

become the praetorian guard of the united states. a tweak here from if you were saying that and now this first phone call. anst: there has never been official airing of this sad chapter in american history. and lloydcia interrogation methods that many employed- interrogation methods that many experts have decried as torture. the bush administration and the cia denied that these were torture him insisting these methods were legal and they had passed legal muster with the justice department's office of legal counsel. there is a question about whether or not all of the methods that the cia used where with the office

of legal counsel. it has emerged that there were methods that the cia used before having its program reviewed by the justice department. we know that at least, from the beginning of the program in 2001 until it was stopped in 2006, the number of lawmakers that were read into this program was extremely limited. just the chairman and vice chairman of the two intelligence committees who were absolutely restricted from being able to disclose anything about this because it was so classified and so secret. the former chairman of the senate intelligence committee has railed publicly about the

restrictions that he was subject sayn terms of being able to anything about what they were being told and briefed by the cia on this program. feinstein did in fact move forward with an investigation, albeit not until 2009 when she managed to get the votes to authorize this investigation. it is a sweeping investigation -- ands four years covers four years worth of documents. it has not been released since it was approved in 2012 by the committee. it has been the subject of an ongoing battle. it is part of this whole battle over the cia's response to this program.

we have known that the cia has said that they agree with some parts of this report and disagrees with others. that is where the importance of the so-called another review coming. other lawmakers, the notes by the analysts who reviewed the same documents that the committee staff reviewed it agreed and concurred with the findings of the committee staff. that appears to be the reason why the staff decided it was theseant enough to print documents out and take them back up to their secret space because the ciay said was that in its official response to this report was actually misleading .he committee internally, some of its analysts agreed with what the committee had written. host: after yesterday's speech

on the senate floor by senator feinstein, the chairman of the judiciary committee who has been in the senate for four years, he said he never heard a speech like that. sayingu have this tweet i'm "very disturbing information from senator feinstein about cia searching intel committee computers. this is a serious breach." why is the chairwoman asking for just an apology? the justice department is very much involved in this. i don't think she wants to go beyond that given the fact that there appears to be at least one afghan investigation -- at least fbi investigation.gatio

that is the explanation. host: here is ron on twitter. bill and st. louis missouri. democratic caller. when did the cia go from intelligence gathering to a drug pushing, money laundering, assassination, kidnapping people ? ,s far as diane feinstein goes welcome to police state america. to thehat does this do cia's relationship with the american people? this is a key moment in that, there is been that, for

the last year or so, this ofmoil over the revelations edward snowden of the fact that the national security agency has been running these bulk collection programs on american communications data. there has been that outcry going have this,t. now you where you have a very senior member of the u.s. senate accusing another key intelligence agency of essentially spying on congress. have these two episodes coming together and reinforcing this idea that the government is big brother. the cia did get involved in

activities that were requested and authorized by its political masters in the former bush administration. yes, those activities that include the so-called renditions of the kidnapping of suspected terrorists in europe where they were taken to secret sites or .iven to allied governments we know of a case where a terrorist suspect was rendered libya.government of some of these people who were rendered were in fact not terrorists. they were mistreated and were kidnapped and taken to secret sites. a gentleman was kidnapped from a macedonia and held at the cia's behest and then flown to a

secret prison in afghanistan, where he was allegedly tortured. when it was realized he was the wrong guy, he was put on a secret flight and dumped in the albanian countryside. this is a chapter in the history of the u.s. intelligence community that has not been fully aired, that we still don't know many facets about. years, thehese exercise did in fact and oversight function that had tried to exercise earlier and put together this report. a report that is a 6300 page report with thousands of footnotes. because of what's going on and because of this fight that has

now broken out into the open, there's a question has to how man much of that report the public will see. there's a 300 page executive summary that chairman feinstein has said that she wants to try to get declassified. that work has not been done. she claims the cia has dragged its feet on doing a classification review. that theirector denied agency had received a copy of this report for declassification. senator feinstein is going to be asking -- one of the members of has written to the president of the united states saying he ought to take away from the cia the task of declassification review.

host: from what john brennan had to say that she did address this issue yesterday in washington. concerned about how feinstein is more upset about cia spying on her then nsa spying on all americans. for joe in georgia. democratic caller. caller: a quick question. would you rather jumped from the world trade the center or get water boarded? it would be interesting to see how senator feinstein and her husband could close post offices for personal gain. you're talking about old history. host: what was your original had a caller: if einstein choice, whether to jump off the top floor of the trade tower or

, which wouldrded you rather do? host: this is a necessary evil, if you will. the united states had to do it in order to find out the information that they were seeking after the september 11 terrorist attacks. guest: according to lawmakers who have read the investigation, even though it has not been made public, they have gone public about the major conclusion. the major conclusion being that the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods did not produce valuable intelligence. letterve there was a that was written by senator tonstein and senator mccain the makers of the film zero dark 30 complaining about the fact

that the film left the impression that the use of these harsh methods led to the pinpoint theto hideout in pakistan of osama bin in may of 2011. they say that no such information was gained through the use of these methods and that it was in fact gained through the use of traditional interrogation methods. there is also a great concern -- this is a concern that is expressed on the part of very senior military officers -- using these methods like waterboarding and methods that are considered torture -- the united states has declared waterboarding a method that can be used.

the risk that these methods will be used on american soldiers were captured by the enemy. host: here is john in north carolina on twitter. "the founders are spinning. liberals want to see personal freedom to the government." mike in washington. independent caller. caller: good morning. i'm an iraq vet. my life got changed completely after 9/11 when i saw what happened in new york. me so much that i enlisted in the army at the age of 32. my time in iraq affected me. i still have to deal with things today, but that's another story. my point is, i don't have a problem with the nsa, the cia or any other organization that

wants to collect data and information about the enemy. if people don't have anything to hide, they should not worry. i'm not an advocate of waterboarding, but i am an advocate of information. we are in a different world now. that is just the way it is. -- the peoplee that clamor about all this information and all this noise would be the same people that would be complaining when we get attacked again. trust me, we will get attacked again. i don't want us to, but the people over there that one instead and what the people in israel dead, they are not going to stop. host: we will leave it there. we want to show our viewers the cia's response from john brennan. he was asked about this yesterday in washington. >> first of all, we are not in reportssupporting this

progression release. we want this behind us. we know that the committee has invested a lot of time and money and effort into this report. we have engaged with them extensively over the last year. we have had officers sit down with them and go over the report and find out what we believe are factual errors. we are not trying to prevent this release. as far as the allegations of the cia hacking into senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. we wouldn't do that. that is just beyond the scope of reason. >> she says there are potentially illegal breaches by the cia. >> appropriate authorities right now, inside the cia and outside, officers andt cia staff members. determine them to

whether or not there was any violation of law or principle. ciaferred the matter to the inspector general to make sure that he was able to look honestly and objectively at this. a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous spying will be proved wrong. what what do you make of he is saying there? his response to senator feinstein, who has been a long time advocate of what the cia does and she comes to the floor and makes this 40 minute speech and he response that way. guest: you raise a good point. since the eruption of the whole controversy over nsa data-gathering, senator feinstein has been received toely as being a defender

the health of what the nsa was doing. here she comes to the floor and the loads on the cia -- and unloads on the cia. i was at that speech. interesting -- the words he used. the cia has not -- did not hack into the senate committee's staff computers. hacking means and the legal briefs. ,n terms of what i've been told the cia was required -- this is what i'm told is their view -- they were required to maintain audit logs on all classified systems. this is a routine logging of the

use of the computer. doingas what they were with the senate committee's staff computers. it is not a real-time monitoring. they record all of this use of the computers and it's put somewhere in a database. what they did was go back and three years of audit logs to determine that the senate committee staff had obtained this so-called panetta review. that whole issue appears to hinge on the question of whether -- on the agreement that senator feinstein said the committee had with the cia. -- that caa technicians only the cia technicians would have access to the computers. was to have any

access at all to the computer's the committeey staff without the staff's permission. that seems to be the not of this dispute -- the nut of this dispute. this matter should be looked at an independent midi. the high and doors come when democrats met for their weekly , feinstein received eight standing ovation from her colleagues. this quote from senator richard understand, ae to i don't believe anything that goes on in the intelligence committee should be discussed publicly." john in louisiana. republican caller.

it's interesting, the selective indignation by the media over constitutional issues. there was another three letter irs that was the targeting certain that political enemies from the perspective of the administration. we have had coverups and misdirection and hiding things ever since this administration came to power. aboutwas the indignation where that in mission was cap? information was kept? now it's a big deal because senator feinstein has become indignant about it. the silence is deafening when it goes back. even earlier, going around

congress with the dream act. it's rampant. we have the news getting on the bandwagon. . sit here and watch this see kind of interesting to the selective indignation. host: great point. sherry in massachusetts. go ahead. for taking myyou call and thank you for giving americans information we need. after benghazi and the irs, when will somebody in washington stand up for america and stand up for its citizens and grow a backbone and start proceeding to deal with these things? host: florida. democratic caller. caller: i have a different

perspective on this, going back to the beginning of 9/11. senator feinstein has been getting her feet about more information. i opposed the iraq war strongly. i sign the letter with 600 to georgea protest bush. i'm sure my call is being tapped. forget, bush had the fbi sitting in on college campuses disguised as students, sitting in on iraq war protests. , goet back to the torture out and rent a documentary called "standard operating procedure." it shows how a general took torture techniques to the grave to be used by the cia. investigateeneral

the jail and was demonized because he found out that 99% of the detainees were there for minor infractions like breaking curfew and yet, they were being tortured. host: we will move onto eric in california. independent caller. i wanted to say couple of things. carolinaet in north talking about more attacks -- come on. look at new york and chicago. why are we over there fighting a war across the seas when we have a war going on in our own country right here? landy, can you believe someone like that who doesn't

really know what he's talking about? host: why do you say that? caller: i have been watching the episode all day so far. from the beginning. i was watching him stutter and i could tell he was reading a teleprompter. he's trying to report on a story like this. guest: i have been doing this beat for a long time. almost 20 years. difficultbly the most beat in washington because it involves having to report on highly classified matters and having to persuade people to talk about highly classified matters in violation of the law. the fact is, because -- if you listen to the passion and indignation and anger of your

thatrs, it's quite clear the episode that we are talking about in american history has yet to be fully aired to the american people. the things that were done in the name of the american people and in the name of securing this nation have not been fully aired. , the reactions that we are getting from across the dictate thatctrum there needs to be an airing of all of this episode, going back to 2001, following the attacks of 9/11 and exactly how intelligence was twisted and cherry picked to justify the invasion of iraq.

and the use of these interrogation techniques, what kind of intelligence was gained, whether it was valuable or not, what exactly was used in terms of these techniques -- there were techniques that were used on detainees that were not cleared with the legal authorities and the justice department before they were first used. there is a whole host of questions that remain unanswered. the senate committee report attempts to do that. there have been other comprehensive reports by other committees of the senate. i'm thinking in terms of the senate armed services committee. doing investigation into the cherry picking and the

exaggerating intelligence -- of intelligence. we have seen this coming out in drips. back in the 1970's, there was a committee of congress that was convened after it emerged that there was a whole series of domestic spying scandals involving the cia and other u.s. intelligence agencies. there have been people who have been saying that there is a need committee torch m do a comprehensive look and betweenf what happened 2001 and when this program was shut down. and then what happened after that in terms of the lack of efforts to air and get a public accounting of what happened.

one of your previous callers referred to the fact that president obama said we need to move on and we can go back and look at the past. looking at the past is an essential ingredient in getting history right and addressing the kinds of misgivings and anger we have heard from callers across the political spectrum. perhaps that is what is needed. taking ourll keep viewers questions and comments about this. you will stay with us this morning on our news desk set. i want to give you some other news this morning as well. i'll follow-up on yesterday's special election in florida. tampa bay times front-page story. 48%. jolly wins with on tuesday -- he

will serve the term left vacant i his former boss. -- by his former boss. he takes district 13. the daily news, gop wins as first test for obama care. a committee of people looking at this special election in the district 13 of florida. obama care for heading into the 2014 elections. the frontther news, page of the detroit free press. the feds want answers on the recall of the gm vehicles. the justice department ramps up the pressure over deadly defects that up and reported in the papers recently. healthcare.gov, here is

the wall street journal this morning. their headline, "it remains short of targets. enrollment is still well short of the administration's goal. are just thecans patient continued to disappoint." front-page of the new york times this morning. the story about president obama's latest executive action. "president obama on thursday orll direct the labe department to require overtime pay for 7 million additional fast food workers come computer technicians and others who many businesses currently classify as professional employees to avoid paying them overtime. he will ease executive authority to change the nation's overtime rule, which will likely be n is a challenge to ."publicans in congress

papers thise morning. also, this from the wall street journal. our president obama's approval rating hits a new low. broad dissatisfaction with washington. let's go back to our phone lines. travis -- betty in albuquerque, new mexico. democratic caller. dianne feinstein talk for 40 minutes coming accusing the cia of spying on a computer network set up for the senate staffers to investigate what happened during the bush administration -- those interrogation techniques that the bush administration used. caller: all i have to say is, what a wicked west we leave.

i think mr. landy for his work. ank mr. landy for his work. this is needed because this current administration has been unwilling to embark on it. members of the previous administration can't leave this country unless they travel incognito. when donald rumsfeld went to france several years ago to give a speech, he did not make it from the foyer of his hotel because the citizen saw him and shouted out "war criminal." the same with bush. mr. cheney has wanted to deliver speeches to canada. so many thousands of protesters get out to prevent that. he is not able to fulfill his

desires. we need a trial. this administration has not had i embark on it. -- embarked on it. host: did you watch the speech yesterday? caller: i was unable to because i was working. host: if you're interested, go to our website. we have the whole speech on our front page. 40 minutes long. mike ino on to missouri. independent caller. caller: good morning. i appreciate your programming. it's pretty funny that five years ago, if i would have called about intelligence gathering, i would have been called a conspiracy theorist. because of snowden, that helped awaken people. i have been privy in the past to

people that have been in the know on this thing. i wondered if he knows whether the algorithms -- i appreciate the fact that they're doing it for our safety. -- they caneve gather anything. you can be guilty by association. host: what's your question? caller: the algorithm thing. they can gather enough intelligence that you could become in trouble pretty easily if you're just in a room with people that they know are al qaeda involved. host: we will get him to win. guest: your caller may be referring to the nsa's collection of communications

data. insist that they do not use the location data to pinpoint where everybody is. warrant fromave a the secret fisa court. i don't know that they even need a special i'll grow them -- special algorithm to take data that is provided by cell towers that she locates you -- that geolacates you with other people of interest tole the american government. we do know one thing. the government insists that the collection of this data has helped prevent terrorist

attacks. yet, there is very little disclosed about particular attacks it has helped prevent. that is one of the objections that some members of congress have been raising to the bulk collection program. major terrorist a lot that has been ported. plot that has been thwarted. one of the things that i am grateful for is my ability to go on the world wide web to find documents that are out there that may not be front and center in terms of public attention but

do contain a whole bunch of information that is critical to a particular story that i'm working on. that is one thing we have relied on to break the story on the alleged cia monitoring of the senate intelligence committees 's computers. there has been a lot of references to this allegation. in public statements by some members of the senate intelligence committee -- from the bench of the committee hearing room, in things like transcripts of hearings and questions for the records that are given to particular nominees for jobs in the intelligence community. you can find a lot of information and a lot of references to what senator

feinstein went public on yesterday. host: let's go to rick in florida. republican caller. ofler: i agree with a lot other people saying -- there seems to be a pattern with the nsa and the irs and our allies. -- during the election, mitt romney had to spend a lot of his time defending things about his personal life. things that other people should not have known about his taxes and things like that. i doubt anything will come of this. .hey are still blaming bush as long as eric holder is watching obama's back, they will not have much of anything happening. tweet from one

viewer who says the constitution is not alive. the words on the paper never change. as inean the same today 1789. let's go to a democratic caller in washington, d.c. d.c. : i'm calling from i have three quick comments. hindsight is 2020 when it comes to the approval of interrogation techniques. -- we are saying finger-pointing as part of the aftermath. anybody that still has a reasonable expectation of privacy in today's age, they are naïve.n th a little the senate staffers

really believe the cia won't be watching what they're doing echo guest? guest: there was no agreement. normally what happens, when they want to review classified documents, they are brought up to the committee and they have a onh-security reading space capitol hill where it has classified documents. that is usually where they do their work. thehis case, because of massive volume of documents that were involved here, leon panetta said you all can come across the river and we will set up a special facility and we will provide you access to the documents in this facility. it seems that, under the agreement that was reached with

the cia by the senate committee, they were given a segregated server where they were able to keep their own documents and work products. under this agreement, the cia -- only technicians could maintain this system. informre not allowed to other cia officials of what was in the senate committee servers. whether it was the material in the servers -- without the senate committee's approval. of theems to be the nut

matter here. host: a few headlines here. the front page of the wall street journal. e giants takesgages take shape. the firm's shares fell on wall street yesterday. that proposal expected to be unveiled soon. front page of the washington post this morning. the bill was a way to shift the gop. a bipartisan vote moved funds .or the party convention in a rare instance of senate democrats and republicans working together, they shifted fundings to programs focused on

pediatric medical research. a little bit more about this. robert costa reporting about this in the washington post this morning. it says this about the conventions in the newspaper. in howe marks a change presidential campaigns are funded. once the bill is signed, parties will be forced to seek more private donations for their nominating conventions and they will continue to receive federal dollars to pay for security costs with local law enforcement. this money is now going to medical studies for kids. party than for political conventions. one last phone call on this. ralph in north carolina. democratic caller. caller: good morning.

irs and the state department can be investigated, the cia should be investigated also. i believe 100% in what senator feinstein is accusing them. the cia is different from the irs. they were right to investigate political groups. investigate those grooves. cnn did a documentary on dr. martin luther king's assassination. the cia had a hand in it. reorganized.e i believe the majority of the are trying to overthrow this government. host: if you missed senator dianne feinstein's speech, go to find it there. you can also find a response johncia director

brennan. you can get both sides of this and their perspectives as the story continues to unfold. landy, thank you very much for your time. caller guest: my pleasure. host: coming up next, we will talk to democratic representative loretta sanchez, a member of the homeland security and armed services panel. later, rob wittman of virginia, who is also a member of the homeland security panel. homelandk about security challenges right after this break. ♪

>> while this invasion continues we and the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as andl with the soviet union, that is why the united states has enforced stiff economic penalties on the soviet union. i will not issue permits for the to fish in the coastal waters of the united states, cut access to the cultural equipment and products, limited other comments to the soviet union, and i have asked our allies and friends to join with us in restraining their own trade with the soviets and not to replace our own embargoed items. i have notified the olympic committee that with forces invading afghanistan neither the

american people nor i will support sending a team to moscow. [laughter] -- [applause] >> highlights from 35 years available on c-span.org. cable, provided by your provider. c-span, we bring event from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at white house events, and offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch it in hd. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. " continues.journal host: we want to welcome back loretta sanchez, democrat of

california who sits on the homeland security and armed forces panel. we were talking about dianne feinstein in a 40 minute speech saying the cia has snoopingiately been into a network set up for her senate intelligence staffers to investigate the administration -- not the administration, but the bush administration on past .nterrogation techniques guest: let me begin by saying a democratstein is from our state in the california, but she is known as a moderate person. she has probably the highest rating of any politician in california. she is a very measured woman. she does not go out on a limb. she is not a screamer in the room. for her to come forward and say

we have a problem here, it is a pretty brave accusation, one that i know she would not move forward unless she thought she had good information on that. i would just say in the time that i have been here in the congress, this is my 18th year, this is maybe the second time where we have seen digression between the administration and the legislative power. it is something that the congress would take very --iously and in fact seriously if in fact an howement was signed with her committee would be looking at torture by the cia. thatey signed a memorandum said that would be separate and if in fact they had a connection into it, it is a true violation

of the congressional power. when what should be done -- then? -- this personally stems from a lot of other issues for me. looking at how the intelligence community deals with congress or the lack of communication with the congress, i would strip down the cia and intel agencies until i figured out what they were doing and how things are moving forward. in other words, there is a lot of money that gets thrown at intelligence that very little oversight is done on and half of the time we do not know what they are doing. it is really time -- the power of the congress is the purse, the money that we put in, so maybe we have to backtrack the money until we go to skeleton and build it up and see what we need, because this is way over

the top if they in fact did was senator dianne feinstein is suggesting. host: do that at the risk of a potential terrorist attack? guest: their are things you could do -- there is so much money in there that we have no idea what they are spending on. i wish i could say to the american taxpayer that i know the different things that each of our different agencies, and there are over 14 that we do not even know exist, for example. when secretary donald rumsfeld was the secretary of defense, he started his own intel stuff within the department of defense. this has been a massive growth of the intelligence community, and now we find out with the edward snowden leaks and others that there is a lot more going on there than they give us an opportunity to take a look at.

even when we go forward and are asking them to brief us or talk to us, most of the time they ignore, they cloud over, they tell us about this much -- they do not tell us everything they are doing, so it is time to go over intelligence. host: let's talk about that, but first i want to show you carl levin questioning the new nsa on the mike rogers management of data collection. let's look at that. [video clip] agree that the government itself does not need to hold all of the metadata records in order to determine whether terrorist suspects overseas are communicating with persons located in the united states? in other words, is it possible that a third party could be designated to hold the data on a -- on the one hand and have the service providers keep the data on the other hand?

>> i believe with the right construct we could make that work. party could have a third other than service providers or would it be limited to the service providers? >> i think those are options all under consideration, and we could make it work whether a service provider dated or a party-- did it or a third did it, i am confident. loretta sanchez, he says it could work if a third holds onto the data --third party holds onto the data. guest: it depends on who the third party is. i have a problem with a third party holding onto all of the data and e-mails in the systems. first, maybe we need to curtail some of the things we do with

that. to put it in a third party's hands, how secure would that be -- how trustworthy is that third party, what does it look like -- that is all up in the air. i would have a problem with that. host: how comfortable are you that admiral rogers could rein in the nsa? very. quite honestly, not you are looking at someone in the last five or six years in particular, certainly if you look at my voting record, i did not vote for the patriot act, i never voted for fisa, simply because he refused to give us information that would give me the comfort level that they are not spying on everything. in particular, in the last four or five years the pushback has been coming even more and more

from the congress. i think it is very difficult for one person to really rearrange what has to go on. i think the congress has to be intimately involved in instrument -- restructuring what we have going on on the intelligence side. host: more from the papers, but brian from maryland is up first for the congressman. see: good morning. congresswoman, future generations are looking back at this time in history and are asking why congress ignore the expert opinions of 2000 billion experts and the science that proves he planted explosives tower ofown the third building seven on 9/11? what do you say about congress not investigating what happened to a 40-story high-rise? groupbrian is part of a

that does not trust the investigation done into what happened on september 11, 2001. him for asking those questions and making those calls. it is incredibly important for people who do not just take things on face value, who continue to push on many of these issues. i will tell you that from the information i have been able to gather, and i sit on the homeland security committee for the house of representatives, and its inception came after september 11, and one of the first things we did was to take a look at some of the issues from the 9/11 commission, but it is like anything else. you can only draw inference with the information that is available to you. off,me of you is closeted if some of it -- if some of it

is closeted off, if some of it does not have the imprint to bring it forward, it is difficult for a congressperson to get a hold of it. host: on that point, here is a oversight doesch congress have on the administration? can you control the nsa to any degree? guest: you are looking at somebody that has refused to give carte blanche -- i'll give you an example. passssed the patriot will the patriot law a few days after 9/11. everybody's hair was on fire, we had to do something. it is not necessarily the right thing to do. we continue to have that law and then we find out that within the law we gave some ability for intel people to do things, but they have taken it even further, and behind closed doors are

doing even more. now we know that they are. of it always been leery because i could not get them to tell me what they are doing, or conflicting statements -- you are asking different people, trying to connect the job -- connect the dots. in many cases, they refuse to talk to many of us. are wen you are asking doing oversight, we are trying to do oversight. is it overwhelming and do they pushback? yes. how could you be asking questions about things you do ?ot know exist they could tell you we do not do anything like that, and later you find out that they do. we try to do oversight, but people are always so scared about defense, homeland security, intelligence, and it is like "oh, congresswoman, you do not want a terrorist attack

to happen because then it would have been your fault you investigated so deeply into what we really do." well, it is time for the congress to investigate what is going on in that whole arena. host: speaking of the whole arena, in our last hour on "washington journal," we will be talking to steven levy who wrote a cover story for wired" magazine, how the u.s. almost killed the internet, and why it still could. it is a story taken from the perspective of the technology companies and what steven levy calls their year from hell. let's go to robert in baton rouge, louisiana. independent caller. caller: i wanted to ask representative sanchez, is it possible there are rogue elements in the cia or other

agencies that have their own agenda and are not following the directives of the administration? , as you know, any time you are overseeing a group of people -- that is why we pay manager so much money to work well with the set of employees that they have. anytime you have an agency that is very large, a decentralized agency, cia or something like that could be in hundreds of countries in the world, have operatives were people, etc., it is even more difficult to do oversight. woulds the answer that i tell you is i would be surprised if there were not some rogue elements within some of these agencies that are not following directives, or, you know, think something is, you know, more important, or doing things not buy the book. i would say that is more probable than not just given the

size of the organizations and what i have seen as a manager. "the washington times" reports the demand for special operations is up, and if you look at the budget overview, it is up, not down, even despite drawing down from iraq and afghanistan. it talks of significant stress on the force and notes guest: i will say the president submitted a budget where we are going from -- i cannot remember the exact number -- something around 4000 active special forces to almost a tripling, i believe, of the number of special operators that we would have. that manyainly true

of us believe that conventional war as we have seen it in a , we went in iraq there, stabilized, gave it back to the people, and put the army and for 10 years. we really believe that is not the one of the future we are looking at. what we need to do is where we see conflict arising, if we put in the right types of people, we could have conflicts dissipate when it then become a full civil for other situations, so we do believe we need more special forces than not. host: but secret operations and not ones known to the public? guest: i do not think the public -- look, i have gone to many places where i have seen our

special forces -- military etc. -- and it would not be good for our public to know, necessarily, that we are there and what kind of a conflict we are trying to dissipate. so, i do not think that all of that has to be known by the american public, but it should be available and we should understand what is going on as congress people. i represent 800,000 people. ?ho should know about this maybe not being hundred thousand people i represent, but at least the representative. if i take the initiative, asking what is going on, why are we in that country, that should be straightforward. i will tell you that the military is pretty straightforward with us. the intelligence agencies are the ones that obfuscate, who

know, play the game of look over here, do not look over there. that is my experience. host: george in illinois. republican caller. caller: good morning, ladies. host: good morning. caller: and observation first and then a question. it seems like history is repeating itself. during mccarthyism, people were talking to members of both houses. files were kept. this was long before computer technology. now it seems like the information is coming out faster and quicker, and i just wonder if there isn't a way that we could get some type of protocols sanchez is suggesting in which there is a uniform way this is handled, and i'm wondering what her comments would be. guest: thank you again for a

very appropriate question. . would like to see that i certainly have fought for that . i have been one of the members that pushed back and not very well liked by the intelligence community -- not that i do not like the intelligence community. i understand that we need some tothat, but their inability trust congress to work with them shouldre -- who else ensure the civil rights of my 800,000 people that i represent? that is what i sent here to do, keep them safe, no doubt, make sure terrorists are caught, things did not happen like 9/11 -- i get that. i know my constituents, the people that i represent, they want to be able to go on with their lives and not worry about that. i get that, and i want to do that, but at the same time at what cost? who is to decide what cost?

it would be my reflection that the people that are deciding are more in the intelligence community than the congress pushe, and my answer is to back and say it is the congress person's responsibility to make a determination of what is too much and what is not. protocol should be with the congress, at least knowledge is incredibly important. den, markhen you see wi udall, the senators get more members. the house it will watch at they say more. i am happy on the senate side i have colleagues that are pushing back as hard as we have been trying to -- some of us, from the house. timeso have at the same members from the house that want a whitewash or push away the comments that loretta sanchez has because the nsa could do no

wrong and we definitely have proponents of the intelligence community in the congress that think none of us should know. an e-mail from pat -- why does it cost billions of dollars for -- millions of dollars for congress to check on anything. you need to tell us about this and explain why it cost so much. to thet be referring interrogationthat was around $40 million. the senate was on side. i was not privy to how many people they had to hire, the protocols of the information and documents. i am told there are thousands and -- thousands of documents.

millions. guest: so, take a look at that, and then what kind of level of people -- are they situated, outside of what goes on in the regular committee because you have your regular work and then the investigation. i have not been pretty, quite frankly, -- pretty, quite frankly, when that type of investigation has gone on so it is difficult for me to comment, but that is an expensive price tag, i would admit to that. host: here is an e-mail to your comments about the future concept of war. in syria and example of the future wars we should expect -- is syria an example of the future wars we should expect? guest: i would venture to say that syria began on the ground and if we had people on the ground in there we might have seen some of this coming and we might have been able to shape matter what eventually syria

devolves into, and what do i mean by that? it is my personal opinion right now that it is a civil conflict ,oing on within those arenas but the answer, in short is he yes, there are definitely -- in yes, there are definitely places where we could help. from the tell you forces, the military forces, and that is what i deal with on the armed forces committee. i am not on the intelligence committee so i do not deal with the cia issues going on. i have seen my military people in dissipating what ,ould be a militia antigovernment forces, in some

cases, and some of these -- in someand really cases in some of these countries, and really help. ania could have been example, and now it is out of control, to tell you the truth. host: another issue is this issue of the malaysian airline that was lost in the ongoing investigation. "the wallheadline in street journal." as a person on the homeland committee, what you make of how these passports were stolen and how these people were ?ble to board this flight guest: one of the things that happens when you have stolen documents is you have to report them. whatever country you're in, you have to replace them. the responsibility of that country is to place that

passport on a list that says this has been stolen in case you come across it. database --etty big millions of documents over the last 10 years. i believe there are only two were three countries in the world that -- i believe there are only two or three countries that check that when you use your passport to travel. and each country requires what individuals also do -- remember, individuals are the weakest link. day, an individual -- i have gone through customs in other countries, deathly not in our country, where i have just been waived. they do not open the passport. i have been amazed. those of you that travel have seen that.

protocols and a more specific standard of what people should be doing and looking for -- certainly, we have been bringing up this issue of lost documents. >> the wall street journal reporting that interpol -- host: "the wall street journal" reports that one million passengers were able to board globally without having to screen against the database of stolen passports. guest: i would not be surprised. as somebody who travels -- i go back and forth from california to hear, that is domestic, but when i have to go for work to know, it is --ou i see it. i see what happens in other countries. i see the levels of preoccupation with what are the standards, at least as i believe them, or at least the american standards versus what happens in

other places. we have to tighten that up and it includes these documents. host: jeremy, lawrence, kansas. independent caller. caller: a couple of responses to point just made. so-calledthe u.s., national security apparatus used internationally to tamp down or de-escalate crises. that is not what is going on. the real scandal in benghazi is benghazi was being used as a cia outpost to truck in elements for the worst elements from the arab world to go into syria to destabilize that government on behalf of allies, israel, saudi arabia, and turkey was helping out. that is what is going on there. sanchez says the u.s. military and other elements of the military apparatus being

used to tamp down these things is not true. host: ok. we will get a response. guest: first of all, when we put some of this -- it is at the request -- we're not going to put military people -- i'm talking military. i do not know about intelligence. that is under a different category. when we have our military in other countries, it is with a memorandum of understanding, generally, with the government of that country. in other words, we have militia fighters over here, and they are wrecking our economy, it will be a problem, what do we do. it is usually to help settle down though situations. it is not all-out warfare. when we talk about an increase of need for special forces, it is usually to do something like going in and get a particular

person, or get osama bin laden, do particular things, work on going on that is attached to some of our american interests. if we have an embassy somewhere, we need something to go in right away. from my understanding of what i have seen, it has always been in a memorandum of understanding, in a situation where we are working with the government to work things out. host: i want to throw this headline into the conversation because we were talking about stolen passports used in the flight to board, the man with the stolen passports have been played down as suspect. keith. democratic caller. to senatoros feinstein. representative sanchez

will give her support. if those people can get by with murder, everybody thinks they should do it too, so go after them girls. you have more balls than the others do. host: ok, keith. keith.thank you, on one thing, you are certainly right. i have seen more spying on the women of the congress than almost anyone else. as i said, my senator, senator feinstein does not go lightly into these discourses. she usually knows there is something wrong, does her homework, and those in. we will -- i hope she will. she has the power to do that. i could say every congressperson has the power, but the reality

is that the structure of the house and the way things are done, and the chairmanships -- you know, it is much more difficult to years through to get your message out -- pierce through to get your message out. every senator has an incredible amount of power. my senator for talking about this and wanting to do something about it. host: for viewers, if you are interested in both perspectives, senator feinstein's speech on the senate floor, all 41 minutes, is on our website, c-span.org. also, john brennan was here in d.c. where he responded and we have that on a website as well. wildwood, new jersey. the public in color. you on the air with congresswoman loretta sanchez -- republican caller. congress than air

sanchez. caller: i have been watching your show, and it is sad to know that you have silenced the voices that talk about building seven on 9/11. we have not silenced them. they have called into the show. guest: i think it is a good thing for people to push and suggest there might be other answers. honestly, the best information we get comes from constituents who tell us, have you seen this, that document. we have found out a lot of things that way. congress person is sitting here and we get those phone calls, we welcome them to respond. if it is off topic, we will move on. thomas in fresno, california. independent caller. caller: hello. how are you? great, thomas.

caller: i live in california and i am a whistleblower, fast and furious. i was advised i am the only american that made it out of the court court -- pfizer fisa. -- and civil court, we have an administration that has been held in contempt. it seems to be involved in something against constitution, but i would not put myself in a position to run drugs from the mexican cartel. to thepeople went supreme court and then to conference two weeks later, and part of this elements discussed had to do with telling the truth about these helps -- types of programs and corrective action to be taken. well, the problems we face as

america are many, and most are self-inflicted, and i would stay you cannot serve god and money, and i would say you should look into this a little deeper. we the people are getting assaulted daily with all of this section in the courts. i sit here every day and still get assaulted. this comes out of the sequester from 2011. host: ok, thomas. congresswoman? inst: the fast and furious, some ways, that investigation is not over. i was in the judiciary committee and the government reform -- that was in the judiciary committee and the government reform committee, where it has been investigated. to the particulars of that, while it was perpetrated by people of the homeland security committee, remember, i told you

that the house is more compartmentalized than the senate, so it is much more difficult to know what is going on, but i think those are ongoing. if the gentleman wants to forward any information or links to our office, we will take a look and see if we can put our heads together with a chairman off of either one of those committees. i will tell you as a californian , and use it in fresno. i said in orange county, just an hour and a half drive to the mexican border, we are very concerned about drugs, trafficking of people, firearms -- there is no difference, most isthe time, with what happening on the side of the border versus the mexican border. so, very interested in the information you might have, the links you might have, or the

people you might tell us to talk to. i would encourage you to send that to us. host: on twitter, moving to the conversation on the ukraine, what is congress know about cia involvement in that country? guest: unfortunately, my flight was delayed yesterday coming in, and there was a ukraine briefing going on. i missed them classified briefing to the congress members . i really cannot comment about what has been told to my colleagues. i will tell you, however, sometimes most of those -- iings are, you know could have found it on cnn or c-span, probably sooner, rather than some of the classified readings that are given. as to the cia's involvement with what is going on in the ukraine, i cannot comment only because i have not been briefed. it is early morning, and i have not had a chance to talk to my colleagues about what they are.

i'm sorry about that. host: the house and senate both voted to condemn russia's intervention in the ukraine and go ahead with sanctions on russia. there's a lot in the papers about this. "the financial times" -- "russia dashes diplomatic hopes." also, this is what "the new york -- administration officials have concluded they have the means were sanctions to badly damage the russian economy, and something you should use the power sooner rather than later. about theu know damage that can be done through economic sanctions? guest: the russian economy is most of uswined than would have guessed with the

international economy. when putin came back into power, one of the things he said was there is much more money to be made when you are tying globally than when you are a stagnant, by yourself country. which is what in a lot of ways the former soviet union has been. russia is a vigorous partner with so many countries. i think we could do a lot of damage. i think we could do significant damage if the european union comes along with us. >> let me -- host: let me show you what the white house put out -- a statement of g7 leaders on the ukraine -- "we the leaders japan,

what do you make of that statement? july think what the prime minister of the ukraine coming what thest: i think prime minister of the ukraine coming to congress, and it seems to me the western side of the world is lining up to tell russia it is unacceptable and there are consequences. while that could hurt some of our economy, it will not cripple our economy, but it could be very devastating to the russia economy. the other players, quite frankly

in the arena, might be from the asian countries, but the reality is that the asian countries are having their own problems, so i think that russia could find itself in some economic straits. host: we will talk about this a little bit more on "washington journal" with our next guest, lorettaresswoman sanchez, thank you so much. it goes by fast. guest: it does. i want to say thank you for having a program where you get people to talk in something other than soundbites and people can call in. get us the information. we are open about wanting to track everything down. ihave a track record where trust, but i definitely verify. i will not give you the go if i think you are hiding something from me, and there is a lot of information that is still to be

seen on this whole issue with respect to intelligence agencies . i am sure a majority of them do a good job, or whether some of the steps they are doing is necessary, we have to investigate. host: more to come. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will talk to representative rob wittman of virginia and the cap the budget for the military, and then later a piece from "wired" magazine and their ever story on how the u.s. almost killed the internet. first, a news update from c-span radio. -- natone this hour says it has sent two surveillance airplanes to monitor the russian insurgents into the ukraine. i -- expects -- the flights are expected to carry out more mission to examine the possible threat. president obama is set to meet

with the new ukrainian prime minister. president obama is also dealing with afghanistan and is threatening to withdraw all american forces if a new security agreement is not signed by the end of the year, but the associated press says there is no legal reason the u.s. has to resort to the zero option as administrative officials claim because there is an existing status of forces agreement that will remain in effect after 2014 unless it is canceled, giving in agreement that it must have with countries around the world. a new security agreement with --sident hamid karzai that that he has refused to sign will be the subject of testimony on capitol hill. c-span is covering the hairy that hearing. website,atch it on our

c-span.org. those are some the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the original plan when they build the new 22-story capital tear down0's was to the historic capital, but a fight ensued between politicians and the people of florida, and there was a save the old capital campaign. when the call came out that the architect plan to demolish the old structure, but the citizens campaign had prevailed, and the two buildings were going to coexist in one capitol complex, but how exactly the historic capital would be restored was then the debate. it was not whether we save it or not, but rather what time period we should restore it to, and in 1902 version offer great benefits because all three then -- all three ranches of

government were in the building, and the goal was to turn it into a museum and use it as a teaching tool. so, being able to come to this one site and see the supreme court, the governor's office, the house and senate chambers, and understand that read ranches and how they work -- and understand the three branches and how they work together. history andhe literary life of tallahassee. "washington journal" continues. a show congressman rob wittman is back at our table, republican from virginia -- host: commerce and rob wittman is back at our table, republican from virginia. let's begin with the situation in ukraine. we were talking about economic sanctions. the house said go ahead with sanctions. what is your perspective on economic sanctions and what could come next?

guest: economic sanctions take a while to have an effect, and i think looking at russia's membership in g-8 is something we should be looking at, obviously attendance at the g8 summit has already been determined the u.s. will not do that. individualsets of and russian assets is one way to do that. another way has been to talk about how we could stop the flow of russian energy into europe, and we would have to do that by replacing it with exporting u.s. energy, and there is a ban currently on the export of u.s. natural gas to areas outside of the united states. we makeern is how do that happen in a way that has an effect quickly. i think you have to have that effect rather quickly on russia to convince them to come out of crimea.

by estimates, there are about 16,000 russian troops there. i am not sure there is anything we could do to change vladimir putin's mind about the forces he has there in crimea. n government has voted to join russia. the referendum will be put out there, but the only choice people have is to avoid -- vote yes, which is very interesting. i think sanctions and joint military operations with baltic states, countries like poland to send a message that we are starting our believe this is an overstep, a violation of international law is another way to send a strong message black -- back to vladimir putin that this is unacceptable. we have seen a pattern with georgia, now in crimea, potentially in eastern ukraine, .hose are concerns to all of us

host: the referendum takes place on march 16. here is what "the new york times" reports. is that quick enough, and what does that mean? guest: it is. it has a much more immediate effect. is a d means for russia values their currency, so it makes it much more difficult for them to trade in international markets. in order to be aggressive about how we send a message, not only should you be doing the economic sanctions, i think you also need to send a strategic message there to say that our efforts in that area of the world, in europe, the baltics, it will be much more aggressive.

you have to counter that and say if you're going to exert this aggressive behavior strategically, we will respond economically and ourselves strategically with partners in the region. nato should be an important part of that. nato ought to extend this conversation with its partners there in the region and other countries it is had conversations with about strategic relations with nato to say be with us to make sure we send a decision back to russia. host: what rush -- what resources do we have in the area to move around much mark -- around? assets,e have military soldiers, marines, airmen, and we can't use them to pursue joint operations with nato and can use them to pursue joint operations with nato partners and others that are there, to send a message that vladimir putin's efforts

there for a military standpoint will not go unanswered. byt: here is a piece written ukraine's acting president with a message to moscow -- to defend the country, the large stockpile of weapons, and the strategic gas pipelines all point to the potential magnitude of a disaster. in 1994, ukraine surrounded nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the united states, russia, and britain, and for their pledge guest: that is stated extraordinarily well about what the ramifications are if russia continues those efforts.

really, right now, they ought to be leaving crimea. i am not sure that will happen based on the aggressiveness that vladimir putin shows. it does go to show that ukraine looks at this as a strategic threat to their country, and they are laying on the table things they would consider, and i agree with him if things escalate that region of the world will be significantly impacted, and my concern is not only what does it mean for the u.s.-russia relationship, but an mpeg-2 europe. and host:ct to europe what would we -- europe. host: would we be obliged to respond? guest: because ukraine is given up nuclear assets, we would be there to protect him. it brings into question what our obligations are. along with nato, we would have to look at coming to the d if there was

military incursion into other parts of the ukraine. the concern right now is eastern ukraine, and there is significant impact there, even if it is just the threat of that. that has an effect on the ukraine economy. their citizens there, the newly formed government, is very, very concerned about that. we have to be thoughtful on how to prevent that. there are two scenarios. we have to find ways to get russian forces out of crimea, and that will be difficult at this point. secondly, look at ways to prevent any further incursions of russian forces into the ukraine or other efforts to influence the government there. as you know, vladimir putin looks to have influence in ukraine, and i believe he will continue efforts to try to influence ukraine so that it is more friendly to russia. looking at that, we have to look at what we do to respond if he is more aggressive in how he would try to influence ukraine. host: chuck. massachusetts.

to my credit caller. hanging on the line -- democratic caller. hanging on the line. beenr: many critics have criticizing the cut in the defense budget and they cite the percentage of gdp. of gdpes the percentage have to do with what is necessary for the military? unrelated but if , a constant up percentage -- it just does not seem related. host: ok. guest: great question. i do not believe it is related. i think we need to look at what are the strategic threats of this nation and what we need to have as a military to counter that. , the determination and the resources necessary has been based on the size of the

budget. it should be the opposite. we should look at the strategy the nation used to pursue to protect the nation and and make the tough decisions about how to fund that. demand instances, the exceeds the available funds, but we have to make sure we understand what truly are the threats around the world and what is the nation's strategy. we have been all over the world --the strategy for morning for winning a war on two fronts, to winning on one front. it needs to be strategy-driven. here is the defense budget proposal -- highlights. this is the highlights from the 2015 defense budget proposal

stripes are:nd given that, front page of "the washington times" this morning is all about how the demand is shifting to special operations, away from traditional military, the bullet points that we just read, and more toward delta force troops, green berets, navy seals, other commandos. that is outpacing capacity according to this story in "the washington times" this morning. in itself is true, but that is a compartmentalized view of what threats are around the world. those threats are increasing in the realm of needing special operators, but there are also conventional threats that are there that we have to make sure we are able to counter. china continues to grow their military and much of their threat is a conventional threat and we see russia, and we see a conventional scenario there with ukraine. q, also see a situation in ira

and what potentially versions out of that country and the prime minister and the unrest that goes on there. that would be more than special operations. and the proliferation of nuclear weapons there -- that, again, is a conventional scenario. the conventional scenarios exist. i think they are correct in that we have expanded special operation scenario, but we cannot do that to the detriment of having a conventional counter to the conventional threats around the world. if we do not counter that, people will look at the united states as a weakened presence, and i argue that the world we live in is a less safe place, and nations will take advantage of a lessened military presence and a lessened strategic capability for this nation if we allow it to get to that point. i now think we have to address the special operations, and also the conventional operations we

know we need to counter those of the threats. host: on the situation from the ukraine, one viewer says it does not appear nato is sending a strong message, especially with angela merkel getting squishy on sanctions. it's good to bruce -- let's go to bruce. caller: defense is not measured only in military might, but in the ability of political establishment to be intellectually honest and acknowledge real threats. how can congress say it is doing its part to defend the u.s. when most members to a turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence theing the third tower, building seven, was brought down in a controlled demolition on 9/11. make sure wet to do our due diligence to gather information about those threats. on the house armed services committee, we go through a process in the authorization act

to try to look at what the threats are, what we need to do to respond to that. recently, the quadrennial defense review was precluded by the pentagon and that looks at what the threats are and what the strategy should be. the house and services committee is doing an independent evaluation to look at the threats, asymmetric, conventional, and how to counter that, and then hardly put together their resources and put in place the necessary direction to make sure we have the capability to address those threats. we are correct in saying have to gather the correct science-based information and factual-based information. host: los angeles. democratic caller. ,aller: congressman wittman thank you for your leadership. i am disappointed with mr. chuck hagel's comeback. be affected with

each of those cuts, and i do not think that sends the right message to our young people and it certainly does not send the right message to the terrorists and others that the u.s. army is going to be smaller and weaker when it should be bigger and stronger. i appreciate your service. i would like to hear your response. host: i will have the congressman respond, but if i could, i would like to show for viewers the other side of the argument coming from defense secretary chuck hagel, who appeared before the armed services committee last week. he was talking about this and he said the cuts are necessary. [video clip] budget is not business as usual. we are all living in a very unusual time. it may well be that when history records this time, a very defining time. i do not think any of us, no matter how many years you have been in congress, have ever worked through something like we

are working through and have worked through the last 24 uncertainty, unpredictability, not just with resources and budgets, but how that ripples out and the consequences of that to every it begins to make the hard choices, hard choices will have to be made. the longer we are for the difficult decisions, the more risk we will have down the road. secretary hagel put some of the concern in there. i want to go back to the concern about the reduction in force for the army in the ring core. if you look at where we have been a new look at secretary gates, that is $300 billion. 480 $7 billion in reduction, and then you add in the sequester, 500 billion, now $1.3 trillion reduction to the military.

if you add all of those up, you have,e lost capability we even in light coming out of iraq and afghanistan. secretary hagel is laying out a plan he has based upon a budget number he has before them. what should the strategy based -- be based on the threats, and then make the tough decisions about where to come up with the resources. i think that is where the discussion has to go. i understand secretary hagel's point, but i also understand folks have an obligation to say there will be increased risk. my question to him was exactly that, that this mean an increased risk on men and women that serve in the military? theirewer come back onto loved ones, and what will happen in a conflict or do we increase the chances of going into

conflict? i think those are critical questions that need to be answered. the focus should be what are the threats and the strategy to cancer -- counter the threats. the economic impact of military cuts to your district? what is the military residence like in your district? guest: there is a significant military presence in my district in virginia. i try to look at the broader perspective. i tell folks what is good for the nation is good for my district and good for virginia. that means making the tough decisions. obviously i hear from folks in the district that are concerned about that and a lot of military families are concerned about what the budget means to their loved ones, whether it is compensation or benefits or i also look at

it from the broader perspective of what we need to do to make sure the nation has the strategic capability to defend itself against threats around the world. from carolinel who says how much more income tax are you willing to pay for increased military. go d d frederick says we are 1.2 trillion in debt -- we are 17.5 trillion in debt. constitute -- constitutional response ability we have. if you look at the budget side, we have to look at the areas outside of discretion all spending. we have done 1.3 trillion dollars in reductions to the military budget. there is no place else in the budget. where we have made those types of reductions. let's go in and look at the other areas of the budget. social security and medicare will run out of money if we do

not make changes. we will not get to the point to address the debt or deficit or to create a balance in the budget if we did not address those particular areas. as far as the revenue side, tax reform has to be addressed. tax reform in the realm that encourages investment and savings to expand in the economy. that's i think is an area we should be talking about and taking action on. host: on ukraine, " washington post" this morning written by senator menendez -- he lays out the case for legislation he is working on to react to the situation in russia . before that committee today will be secretary of state john kerry testifying about the 2015 budget. a coerced -- of course the issue around the world.

live coverage c-span3 this afternoon. simon next in kentucky. simon you are on the air. one must call for simon. let me move on to charlie in california, republican collar. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. stock file ofs. chemicals, about two months ago i wasasian news report watching, they blatantly said the stockpiles taken out were being dumped into the ocean. is this something -- i have not heard anything on any local news reports or anything in the u.s. the u.s. is spearheading

the disposal of chemical weapons. we have a ship that is specifically outfitted to process the chemicals from the chemical weapons in my understanding they are gathering them and have to secure them. they take them to see that they are not being dumped into the sea but are being processed on of ship to do a variety different things. some of the incineration and other processes to make the chemicals harmless. so believe me, they are not dumping into the sea. three area -- syria cooperating with that effort? >> not as much as they need to be. the pace at which chemical weapons are coming out to be processed is nowhere near what it needs to be. i think there is for dragging neisseria and i believe we are not seeing them living up to the agreement that should be signed. the longer that goes on, the more likely that chemical weapons do not get categorized,

taken then -- taken out of the inventory and then disposed of. our guest republican of virginia. surely is next in texas. independent collar. -- caller. i am interested in what you have been saying about the military. our concern should be the country and veterans that have been brought home that are not getting the care they need and the budgetary concerns you are talking about are all about foreign countries. i am sorry, but national to me means the united states of america. our concern should be focused there and giving billions of dollars to the rogue countries that do not know what they want is not going to solve the problems. you make two great

points. first of all, we must support our veterans. supported thehave nation. the backlog of veterans benefits is unacceptable. sometimes there is a discussion about changing the benefits or reducing benefits. i am adamantly opposed to that. you speak to foreign aid. i am a believer that if we do administer foreign aid, it needs to be for various civic purposes and needs to be in a situation where the countries agree to be performing things in u.s. interest in exchange for the foreign aid. i am not certain you can buy influence throughout the world by administering foreign aid. making sure they're fed and have the basic elements to sustaining life, i those -- i believe those are applicable.

in order to assert influence i believe is not the right type of policy we need to be pursuing. i want to make sure if we do use foreign aid it is for us specific her best. preserving, protecting and enhancing u.s. interests by easing foreign aid in the country. >> we have set the senate foreign relations committee will hear from john kerry. he will not be there today. that hearing will take lace. the focus is on the ukraine aid bill. we will have coverage of that. going to david next. more in ohio. respect, ih all due do not know how you are saying these things about the defense spending. 35 program, no one can call

that rational spending when you know only or states are not supplying parts and supplies for the aircraft. why is that? political. the counterfeit parts in the system. systems we do not need. all kinds of things to support them and pay back local communities and politicians. is is the largest because the defense budget is so large. strategically those assets are important. have there been, as with the program? absolutely. i believe there need to be changes to the different variations on the aircraft, making sure we get back on budget, back on meeting the requirements and time frames. no doubt there have been problems with that, problems that continue to need to be addressed and must he addressed.

at the defense budget, it needs to be driven i strategy. by any measure folks on both sides of the aisle, folks in the pentagon on even the administration has said the depth of the cut and brett and the nationcuts put at an increased risk. i am not willing to increase the risk for the brave men and women that serve the nation. when we send them in harms way, we owe them one single thing, making sure we have -- they have overwhelming superiority when they go into battle though they can come home safe. that is my constitutional duty, and i will not back away from that. i think that is critical. we can have all kinds of conversations about where the dollars are going. i will never back away from what i believe is the nation's obligation and congresses obligation to provide for them brave men and women who are tech

this nation. caller: good morning, congressman. i am in an eight year navy veteran from years and years ago. thank you, sir. cnet on the tv the other day obama signed an executive order that you legal elliott -- illegal aliens they have let in the military service, he will give them all the benefits throughout -- retroactive. yet they will pay the illegal aliens to come in here and floods of veterans hospitals. i do not allow how they allow the people in the military and are breaking the laws. those individuals here undocumented do have the ability to sign up and serve in the

military. the question is the benefits that you provide to the spouses. that is a question i think that deserves further debate about how we do that in a fair and thoughtful way and abide by the laws of the nations? we want to make sure we are showing respect for men and women who serve in the military and certainly that does need to expect to the family. the question is, how do we do that in a way that respects the laws of the nation? another situation where congress needs to be a part of that. unilateral action by the executive branch takes congress out of the loop about how we address the issues. you bring up the issues that are worthy of debate, and that is how do we make the priority decisions about resources and how we do things in a fair and equitable way for those who so honorably served the nation. how do we address the sticky situation of if their loved ones are indeed here you legally or

undocumented. that is a situation worthy of debate by congress in making a policy decision and should not be used by the executive branch. er -- an e-mail by a view guest: he could. it points to what i believe is an inherent weakness in the space station and we should have a launch vehicle capability to protect our interest into space. we do not have that of the current time. i think that is an area we should be debating about, what is nasa's role now that the space station has retired. you are at the direction of russia as far as launching assets into space or moving astronauts to the space station. those are not good, strategic positions for the united states to be in. thing i think the situation

will spur discussions about one -- what our space capabilities need to be. what is the impact economically if we put sanctions on russia? guest: i think the impact will be minimal. they are normally transacted back and forth, sometimes with russian and u.s. companies. there will be impact. the magnitude of that in relation to the total amount of mostess they do, in instances will be minimal. there are companies that have significant economic relationships with russia. in those instances i think there will be an impact. thethose businesses, to point of being significant but not abroad perspective. i think what we need to look at is what are the situations we need to address? we have done this at other times where the impacts have indeed been significant for u.s. businesses and should not stop us from doing the right thing.

i think in this situation we must do that in order to show russia we're serious. --t: a twitter comment the, oklahoma. democratic caller. -- tulsa. caller: i am concerned about the budget. starting whistle so security and.a population increase security is financed by the taxes. isn't not going to increase the taxes, how are we going to support the american people? you talk about social security. if you look at the folks who manage social security and how they portray worse also security is going, it is not in a good decision. you know social security of their -- eventually runs out of money, and fairly soon. even social security disability

insurance runs out sooner. we have to manage the systems to make sure they are sustainable and able to pay off the benefits people have made and. everyone pays a social security tax. a couple of years ago it was reduced. and has gone back to where it was previous it, but reducing the tax creates its own set of issues. look at the social security trustees and what they say will happen, what they are saying is we have to look into the future and how do we change the system to make sure we can stand by the obligations we have for the folks that have eight and, but make sure folks in the future have reasonable exit nations about what they would get out. under the current situation, it is not sustainable. you point out an issue that needs to be addressed, how do we fix that? you cannot just go in and fix it and say we will increase demands that individuals pay. the system has to be managed based upon what is being paid in

and paid out. that is a more complicated situation than simply saying we pay more in. that does not make the system in the long run sustainable, nor does it have a good impact on those folks currently paying into this more for them that is not doable. anna, an independent in huntsville, alabama. caller: thank you for taking my call. am the department of defense retiree. i do not think congress is quite aware of how much they spend on overhead. in my 30 years in the department of defense, local commanders have lost grip on all controls over all programs, and they've basically our lawnmower people now. all managed byrs

a separate command and contracting is a separate command. each one of those is a brand-new pyramid with super great civil servants and general over it in general military staff, and their proliferation has been incredible in my own lifetime. that is one. stabilize the situation in the ukraine and sell ae ukrainians serviette to the russians? it is not unheard of to -- sell serbia to the russians? host: did you mean crimea? you said serbia. guest: you talked about efficiencies and you are exactly right.

we have been pushing the department of defense to do an overall audit to make sure we understand how any of spent and where it is spent. secondly, we need to continue acquisition reform to make sure decisions are being made in acquiring the necessary systems and equipment for the military and is done in a way that the simple, straightforward and efficient and how resources are allocated and how money is being spent. those are things we must do to get the efficiency in the military. if you look at the ukraine, i am not certain it is a good policy for nations to be selling land, especially since crimea is part of the ukraine and covered under the constitution. i am not certain selling it to russia is a good public policy, especially the way it has come about. i think if you have a nation that invades and afterward to say we will sell it to you is the best way to go about it.

think russia has acted outside of international law and must be punished for that. host: congressman, we will have to leave it there. thank you. you for having the opportunity to get into debts and have people call in. this forum i think is absolutely critical. next him of the spotlight on magazine series continues with a look at how tech giants have had to fight for their lives against the u.s. government this past year relating to the nsa surveillance programs. we will talk to stephen leavy coming up who wrote the story. we will get to that after this news update from c-span radio. leaker.on the nsa national security figure edward snowden is calling out senator dianne feinstein after her floor speech yesterday. aftering a statement

senator feinstein who chairs the intelligence committee spent nearly an hour decrying the cia for accessing intelligence committee at computers and interfering with staff or investigations into cia investigation tactics. edward snowden right it is clear the cia was trying to play keep away with occupants relative -- relevant to an investigation by overseers in congress and that is a serious constitutional concern. a serious constitutional concern. the statement goes on to say it is used only, if not more concerning we are seeing another merkel effect where an elected official does not care at all about the rights of ordinary citizens when they are violated by spies but suddenly a scandal when a politician finds out the same thing happens to them. says president obama will direct the labor department to strengthen overtime pay for millions of workers. meant to help salaried workers shifts fast food supervisors or convenience store managers who may be expected to

work more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. the latest move and president obama self describe year of action, a series of economy focused executive decisions that do not require congressional approval. the announcement expected tomorrow. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think what happens to deepenas the depressions and people did not know where was the great depression, they thought it was a typical cyclical events, but when the pattern did not hold and the depression deepened, he then found himself facing increasing pressure from the left for greater and greater expenditures and greater intervention in the economy and started to hold the line against that and became a fiscal conservative balance the budget say the gold entered republican in the past year or two of his life. republican.he gold

he was quite activists for his time, including policies that might not have then all that effective. on the other hand, he was about melly -- that would let struggling against the turn in the new deal. >> george nash on the missing link in the missing memoirs. in a few weeks, military strategist and former assistant the fence secretary will take your calls, comments, e-mails and tweets on the middle east and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. live from noon until 3:00 eastern. this month on the tv book, joined the discussion on camille joseph new biography. to entertv.org the chat room. journal "gton continues.

host: taking a look at the february story cover for "wired magazine", " how the u.s. almost killed the internet and why it still could." mr. leavy joining us to talk about this. companiesese tech were contacted by the washington post about the revelations made by edward snowden, what was the reaction? this came out june 6 of last year, purported that these companies had cooperated with access to giving it the data about customers. searchesg from google to facebook photographs to anything the people shared. to read the articles you would think there was a direct umbilical between the nsa and these companies.

the case,ot really but as it turns out the companies were cooperating in a that forced the companies to give information to the nsa, but by that point, the companies were trying to correct the record when they were what theyagged of were doing. there was a whole doubt about what the companies were doing and people could not trust them for anything by that point. were the companies really surprised, and how did they not know what was really going on? thet: they had never heard codename of the program that they had been cooperating with. it was called prism and was in the internal slideshow from the nsa, never used to them that turned out to be the name of the database that had the information. they were also surprised it was

.eing reported there was a massive amount of data. that's mr. he persisted for a few months, until they learned there was another major source, a bigger source of information from the servers, the company storehouses of information about you and me and everyone else through the nsa, which the nsa was also intercepting traffic circulated among the different databases -- data centers of the company where they store -- store information. google has multiple data centers and do not talk to each other. the nsa was basically tapping into that and getting the information there and collect in it. were the tech companies giving the information or was the u.s. government taking it back it?

guest: both. there is one slide that talks about the downstream method, which means asking -- actually compelling the companies to give information that they asked about certain targets or e-mail addresses or whatever in the companies would have to provide the information or track and real-time what the customers were doing, and then the upstream method where behind the company's backs essentially they were grabbing the information. when it comes to the companies giving it, being required to do so, if the ceos did not know, and you report the stories went around asking, are we doing this? if we -- if they did not know, then who was giving the information to the government? guest: that is an interesting thing i learned, in certain cases and in a big company like this, you try to insulate the

ceo from what is really going on . there are compliance officers generally a company like facebook or google, someone who maybe has experience in dealing with the government that negotiates the terms of what they hand over. it is a little fuzzier whenever the press comes in. sometimes the company might say that is too broad. other times they might try to fight it. of course, the court that gave the order does not give them much play, and if they do not cooperate, they are in contempt of the court and subject to fines and penalties. yahoo! try to fight this in 2008, and what was the outcome? guest: when the order for first , theyhrough in 2008 fought it. they said this is unconstitutional and had to fight it in secret because when you get an order from a secret court you have to fight it in

secret. it was not until last year that these priests came out in public. they lost the object in and lost the appeal and still might be of mine somewhere but generally that it has been deemed constitutional. >> what part of the law did they cite that it is sort oftionally? guest: in keeping with the patriot act, and a lot of other actions dealing with earlier surveillance act. amendments through the survey let's act and really broadened the power of the government. congresspeople say is it broadened its way beyond what they thought they were doing, at

least in the nsa interpretation. interpreting it in the widest possible manner, and some people in congress like senator ron wyden said we never thought this was going to happen. patriot actof the said it exceeded what he thought would happen. host: what was the message when yahoo! lost the battle? the other message to companies was we have to cooperate. they pushed back and said he wanted tell our customers the kind of information we are handing over and how much. they can only do this in limited ways that did not give a whole picture for what is going on. after president obama announced reforms, modest reforms of the surveillance ask, this january, there is a little more play in what the companies can say. even so, we do not have a complete picture of the nate church of the information they

are handing over and how wide the scope is. in a way, it is less relevant now that we know from the back , the nsa is getting massive amounts of information, and what the companies want to do in those cases is encrypt the information so the government cannot easily access it and read it. >> what does the government say about encryption, and explain how it works. a method byn is which information is scrambled. even by intercept it, i cannot necessarily read it. the nsa is an organization whose mission is to decrypt, unscramble these kinds of codes. they are very good at doing it. even so, not so good that state-of-the-art encryption can be easily baffled. that is why countries like -- companies like google, hollings

are encrypting or manning to encrypt the information as it moves among data centers and internet. edwarde learn from snowden recently that encryption works. guest: it does work but is not flawless. in order to do it right, you have to be relatively sophisticated. not so easy for everyday people to use it. i interviewed eric schmidt, the executive chair of google. and co-author of a book he wrote. they did a big, international -and said theyr to bash the prize that in companies that have a lot to lose from having communications intercepted do not use the tools available to them to scramble communications because it is too complicated.

host: a tweet from a viewer -- do these companies make money from the government or mining this data and handing it over? so, the first part of the question from the government, just for their own use gets to the absence of what is -- gets to the essence of what is required for the companies to use this. their model of serving the customer is based on how the information about the customer and being able to target information that the users want or deliver the information that they want a son who they are, that is really important to the company's. companies want to cut a deal with us. host: they sell this information

to other companies who want to research? guest: they do not sell it, they use it for themselves, to make our lives better. then they give us better search results. facebook says, because they know more about us because they can provide more relevant information when we go on facebook and look at the newsfeed that scrolls by there. they do not sell to the government. they do get reimbursed for supplying it to the government but do not make content from it. that is a small amount of money. >> you write this i'm a google, facebook microsoft and the other tech titans have had to fight for their lives against the u.s. government and an excuse of look inside the year from hell and why the internet will never be the same. why hasn't been a year from hell? -- has it been a year from hell?

guest: these companies are under cotton screwed -- constant scrutiny because they ask so much about because of the benefit they provide to us and these companies sell advertisements against the information and do not give it to the advertisers that use the information to service advertisements there so it is part of the business model as well. they have spent years trying to get us comfortable with deals and have done a pretty good job because we use these companies a lot, even though you know we are sharing information and other circumstances we might not be comfortable with. then all of a sudden something new comes into the equation. not only being used by the companies i'm above the government is getting a hold of the information. little brother collaborating with the brother. that throws all of the trades very and could make us

uncomfortable with that and would threaten the core models. involvedting viewers in this conversation. you can call in. democrats (202) 737-0002 andblicans (202) 737-0002 independence and all others (202) 628-0205. you write in the story about how president obama initially responded to the snowden leaks. what did he say, and what impact of that have on the company's? guest: the leak about the prism program, which involves companies handing over under order information to the government, he tried to reassure americans by saying, do not worry, it is only for foreign intelligence. so if you are an american citizen, that is not what we are collect and there. this did no favor to the companies. over half the business is overseas. that is where most of the growth

is. that did not do them any favor, because now foreign customers are very wary of the customers -- of the companies. they say if i use google or facebook or the other companies or a company stores my information in the cloud, is it all going to the nsa? all going to the united states government yang? greg in georgia. independent collar. my question is the way the government is taking information from the high-tech companies. facebook is sending mail to get information. and taking money out of the companies.

thank you. guest: i think it is difficult going back to snail mail now. the fact is we are all pretty hooked on the new technology here. i do not think you can turn back time to say i am going back to or mail system and the nsa the fbi into ever surveillance targets will be going back to steaming envelopes. a nice idea, but i think we are way past that. host: a new report out that says the internet rebel -- will revolutionize the economy. by 2025 users will be more informed and help the economy. and next in aurora, colorado. -- ann. caller: i wanted to make a correction about a statement made that these companies do not .ell the data they are mining

when twitter went public it was made known that 20-30% off office is the actual sale of data they collect on people who are tweeting, what they are , etc..g and when the internet to me is one massive advertising tool. categories, all of the private information and use it or sell it. host: i will have stephen leavy respond to you. i may be brought in describing that, but we were talking about facebook and google, they will not sell personal information. they will use that information. there are a sub industry that does nothing but sell information that is gathered there. all sorts of advertising --

advertising networks and other things that plant bugs on your computer, essentially, as you -- surf thed at internet and look for information. i think we need laws to limit that. as for the twitter thing, it is my understanding that they aggregate a lot of the information, but most of that is public information. they do nottweet, treat privately but in general. twitter does sell firehoses of information that otherwise could be gotten, but not otherwise an easy form. host: back to the government role in this. the president nominated to head upthe cap -- to head this was on capitol hill testifying about their surveillance program. the headline is he backs data collection, saying they support

the idea of maybe a third-party holding onto maybe double of the data. how do you think tech companies would respond to the idea? i think he was talking about a different program we have not talked about before basically collects all of the data about who we make phone calls to and how long those called last, and that includes americans. part of the reason why the companies were so upset when the first revelation came out is that was a day after he learned about the massive surveillance program on americans, and a lot of people assume this was the technological equivalent. they were getting the same data about mail, which prison does not do. as it turns out, the nsa had

experimented in a similar program a couple of years before. in terms of that, i think tech companies would be very uncomfortable with that. they do not want to be in a position of holding information that is seen as storing it for the government for the government later x oration of targets. >> verify vent. the president deals with what you don't-- host: verify then. with: prism deals information about you or that who yourate or he -- communicate on the systems with google, facebook, yahoo! come apple and a number of the rest of them. in that case, the government makes a request to a company like this book or yahoo! and the company then provides that information on the customers or e-mail address that is involved in that target.

trying very hard to see how broad the things are. that is the one thing you can really not get a handle on. you say there is a request. have a request on joe sixpack and this e-mail address and everyone who lives in houston or malaysia or something like that. they say it cannot be that broad. it is tough to say. we are a little more information out of the companies will tell you more. it is not a giant amount compared to how much information the government caught from the upstream methods. address the second part of the title in the story, the u.s. government almost killed the internet and still could. here is a quote from the facebook ceo, mark zuckerberg.

explain. years -- four years some companies have been unhappy to dominant power on the internet is the united states. most of the big companies like the ones we have been discussing here and the ones that build the infrastructure for the internet are american, and certainly western, develop nations. they say we want a piece of that and feel maybe we should not connect so easily with the rest of the internet. powers haveus, the opened nature, that anyone can plug into it. you do not need permission to begin a business on the internet, and it is global. urgings on behalf of of

these are out there but the nsa revelations gave them new power. now countries like rizzo, police malaysiay -- brazil, and germany talking about walling off citizens from everyone else and hurdles to integrate the information with the rest of the world. that really could impact the internet as we know it and make it less useful. the big companies would have to invest a lot to make the systems work. -- starttartup company up company may never get off the ground because i could not reach the global audience that every internet company wants to reach. commentre is another, and -- now someat is right, businesses and other countries

are selling their wares on the bases we do not cooperate with the nsa. one venture capitalist told me that was the pitch of a cloud storage company to him from europe when they were talking beut why they were going to a successful business and maybe an american company like dropbox or google cloud business or amazon. next call. republican collar. caller. occur twohad an event weeks before the nsa scandal occurred on the news. i was working on my computer. i am a writer and writing a historical novel about h and each of -- ancient egypt. i have multiple sites up on my google. resumea sudden the word

one-inch highared on my screen and had no idea what that was about and my system went down immediately, and two weeks later i heard about the nsa and understood what it was, but i do not know what happened to me. was this a trainee who got it wrong or a computer that malfunctioned? i do not know. a prettyretty interesting story. i cannot give you an answer. almost like the x-files. since the companies did not know the code name you would not think it came from them. , unlikely they would be looking at your computer, but to be honest, i do not know what happened. the programes

worked versus what is called muscular? the codenames for the program i described earlier where the government tapped into the traffic circulating among the databases, specifically apple and google. companies like microsoft and facebook also assume the same thing was happening to them. upstream program i described where as prism was the downstream program where they compelled companies to give the information. host: american heroes has -- -- says -- guest: that is a terrific question. one part of the story we have not discussed yet is i called the nsa for comment. i said do you want to talk to me? i had written a book in the

1990's. i covered the crypto wars where about thea big fight encryption technology. for a long time the government fought it and fermented companies from exporting it. eventually they gave in. to go to thehard nsa and talk to them. in this case they surprised me. they said come down and talk to us. meeting with some of the top officials of the nsa, including the director at the time, keith alexander. in talking about that, it was really interesting to see how they saw the thing, how they responded to it. they feel they are misunderstood.

think like the caller before that the nsa is watching everything they do. one of the top officials who has has since said what can i do to convince people we are not looking at your mail or grandma's mail? in deed because of the secrecy, people do not know how expensive this is. they are upset about the degree to which we are being surveilled in the sense that information is being collected about us. they said just collecting the information is not the same as collecting the information or this will help them in

the subways of new york. people examine the claims and say that could have been other ways to got -- to get to it. in a sense, they have not come up with a lot of examples. the legislators have grilled them on this. i have talked to other people who have said aviators not really what they have stopped so far but what they will stuff in the future. host: talking to stephen leiby, editor at "wired" magazine. the author of seven books. if you're interested in that. we will go to robert next, kansas city, missouri. independent collar. aller. caller: let me ask you a or then, the patriot act

department or the sec, do they have anything in the revision that gives them the right to access your internet or phone there is this: court, secret court, the fisa court, in which it allows the government to get access to your records. not aspoena powers are stringent in some cases for foreign citizens and not existent in terms of what they can get. answer is yes.rt not like for a u.s. citizen they can easily punch something in, there is the procedure they have to go through, and then they confronted in. i gave you a promotion, senior staff writer. guest: supposedly higher.

give me a promotion. host: robert next. caller: good morning. you know, as far as the nsa is concerned tom i understand this all started with 9/11. and under bush's presidency. it appears president obama has take this into steroid mode. i also believe if you're not doing anything wrong you should not worry. the more and more i hear about this, it worries me. irs, theurts with issue with the cia looking into etc., itmembers, bothers me. is this something obama ramped up during his time frame, and my

last question is, how does this guest feel about eric snowden? i certainly feel he was a traitor. if he had issues, he should have went to superiors and addressed it. i would like to know what the guest feels about this and i will take my answer off-line. guest: in terms of president obama, certainly he did not thatd back the programs really came to fruition under the budget administration. that surprised a lot of people. a lot of the supporters felt that was something that they would get with the administration and something they did not get with the administration. it was interesting to see. something happens to people when all of a sudden they are responsible when their defense about the terrorist act and they

are the ones that do not want to theeld before congress or court of public opinion when a terrorist act occurs and says you did not do all you could. that affects them. one person i talked to was a person who works in the white house who used to work for google. what has been the person who would have tried to fend off the request from the government. now she works for the government and basically saying we are trying to prevent the next boston bombing. so this is why we're doing this. so i think that explains the complexities of why obama supporters are disappointed. they still feel even in his january speech he did not go far enough in reining in the nsa as they would like. in terms of what i think of snowden, i feel it is complicated. on the one hand, i see the point

in saying you cannot let everyone go in and grabbed huge bulks of classified data. the on the other hand -- but on the other hand, i think we owe him a lot in terms of generating the debate, and pretty much everyone admitted it may be a good thing for us to have the debate to know the extent to which we are getting this information, essentially -- essentially to protect us so we can decide if it is worth it. i think we owe him a lot, because of that. honest, i am not sure whether a president should pardon him. the nsa itself floated the idea when i went on 60 minutes, but i service to some degree by letting us know what was going on. when i talked to the nsa, they made the point, they said why

did he not come to us as a whistleblower at? there are examples of previous whistleblowers who have had a previous rough time. one of the nsa officials said to wrong we really were doing, if we were using this and abusing the information, the people who work here would not stand for that cometh they would go to the inspector general's office and there would be a line as long as disneyland blowing the whistle on us. has happened to previous whistleblowers, they would be in for a ride that is much milder than anything in anaheim. host: can the u.s. government asked the problem for the company's? guest: specifically talking about the splinter net probably mentioned earlier. in a sense, and the government's

hands are tied. one government official told me if the u.s. went to the countries that were threatening to blow off internet and say don't do this, that would increase their suspicions and would be more likely to do it. they say it is up to the companies to convince the countries they would be damaging the internet itself and herding their citizens in terms of giving them access to the internet if they went through with this. i also want to pick up on a point that the earlier collar made that said we are not doing anything wrong, we should not be were read. there is another aspect to the nsa activities that are worrisome. the nsa takes advantage of vulnerabilities in the security systems. if you know anything about security systems, if there is a vulnerability, it will be exploited. so the nsa, every time it discovers a weakness in the private sector, it makes a determination of whether they are going to exploit the system

to get information or whether they are going to inform the company that makes the system. there is a problem, you should fix it and people are not secure because of that. he discussed one example with me where they said we found the make -- weakness and was huge and could have gone to cop -- gone to town with this but it was so big that after discussion we decided to go to the company to tell them there was a flaw and you have to fix it. i thought it was interesting they had to have the discussion. host: the cover story for "wird magazine." you can follow his reporting on twitter and wired. thank you for your time. appreciate it. "at doesn't for today's washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. thank you for watching. now, let coverage of the house.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 12, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by

the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: in 1945 at the end of world war ii, america's federal debt to the gross domestic product ratio was 120%. washington responded with leadership. in 1946, the federal budget was slashed a massive 40%. in 1947, the federal budget was slashed by another 38%. the result, america rose to the challenge and america prospered. by 16980, even though per

capita inflation adjusted, federal debt had tripled. it shrunk 30% to g.d.p. since 1980, america's per capita federal spending exploded to five times more than 1948 levels. the result, america faces a skyrocketing $17 trillion debt burden. america's comptroller general warns that america's financial path is unsustainable. instead of confronting our debt dependence, washington kicks the can down the road and immorally sells our children into the equivalent of servitude and poverty while driving america's federal debt to dangerous levels. to preserve the liberty and prosperity, our ancestors sacrificed to give us, we must free americans to again earn their prosperity and significantly cut federal nondefense spending to restore

financial responsibility and provide the stable monetary environment needed for economic growth. if the federal government will be financially responsible and stop killing job creation, america's economy will soar because we have within our grasp a massive new technology and energy boom. mark mills, adjunct fellow, manhattan institute states, quote, by 2020 or so, the united states is expected to surpass saudi arabia in oil output and russia in gas, according to the international energy association. daniel jorgen estimates that the united states' turn around in energy has generated 1.7 until jobs and that number should almost double by 2020, end quote. the rand corporation adds, quote, the pace of technological change, whether through advances in information technology, biotechnology or such emerging fields such as

nanotechnology will certainly accelerate within the next 10 to 20 years, generating advances in research and development, production processes and the nature of products and services, end quote. amazing economic possibilities abound if the federal government will simply allow americans to seize them. unfortunately, too many paternalistic washington politicians distrust the american people to earn a better life for themselves or to take care of each other without government coercion or intervention. financially irresponsible washington politicians insist on spending money we do not have, risking a debilitating american insolvency and bankruptcy, debasing our currency, punishing success, rewarding destructive behavior and strangling job creation and bureaucratic red tape. the federal government, by attempting to supply and command all things, zaps

america's spirit of energy and devours the financial capital needed for innovation, productivity growth and jobs. america must stop kicking the can down the road to a day when the debt challenge is even more daunting. the time to act is now while america has sufficient economic strength to succeed. we cannot wait until america's bankrupt and defenseless. our currency is valueless and we are overwhelmed by closed businesses, lost jobs and poverty. congress must use the debt limit, the budget, appropriation bills and every other means available to free america from the growing burden of crushing debt and a dick at dictatorial. nd a there was one election in 1980 giving us the wildly successful economic policies of the economic policies of ronald reagan and 25 years of unparalleled prosperity. america choice is between

economic depression brought about by socialist, heavy-handed, big brother economic policies and prosperity brought about by policies centered on free enterprise, individual liberty and faith in the american people. the same economic policies and freedoms that made america the greatest nation in world history. america, please choose wisely. your future and america's depends on it. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, for five minutes. mr. rsford: thank you, speaker. right now thousands of nevadans have the full-time job of looking for work, and it's gotten worse for many since december 28 of last year when emergency unemployment insurance benefits for many expired.

there are now over two million americans, mr. speaker, who have been cut off from unemployment insurance because of congress' failure to act. that includes 26,023 nevadans. these are not numbers. these are real people. every week that congress fails to act, it is projected that an additional 842 nevadans will lose their benefits each week during the first half of 2014. nevada's economy has lost over $54 million because congress has stalled, but i, along with many of my colleagues, have not forgotten about our constituents. today democrats will sign a discharge petition to force speaker boehner and house republicans to bring up a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for all americans who have lost their jobs at no fault of their own. these benefits are used to put

food on the table, to put gas in the cars so they can go look for an interview and to pay for rent. extending these unemployment benefits used to be bipartisan. on december 14, 2002, in his weekly radio address, then president george w. bush scolded congress saying, and i quote, no final bill was sent to me extending unemployment benefits for about 750,000 americans whose benefits will expire on december 28. he went on to say, these americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for the mortgage or rent, for food and other critical bills. they need our assistance in these difficult times and we cannot let them down. the unemployment rate in ecember, 2002, it had just hit 6%. congress then extended

unemployment benefits by a vote of 416-4. if there was an emergency then, it's an emergency now, and it's time to do the right thing and extend unemployment insurance benefits for americans. it's an emergency for my constituents, like alfordine, who i met at a local work force center as she searched for work. it's an emergency for monty who recently signed up for medicaid because of the affordable care act. he's homeless now, and because congress failed to act, his unemployment insurance has been cut. it's an emergency for tamika who i brought as my guest to the state of the union. she is an electrician and she knows what it means to work hard but has fallen on hard times and can't find work. the nevadans on unemployment insurance that i meet are scrambling to make ends meet, and no one wants to live on unemployment insurance and, no,

mr. speaker, they are not lazy. but despite repeated democratic efforts, republicans in congress refuse to listen and have callously rejected restoring this vital economic lifeline that serves as a financial bridge for those who are looking for work. so this discharge petition is an extraordinary step, but for my constituents, there is no time for politics and there is no time for waiting. action to create jobs and build an economy that works for everyone must start with renewing unemployment insurance benefits for those americans who were laid off through no fault of their own. it's time to extend unemployment insurance now, and i encourage the speaker, after this discharge petition is signed by members, to bring up a vote so that we can provide this important lifeline to two million americans, 26,000

nevadans, families and veterans who desperately need this benefit. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. every day teachers across our nation reach into their own pockets to pay for classroom supplies like books, software and pencils without ever being reimbursed by their schools and since 2002, teachers could at least count on a $250 above-the-line tax deduction to help defray the cost of these purchases. but at the end of last year this tax deduction was allowed to expire, meaning that teachers are not able to claim it on their individual returns this year -- this tax season or count on it in the next year as they continue to purchase supplies for their classrooms and their students.

the replay -- the repay supplies act, introduced by carol shea-porter, and co-sponsored by more than 50 of our colleagues from both parties, aims to fix this problem and make the educator expense deduction permanent. ms. shea-porter and i were disappointed to learn that this modest deduction was not included in the recent tax reform proposals, and we will send a letter in the coming days to ask that a hearing on the repay supplies act be held as soon as possible. i hope that my colleagues will join us in signing this letter to the ways and means committee and give teachers the opportunity to testify before congress about the impact the deduction has had on their checkbooks and on their classrooms. mr. speaker, i'm a former florida certified teacher, and i know how important it is that students come to school prepared, -- prepared and ready to learn, but without the basic

supplies needed to take part in lessons, students are put at a disadvantage in the classroom, forced to rely on outdated materials and without essential learning tools. and too often teachers go into their own pockets to make up the difference. for many educators, teaching is more than a full-time job. they arrive at the school while many of us are still getting ready for work. they stay late into the evening. they prepare lesson plans, grade pain -- papers and deal with parents and grandparents who can admitted lie be a handful when guaranteeing their child is receiving the best education possible. teachers care deeply about their students and are often willing to sacrifice personal needs in order to provide them with the best learning experience possible. according to the latest status of the american public school teacher report by the national education association, educators are spending

approximately $477 per year on basic school supplies for their students and their classrooms. mr. speaker, we all want the best for our children. we work hard every day in this congress to make sure that our children have a brighter future , and education, as we know, is the key to this success, an essential component of that brighter future that we're trying to create for the next generation. but it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense that we are hamstringing the very people we've instructed with their education. we have -- we've entrusted with their education. teachers are giving up their own time and money to help students learn and be engaged in school. the least we can do is provide them with this modest $250 deduction to help mitigate the financial and personal sacrifices that they're already making. every two years since 2002, congress has come together in a bipartisan manner to extend

this deduction on behalf of our country's educators. by making this tax deduction permanent, congress can give teachers certainty that at least some of their purchases will be paid back, that it will improve access to essential learning materials and it will give our educators the recognition they deserve. i urge members to join ms. shea-porter and me in this fight, and i look forward to working with all of us to ensure that our nation's teachers and our children have the education and the tools necessary to succeed. i thank the speaker for the time and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. recently the reverend billy graham in his latest book talked about the situation that families face and the difficult

circumstances surrounding end of life. reverend graham said refusing to act on the practical issues that confront us as we grow older, or simply ignoring them, often becomes a sure recipe for turmoil and conflict within a family. former senate majority leader bill frist who was a physician long before he entered politics said in a -- an op-ed that appeared on one of the capitol hill publications, in the absence of advanced care planning, patients are much more likely to receive medical interventions that can actually prolong or worsen their suffering and will certainly increase the expense for their loved ones. yesterday i had an opportunity to work with the american society of oncology who dwafe us

-- gave us further evidence. they have a report and recommendations that are coming forward that i think ought to be commended to each and every one of us. they pointed out that palliative is not an either/or choice in terms of therapies. they found one study that email who receive both palliative care d chemotherapy lived three months longer and more comfortably than people who just got the medical intervention. additionally in -- further in their study, they pointed out that it isn't just the patient, it is the people who help serve ill patients who receive palliative care therapy, they suffer less emotional stress.

i.c.u. and hospital deaths are associated with more sirke at trick illness among bereaved caregivers compared with home hospice. yet as they pointed out, the sad truth is that for many insurance companies and our federal government that although patients are entitled to make informed choices about their palliative care and treatment options, our nation's health care system currently places no value on conversations that can guide these decisions. it's true, medicare will pay 00,000 on a complex surgical procedure on a 90-year-old woman with terminal cancer, but it won't pay $200 for her and her

family to understand the circumstances that they face. understand what their choices are. and make sure that their choices, whatever they are, are respected. it, frankly, is embarrassing to me that congress and the administration have not been able to respond to an issue that is supported by 90% of the american public, that will cost no money, and will assure that patients receive better treatment and we reduce the stress on their families. that's why my friend, congressman phil roe, himself a physician from tennessee, and i have introduced the personalize your care act, h.r. 1173. this would provide for voluntary consultation, advanced care

planning, and medicare and medicaid every five years or in case there's a change in health status. it would provide grants to establish or expand physician orders for life sustaining treatment programs. require that certified electronic health records display current advanced directives and physician orders for life sustaining treatment. what people want, and help make sure that their wishes follow them when they cross state lines. currently we have over 50 bipartisan co-sponsors of this simple, commonsense approach to give american families what they need and what they say they want. i would strongly urge my colleagues to look at this legislation, to join us in co-sponsoring it, and move in congress and with the administration to remedy this serious oversight. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. wagner, for five minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the enforce act. when crafting the timeless document that is our constitution, the founding fathers emphasized the need to prevent the emergence of an imperial monarch. in their wisdom they gave congress the power to make laws and cast the president with the responsibility to enforce those laws. not just the laws he agrees with or the laws that are politically convenient, but every law. mr. speaker, president obama has not lived up to this responsibility. by picking and choosing which laws are worthy of enforcement, this administration is undermining the very foundation of our representative democracy. the enforce act seeks to restore

the balance of powers that the framers of our constitution envisioned. the constitution grants congress not the president the power to make the laws. mr. speaker, this is why i support the enforce act to provide congress with the ability to push back against the obama administration's executive overreach. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, for five minutes. mr. cleaver: request permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes you just have to say enough is enough. i stand before you today in the hopes that we can come together and understand that today is

that day. enough is enough. federal unemployment insurance must be extended, and extended quickly. it is time, in fact it is past time. there are now more than two million americans struggling to get some kind of existence in place each day. after having this critical lifeline cut off this past december. the number climbs each day. i could talk to you about the human toll of this disgraceful play of putrid and petty partisan politics like the 57-year-old woman preparing to live in a car. the 34-year-old mother wondering how she will pay rent and feed the kids at the same time. the 47-year-old man who made himself a career in manufacturing but lost his job due to layoffs a year ago and now describes himself, quote, in a panic, unquote.

these and millions of other americans including almost 35,000, 35,000 in my home state of missouri alone, are hardworking people who have played by the rules and found themselves out of work through no fault of their own. and now new data shows that some 200,000 of those who have been brushed aside are veterans. they have gone to iraq. they have gone to afghanistan. these are men and women we should not throw aside. let's stop the harmful and fact free rhetoric that paint these fellow americans, our neighbors, our friends, our veterans as people trying to game the system. people trying to get something for nothing. people who just don't want to work. rats, shush. it's time for us to act.

the contrary is true, recipients f unemployment insurance are a very diverse group with almost half having completed at least some college, and almost five million, five million of them holding bachelors degrees or higher. the stereotypes don't work here. and when he we stereotype, we move our constituents to collaborate. these are people for whom the stakes could not be higher. these are people who worked all or most of their lives and gotten hit and hit hard in the recession that ominously hit in 2008. these are people who want to work, spend their days trying to find work, and now are slowly sinking into a financial abyss while we here in washington play games. sometimes you just have to say enough is enough. there are times when we must just put politics aside and act on what is in the best interest

of the country. it is my hope, mr. speaker, that this congress will act and act quickly. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the world recently lost a great american hero. and one among the last remaining of the greatest generation, colonel jerald f. russell of centre county, pennsylvania. today i rise to honor the life and legacy of this brave combat veteran who is one of only two surviving iwo jeemial battalion commanders. he passed away on monday, february 24, 2014, at the age of 97. it is an honor to have called jerry my friend. it is one of the most decorated marines in world war ii and over 28 years of military service, colonel russell spent a life

serving his country. while his military career was second to none, russell's humanitarian and philanthropic work was equally remarkable. indeed, it was his commitment to service and serving others that made him a pillar for both the nation's military and his local community, which encompasses much of central pennsylvania and well beyond. a graduate of boston college, russell was one of the first alternates for the 1940 u.s. olympic track team in the 800 meters, a sport he loved with a passion. immediately following his completion of his undergraduate studies, russell began his career in uniform when he enlisted in the united states marine corps. during his service, colonel russell took part and played a role in seminal moments in a country's history. one of the youngest battalion commanders in world war ii at the age of 27, russell was responsible for leading 1,000 troops during the first major offensive by allied forces against the empire of japan. the battle of guadalcanal.

russell suffered shrapnel wounds during the campaign after being hit by japanese aircraft during landing. at the ripe age of 29, russell landed in the third assault wave on iwo jima, red beach one, and fought for all 36 days. again wounded during battle, russell went on to witness the historical raising of the american flag on mount suribachi . these are a few of the many remarkable experiences of this amazing individual, mr. speaker. fog his retirement from the marine corps, russell went on to serve others through roles in academia and fill lan drop pi including his associate dean of the college of health and physical education at the pennsylvania state university. during this time and after russell was always a volunteer advocate. he was a founder and chairman of the local united way day of caring, served as a member of the united way board of directors, and played an active role in the pennsylvania special olympics, the toys for cots, and many other programs that benefit

our local community. mr. speaker, in all these endeavors russell inspired so many to give back and push his community to do the same. he led a life of service, sacrifice, and a commitment to others. colonel russell once stated he hoped he would be remembered for the impact that his life had on others and that he made a difference. mr. speaker, i rise today as one more voice among the countless others across pennsylvania and the country and the world to praise colonel russell for doing just that. we thank you for your unparalleled service to this nation and our community, and may you rest with god, my friend. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.