a good addition. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> so if i understand the gentleman, the language is to work for -- or work toward suspension. i noticed the nato secretary general rasmussen raised the possibility of suspending the nato russian council saying it can no longer be business as usual with russia. i agree with that. i think russia must understand that aggression will not extend its influence but will instead lead to economic and political isolation. that is the sense of the amendment. do any other members seek recognition? mr. grayson. >> i think that this is a mistake. what the nato russia council actually does is among other things make it less likely that we go to war against russia. and i think that that is still a valid goal regardless of what russia has done in the crimea. i think most members of this

committee would agree that we should try to avoid war with russia. in addition to that, the nato russia council serves many purposes that are in our direct strategic interests as a country. for instance, through the nato russia council, we have obtained logistical support for our war in afghanistan from the russians. because of the nato russia council, the russians have provided us with logistical support for that war which apparently will continue at least through the end of this year. secondly, through the nato russia council, we have joined with the russians to fight terrorism. up to this point, russians have a very positive and helpful record with regard to fighting terrorism. they have been the victim of terrorism just as the united states has been the victim of terrorism. the way that we accomplish that cooperation is through the nato russia council. withdrawing from the nato russia council or forbidding russia to participate will actually in a sense promote terrorism. in addition to that, the nato russia council has served to

help prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. obviously we need the russians' cooperation if wate're going to have any open of preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. if we suspend the council, where he make it more likely this iran will be on taken a nuclear weapon. therefore, i don't think we should withdraw from the may toe russia council. i don't think we should do anything to harm the proceed tu productive accomplishments of that council. >> mr. chairman, may i respond? >> i'll yield to the chairman. >> that you think. there is nothing that says we would disband it, it says we would suspend it for a time until they full back from their

hostile invasion of crimea. it doesn't say that it would be disbanded or that it would be done away with. it would be suspended. the president has talked about a lot of red lines. i'm trying to make that line just a little bit redder. >> i'll reclaim my time. at this point, it is equally likely that the russians will withdraw from their so-called hostile invasion of crimea and that the united states will withdraw from their so-called hostile take over of texas in the '40s. it's not going to happen. if we do suspend all activities and meetings that take place, we are in effect disbanding the council. that is the reality of the situation. the reality of the situation is that doing this hurts ourselves. hurts our strategic interests, hurts our role in the regionnd and throughout the world. that is a bad thing to do. i'll yield. >> mr. keating and then mr.

sherman. he still has time, absolutely. >> i'll yield to mr. keating, i think. >> i have my opwn amendment pending. >> you're recognized. >> i think we can achieve the purpose of this amendment by stopping it at the word council and eliminating the words until russia ends it aggression against the ukraine. simply say suspend our involvement in this council and i think we need to do that for an appropriate amount of time. obviously if russia withdraws from the ukraine, i'd be the first to want to advivisit the council. but to say we'll suspend forever goes beyond what we ought to do given the importance of the council. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. sherman, i had marked up a suggested amendment here just before we went to you thinking

about doing exactly that. because i think if we just go to the issue of the meeting of the for ministers, and we drop the other reference, i think it's much more likely that we're going to have unanimous concese of this body and i'll suggest that at this time to the gentleman there arizona. that you look at taking the sentence it is the sense of congress that the united states should work to suspend all activities and meetings of the nato russia council, and then that's the end of the amendment. >> that sounds great. >> i ask unanimous consent -- >> i'm not sure whose time it is right now. >> reclaiming my time, i recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson. >> with all due respect, and i appreciate the chairman's efforts to make something good out of this effort by the

gentleman from arizona, it sounds to me like the and he would that is being offered suspend suspends -- would sus accepted all activities and meetings forever. if the gentleman would do it for a limited defined period of time, that would be construct tifd.zited defined period of time, that would be construct tifd.ited defined period of time, that would be construct tifd. but to say will suspend the meetings forever does that seem to me to be a step in the right direction. in fact respectfully maybe a step in the wrong direction. i yield back. >> mr. sherman. >> i would say the word suspend means you suspend for a while. this is a sense of congress. i would think that we would allow the gentleman give him his unanimous consent to change the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield?

the word temporarily suspend would probably satisfy the members of the committee. >> will the chairman yield? >> yes. >> i find that it would satisfy me, however, the grammar police might be upset because of the pl split i split infintive. >> it probably would. but for government work, i think it would probably work. so i'm going to ask mr. salmon for unanimous consent that the salmon amendment be read, as follows. it is the sense of congress that the united states should work to temporarily suspend all activities and meetings of the nato russia council, period. >> i would support that. >> all right. any other members seeking -- yes, the gentleman from

california. >> let me just note that this is exactly the opposite direction that we should be going in no matter even if we change the wording. the bottom line is if we are going to -- if we have major differences with a country like as powerful as russia, which we have to admit has its interests and we have our interests, and there are people -- other people in this game, as well, away the world who would like to see countries that what was the soviet union and now rush is si the united states when they have a problem, it would be a good thing for to us talk things out. what we have here is an example also of what we're doing internationally when you have the g-8 now has removed russia from the g-8, now it will be called the g-7. will chairman, this is the type

of vehicle that we should be promoting. we should be promoting discussion between the top leadersbe promoting. we should be promoting discussion between the top leadersof vehicle that we shoul promoting. we should be promoting discussion between the top leaders of powerful countries to see if we can overcome differences rather than suspending talks at a time when we need to be talking to one another. russia helps us in afghanistan. they have since 9/11 played a very positive role in helping us supply our troops. we need that cooperation. we need cooperation when it comes to -- if we would have had a higher level of cooperation, we probably could have averted the bombing at the boston marathon. we need to cooperate where we can, and when we have differences, we need to talk it out. and to kick russia out of the g8 and not to have a discussion among these top leaders goes against -- is exactly the wrong direction to go. >> would the gentleman -- >> and what it does is give them

the idea what we want is a hostile situation. what we're rushing in to a reigniting of the cold war when we didn't talk to one another. we should be instead suggesting that we all sit down and see if we can work things out at the table rather than simply cutting off all discussion with someone. >> would my good friend from california yield? >> i certainly will. >> thank you very much. i think that right now is the most appropriate time to isolate russia. they have been increasingly with the activities in georgia, now the activities in crimea, they are emboldened by our weakness. >> okay. >> our standing in the world has diminished greatly over the last several years. lots of red lines have been drawn and every time a red line is crossed we draw a new red line. i think that the international community has lost incredible respect for the united states

and our standing needs to be bolstered and we've got to draw a line that actually means something sometime somehow somewhere. >> well, let me reclaim my time and let me just say that i've heard the term georgia over and over again and i will have to say i sat here in this room and i sat and listened to the reports on what had happened in georgia, and we have this russian invasion of georgia never mentioning that the government of georgia had initiated the military reaction two days before the russian retaliation and that the georgians had broken a 14-year truce with russia dealing with two areas which wanted to be, again, people who wanted to be independent and have their self determination. now we can create this fantasy world where that didn't exist, that the georgians didn't attack

them and in fact russia had invaded georgia on its own and we can ignore the fact that the people of crimea want their self-determination and that russia is being an aggressor, but we need to sit down and talk to them and talk to each other and be honest about it rather than being pushed head long into another cold war. that's what i see happening here. believe me, i was a cold war i don't remember. that's when it was the soviet union and that's when communism guided their decision making to put an atheist dictatorship in charge of the world. that's not what russia is today. it's a very powerful country with its interests but it is not the soviet union. let's seek peace with these people and seek cooperation and it will make it a better world, and you do that through talking to somebody at a moment of crisis, not cutting them off and saying, screw you. pardon me. >> i'm going to recognize myself for a moment because i think we

should clarify the operations of the council. it's essentially a meeting of foreign ministers. it has no practical operation. this is a symbolic action to push back. it is not the case that we do not have conversations with the foreign minister from russia on almost a daily basis now, as does -- do the rest of the european union, but the point is that we need to symbolically send a message that in terms of being part of that organization, they are suspended for conduct as we continue the dialogue, and the dialogue is certainly going to continue on a daily basis with russia. this sends a signal to go back to secretary general of the -- of nato, general rasmussen's comment, that it's not business

as usual. i think we do have to send that signal. do any other members seek recognition? >> will the chairman yield? i've already claimed five minutes of time -- >> yes, we'll yield to the gentleman of florida. >> i understand the chairman's point, but i respectfully disagree. you can't have it both ways. either we're talking to them or we're not talking to them. we're not talking to them by shutting off our conversation with them. the fact is that the nato/russia council, the very institution that we're discussing here is the means by which we have obtained logistical support from our war in afghanistan from the russians. that's a fact. the fact is this institution is the means by which we cooperate with the russians to fight terrorism. that's a fact. this is the means by which we try to accomplish nonproliferation in the middle east. that's a fact. we have spent years on this committee, years, trying to make sure that we do what we can to

prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. either we can work with the russians the way we have in the past or we stop that. if we turn them away, if we push them away, if we won't talk to them, if we disband unions like the nato/russian council, the inevitable result will be that we nowhere cooperate, that there is a de facto second cold war and the result is that we lose the benefit to us, to us that we get from cooperating with the russians for nonproliferation. to give you one example, it is simply not able to have any economic sanctions against iran without the cooperation of the russians. if they do not cooperate against iran, the whole regime collapses. i'm not talking about the iranian regime, i'm talking about the economic sanctions. without the economic sanctions we have no hope of prevenditing

nonmilitary means. you can't have your cake and eat it too. we talk to the russians when it's in our own interests with our own strategic objectives to talk to the russians and get their cooperation or we don't. this puts us in the area of not talking to them, not getting their cooperation and hurting ourselves. reclaiming my time. the first point would be we continue those conversations with the russians. the more important point i want to make is i believe the reason the russians cooperate with us on nonproliferation is they perceive that as being in their own self-interest. the reason they cooperate with us on gas in syria is because that is in their strategic interest. that's what nations do. at the end of the day we have -- we have so many forums in order

to continue that conversation that i am convinced the conversation will continue but at the same time to temporarily suspend in terms of the g8 or in terms of this action with nato, it is warranted that we send some type of signal, and this is, i think, helpful in that regard. but any other members seek recognition. without objection the salmon amendment is considered read. during my earlier request we reference here temporarily suspend and stopping after nato/russia council into the language. the question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments at the desk? mr. keating has an amendment. >> mr. chairman, with the ukraine so clearly in the

spotlight, we really shouldn't lose site of the regional pressure -- >> mr. keating -- >> i'm sorry, the amendment. >> the clerk will report mr. keating's amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278. page 4 after line 7 insert the following, and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly, 10, to reaffirm the sovereignty and dependence and territorial integrity including moldova and georgia and to condemn any political, economic or military aggression in the region. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned, the ukraine clearly in the spotlight. we really can't lose sight of the regional pressure from russia, especially moldova and georgia. that's the reason mr. poe and i have put together a resolution offering allies to offer georgia an action plan at the september nato summit.

it's the primary reason why the support for the eastern partnership exists. just as we condemn russia's illegal activities in the ukraine, we must condemn the threats, political pressure on georgia and moldova. in georgia they're forcing communities to part by building illegal fences along the administrative boundary line. in moldova they've threatened to cut off gas supplies as they move ahead with the european union. exactly the same thing they did in the ukraine. at the moment russian propaganda is fanning the flames. we must make clear to the russians that their efforts to balkanize eastern europe will not stand and any further acts of aggression will also bring sanctions. this amendment does that. it also states clearly and unequivocally that the united states will continue to stand not just with ukraine but with

georgia and moldova. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to ask the gentleman a question. does -- so this suggests that if the people of akazia oscettia who were put under george began -- in the same category of georgia by joseph stalin and he, of course, separated them from the other, if those people determine 90% of them voted to become -- they'd rather be part of oscettia abkasia, not part of georgia, that your amendment would be we should not support their right of self-determination and that georgia should have the right to

come in with armed force and keep them as part of georgia? is that right? >> do you have a response? >> yes. clearly as i stated in my remarks off the overall piece of legislation, that there's legal means to do this, internationally and through existing constitutions. what this provides a sense of is when those illegal acts occur, such as did occur in crimea. and that's simply with the state. the distinction i'd make with your remarks is the difference between illegal action and legal action. >> right. so do you believe the george began breaking of the truce with russia and going -- sending their troops into abkazia and ocettia which provoked, which resulted in the retaliation, which we call an invasion of

georgia, that you would say that that was illegal or legal on the part of georgia sending their troops in and breaking the truce? >> will the gentleman yield back? >> yeah, sure. >> thank you. in fact, the occupation by russia in akazia and south -- >> ocettia and akazia. >> that occupation is, indeed, illegal. >> well, i was referring to what caused that situation to arise was that there was -- there was a truce between the abkazia and ocettia were trying to win their independence. they are friends of russia. they want to be part of russia. they don't like the georgians. they're a different religious group. in order to prevent violence from happening there was a cease fire in that area and the georgians broke that cease fire

and sent their troops in two days before the, quote, russian invasion of georgia. would you say then that the georgians were violating the law or they were in accordance to the law when they sent their troops in? >> will the gentleman yield back? >> yes. >> with all due respect, the statute of limitations on joseph stalin has already passed. i think that this clearly deals with the actions that are happening right now and that have happened in the recent weeks with russian illegal aggression and -- >> reclaiming my time and i'll just say that it does come down with an honest disagreement of whether or not people have a right of self-determination and our declaration of independence makes it very clear that that's one of the essential elements of what our country was supposed to be about, is that people have a right through the consent of the governed and a right to rebel if they -- if their consent is not

being adhered to, that we do believe in the right of self-determination. right now what we're hearing is that is not the case, and not just from you but as part of the general debate here. mr. gracon and i obviously believe that that should play a role in america's decision making around the world when people feel they are subjugated and if they want to, again, assert their right of independence or to be part of another country, that's, i think, part of the american experience. i'm sorry that that doesn't seem to be a principle in which we are making our determinations now and this is not -- i don't see this as just some matter of obviously russian aggression and -- nor do i see that it was american aggression upon serbia when we went and bombed serbia in order to ensure that the k o

kosovars had the right to independence from serbia. then again, that's a matter of consistency, but if you'd like to retort to that, please feel free. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank the gentleman. i'll try to stay within 38 seconds we have left and simply state that russia has committed to withdraw its troops from georgia and they have not done that. when it comes to the u.s., the u.s. also has a constitution. we're a country where there is a rule of law and my amendment as the overall legislation deals with the acts of russia in that region, specifically ukraine but also the impending actions and the threatening actions with moldova and georgia. that's as clearly as i can state it. with that i yield. >> thank you. >> i'm out of time. i'll yield my second back to the chair. >> could i go to mr. sherman of california? >> i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment

because i think that this resolution, this bill should be narrowly tailored to meet the immediate needs of the ukraine. the actions in georgia are decades old, the actions in moldova decades before that. georgia is not the ukraine, moldova is not the ukraine. and we -- i have argued in this room that we should not put controversial energy policy into this resolution, and i think we've been successful in having only the minimal and the most least controversial statements about energy. there are those who say the imf reform should be in this bill, and i -- you know, that's -- that's an important cause, but it adds controversy. it's -- the imf reform would have some applicability to the

ukraine, but it's not immediate, targeted, focused on today's situation in the ukraine and as a news flash, a note was handed to me that senator read hase red he may remove that from the controversial bill on the ukraine. we ought to focus this on the ukraine. we'll have plenty of time in the weeks to come to focus on moldova and georgia. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. if you look at this bill so far, we're dealing with the internal politics of riussia, we're dealing with iran. we're dealing with some energy issues. in fact, the issues that deal with moldova and georgia that i referenced in the amendment is much more narrow in my opinion than the other issues that are already in this resolution.

>> had the individual been -- provisions been subject to a separate vote, amendment process, i might have taken this at the same position, but we're going to have a separate vote on whether to offend the principle of focusing on the ukraine and i would like to keep it as focused as possible much as i commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. and he does make a good point. as to the issue of transfers of population and whether the government to be established in the ukraine or any part of it should reflect those who live there now or those who lived there before yjoseph stalin

moved, i think we have to provide institutions for governing those people who live in particular areas now. obviously the movements of population committed by hitler and stalin were wrong and yet we moved an awful lot of the germans out of east prussia, out of celitia and created a new poland on a substantial portion of german territory. the 1940s and prior to that populations were moved wrongfully and whether it is today's poland, whether it is the united states built entirely on conquered territory of the native americans or whether it was the decision of joshua to dispossess the cannon iets and to lead to the state of judea,

those movements of population that occurred before in the aftermath of world war ii should not -- we shouldn't be trying to undo that. those in my district i think recognize that california was built on territory taken from the native americans by the spaniards and the mexicans and then taken by the united states. we're not intending to leave. so, we can talk about how the population in parts of the ukraine is a result of stalin's work, but those who live in any parts of the ukraine including the crimea have a right to live there and a right to vote there even if the presence of their ancestors there is the result of a crime of joseph stall lein. once again, i thank the

gentleman from massachusetts for his amendment and my opposition is modest and reluctant. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i. concerned that we are over extending ourselves as a country by trying to guarantee the off vern at this, independence and territorial integrity of moldova and georgia. i am in support of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of moldova and georgia. i don't think we should give lip service of goals we cannot attain ourselves. i heard testimony are red lines being crossed? maybe we should be more selective in the lines that we do draw whether they're red or otherwise. in 2008 nato promised that georgia would one day be admitted into nato.

moldova is already part of a sister organization of nato. the fundamental purpose of nato is to guarantee the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of its members. if, in fact, nato were to extend itself to moldova and to georgia given the fact that there are russian troops occupying parts of both countries without the permission of the formal central government in both countries, again, for the purpose the russians say, i think this is to a large degree valid, of self-determination of those areas as the congressman from california has already pointed out, in fact, what we would be doing is possibly blundering into war against russia in much the same way that world war i occurred through a web of alliances on both sides causing one country after another after another to say, yeah, fine, i'll join in on that war. in this case, there is a slope. it's a slippery slope, and we

start down that slope when we do things like reaffirming the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of countries when we can't guarantee the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of those countries without going to war. although i understand the impulse to say good things, to try to say things that give us all a warm and fuzzy feeling that we're on the side of riotousness and goodness, in this case it's a real danger. so i would say that the bill is better off without this amendment for reasons that the gentleman from california and the other gentleman from california on the other side of the aisle have both expressed. i yield back. >> we have two other measures to consider in votes about 1:30 so we need to keep moving. i'm going to -- i'm going to ask the question on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

>> no. >> and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. duncan has an amendment. >> mr. chairman -- >> if the clerk will read the amendment. >> i have an amendment and a substitute to amendment r 46. >> amendment offered by mr. duncan of south carolina to hr 4278 in section 28 following, quote, increased natural gas exports at its energy efficie y efficiency, end quote, insert, quote, which could be enhanced by new energy technologies, end quote. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> i want to thank the minority for their work on this in conjunction with us. i believe the language is palatable to both sides and with that i will just yield back and call the question. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and the language here

is following increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency. with that explanation, any other member seek time? hearing no further requests for recognition. the question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. meeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 by mr. meeks of new york. page 18 after line two insert the following, section blank united states leadership in the international monetary fund -- >> the -- the chair reserves a point of order. we consider the amendment as red. >> mr. chairman. >> i reserve a point of order

and recognize the author. >> this is an amendment i fully intend on withdrawing given the mood and everything else that you and mr. engel has worked in, i know if we don't have jurisdiction for the amendment, i will withdraw. >> thank the gentleman. >> the amendment that i proposed, partly being frustrated being in the financial services committee i wish we would have jurisdiction, that we would have an opportunity to debate this and talk about this in the financial services committee in which i was once the chair of the international monetary and trade committee that had jurisdiction under the imf. i believe that congress as a whole needs to seriously consider passing the reforms to the imf as an essential component of a comprehensive assistive package to the ukraine. these reforms would not cost the united states taxpayers anything additional. they strengthen the imf funding

base and ability to lead during a financial crises. the reforms move funds from one account to another but they do not change our overall financial commitment to the imf. if we were serious in our intention to support the people of the ukraine, now is a critical time to strengthen the power in my belief. christ kristien la guard said it's important in the strategic interest in the world and the united states should be steadfast for democracy and economic growth, for helping people of the ukraine. reforming imf quotas is a big step toward that gap. the imf, i believe, is absolutely vital to our national

security. this is critical to our strength around the world and to our national security. the imf is also central to provide economic policy and support to u.s. allies and governments whose failure would jeopardize the united states national security interests and preventing financial crises makes for more capable partners in the fight against terrorism and the protection of human rights overall. and, again, just what we will not be giving up, we would not be giving up our veto power over the imf decisions which provides us with a great deal of influence. implementation of the 2010 reforms and our leadership position without increasing our financial commitment of the imf and failure to pass imf reform legislation more than three

years after we helped design the reforms is undermining our international credibility. and so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do appreciate you withdrawing the amendment because as you noted, rule 10 of the house would grant jurisdiction to the financial services committee so by withdrawing we expedite the process of passing out the bill. without objection the gentleman's objection is withdrawn. hearing no further amendments to this question the question occurs on agreeing to house resolution 4278 as amended. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed, no? >> no. >> in the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it and the bill as amended is agreed to and without objection, 4278 as amended is ordered favorably reported as a single amendment in the nature

of a substitute. staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. we now move to consideration of our two bipartisan sharon resolutions for today. as your offices were previously notified, the ranking member and i propose to consider on block both resolutions and their respective substitute amendments which were sent to your offices last night and so without objection the following items will be considered on block, house resolution 418 urging the government of burma to end the persecution of the muslim rohinga people. and then amendment 97 in the nature of a substitute to house resolution 418 offered by the chairman on behalf of myself, mr. engel, mr. schaab bat and ms. gabbert.

house resolution 494 affirming the importance of the taiwan relations act and amendment 94 in the nature of a substitute to house resolution 494 offered by the chairman, this is on behalf of myself and mr. engel. i now recognize myself to speak on the enblock amendments. house resolution 494 affirms the importance of the taiwan relations act. for 35 years the taiwan relations act has served as the legal framework governing the important relationship between the united states of america and the republic of china taiwan. since the act came into force in 1979, there have been few other pieces of foreign policy legislation as consequential as the tra. indeed, it is the steadfast support of the united states congress that has helped taiwan become what it is today, a

thriving democratic society and a world leader in high tech innovation. today we will consider house resolution 494 affirming the importance of the taiwan relations act. this bipartisan legislation which currently has over 60 co-sponsors reinforces our nation's unwaivering support forte juan and forte juan's 23 million people. as chairman i led two bipartisan delegations to taiwan to strengthen our bilateral relationship. last year i introduced legislation to help taiwan gain a seat at the international civil aviation organization for the first time since 1976. two weeks ago we held the first taiwan hearing in this committee on this -- on this issue of the taiwan relations act, and today we will pass this important legislation to reaffirm our support forte juan.

the amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical and clarifying edits to the underlying legislation. the amendment also includes bipartisan wording by mr. conley to strengthen the underlying language. i want to thank the gentleman for his suggestion and i will recognize him in a moment to explain the language. taiwan maintains significant bipartisan support in the u.s. congress. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. let me speak for a moment about house resolution 418 before we go to mr. conley and mr. engel. this resolution urges the government of bhauurma to end t persecution of the rohinga people and to respect all religious and ethnic people in burma. the rohinga muslim people are

one of the most persecuted people in burma. they have denied the rohinga even the most basic of human rights while subjecting them to unspeakable abuses. according to burma's 1982 citizenship law the ro rohinga not allowed to hold citizenship. since 2012, 140,000 rohinga and oremus limbs have been displaced by rye so by violence. sadly, this is what happens when a government refuses to recognize its own people. in fact, a non-governmental organization based in southeast asia recently disclosed credible documents detailing the full

extent of state involvement in persecuting rohingans. just a few weeks ago the government of burma expelled doctors without borders from the country, thus denying once again the most basic of human rights. the government of burma cannot claim progress towards meeting its reform goals if it does not improve the treatment of rohingan muslims. the united states must prioritize the human rights in its engagement in burma. i suggest we take off our rose colored glasses and see that the progress is very limited. the bipartisan resolution offered by pll mcgovern calls on the government of burma to end the state sponsored persecution of the rohinga muslim people. i am a co-sponsor of this

resolution. we cannot do that with the government while human rights conditions in that country have deteriorate the. i am pleased to offer a bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute and chairman steve shabbat and representative gabbert of hawaii who is also a sponsor and a member of the asia subcommittee. this strengthens the underlying resolution by clarifying the legal status of the rohinga muslim people under the 1982 citizenship law. it brings the resolution up to date by including information regarding the murder of 48 rohinga earlier this year and the expulsion of doctors without borders. the amendment is further amended with language calling the government of burma to immediately recognize the rohinga as an ethnic minority and to grant them citizenship. i urge my colleagues to support

this resolution. i will now turn to the ranking member to speak on the en block measures. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i strongly support both measures, the hrs 148, a resolution introduced as i mentioned by mr. mcgovern. legislation calls on the government of burma to end the persecution of the rohinga people and to respect the rights of all minority people in burma. the plight gets very little attention. please, if the committee is addressing the abuses that other minorities have suffered in burma. let me quote something accord to go 2013 country reports and human rights practices there were, and i quote, credible reports of extra judicial killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detentions and torture and mistreatment in

detention, deaths in custody and systematic denial of due process and fair trial rights overwhelmingly perpetrated against the rohinga. this is the 2013 country reports on human rights practices. as the government of burma transitions from decades long military rule to a civilian government, it's important to hold them accountable for persistent human rights abuses. the killing's arbitrary detentions and destruction of homes have caused 140,000 people to be internally displaced and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee to neighboring countries. if burma truly seeks to rejoin the international community, then it must abide by the human rights principles of a quality and human dignity. i support this and encourage our colleagues to support it. mr. chairman, i commend you for

introducing this, a resolution that affirms the importance and rel will he vengs of the taiwan act. i'm very proud to be a co-sponsor of this act. next month is the adoption of the taiwan corners act. the act has been instrumental in maintaining peegs aace across t taiwan straits and east asia and serves as the official basis for cooperation. i've been to taiwan many times. it's a floor riching multi-party democracy with a vibrant, free market economy. it's authoritarianism. it's transformed the u.s./taiwan relationship from one based solely on shared interests to one based also on shared values. for many years i've been a

staunch supporter of the people of taiwan and i will continue to lead efforts in congress to demonstrate america's support f for taiwan. i want to thank you for working with us in a bipartisan way to move these important resolutions forward. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. engel. we recognize ms. ross leighton for such time as she might con 150u78. >> thank you, so much, mr. chairman. as one of the strongest supporters of taiwan, i also support and co sponsor this before house res 434. with a significant increase in china's defense budget as well as the continued threats, there is no better time to strengthen relations with our democratic ally, taiwan. it is in our national security interest to support taiwan, and i think the best way to illustrate that is to also bring hr 419, the taiwan policy act,

which passed this committee last year, to the house floor immediately. and we must stand up for all people who are being suppressed by authoritarian regime. house resolution 418 calls for an end to the persecution and an end to the persecution of all ethnic and minority groups. the continued prosecution and discrimination as well as the brutal attacks against this minority must stop. i hope that this resolution will help protect the fundamental rights of all ethnic and relichblg gous authorities. thank you so much for the time, mr. chairman. >> we'll go to mr. barra from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in strong support of hr 434. it's incredibly important that we continue to emphasize and

strengthen our relationship with close friend and partner, 20i juan. that was the united states -- according to the california chamber of commerce, we exported over 6.3 blg in products to taiwan in 2012. incredibly important. california has the highest amount of exports to taiwan within the u.s. and taiwan is the seventh largest importer of california goods and services. they're an incredibly important and valued partner with us. taiwan also has a deep cultural connection to the united states. we have have a vibrant and floor riching taiwanese/american community with almost half of them living in my home state of california. in fact, the majority of taiwanese americans also have college degrees and are making incredibly important contributions to our country. therefore, i suggest that nothing jeopardizes the security, social or economic

system of taiwan's people. i yield back. >> thank you. i think mr. grace son is seeking recognition. >> i would like to speak in support of that. it is not possible for us to reverse the russian absorbs of korea -- crimea, sorry, nor should we try to defeat the aspirations of the crimeans for self-determination. on the other hand and at the same token, we should support the taiwanese to be a free and 1e7 rate state not being part of -- absorbed by the larger country, its neighbor, china. there are 20 million plus taiwanese who have a separate culture, separate language and a separate history having been occupied by the japanese for half a century. the taiwanese are fundamentally different and recognize

themselves fundamentally different from their larger -- in fact, 100 times larger neighbor. therefore, we can and should support their desire for self-determination. we've done so going back to the 1940s and i think we should continue to do so. it is possible forte juan to be free and independent. it is possible for us to make that happen and i think we should continue to do so. i yield the balance of my time. >> we go now to mr. sherman from california. >> thank you. i'd like to associate myself with mr. bare are's comments complete with the statistic of the greatest state in the nation. i want to support the bill on taiwan. i've had a chance to travel to taiwan with the chair and some other members of the committee. this is a vibrant community that deserves our support. i'm not sure i'll agree with the

gentleman from florida as to how separate the culture/language is of taiwan as compared to china, but what is clearly different is that on the mainland people live in authoritarian regime and in thailand they have a vibrant democracy that deserves to be nurtured and i yelled back. >> any other members seeking recognition? hearing none, the question occurs on agreeing to the measures considered on block. all those in favor say aye all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the on block items are agreed to and without objection, house resolution 418 is amended and house resolution 494 as amended are each ordered favorably reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes and that concludes our

business for today. i want to thank ranking member engel and all committee members for their contribution and assistance with today's markup and this committee stands adjourned. >> the house intelligence committee introduced legislation to end the nsa's bulk collection of metadata yesterday. that is next. on "washington journal," talking about this a free and her contraceptive mandate case and the health care law -- talking about the supreme court contraceptive mandate case. irs testifiese about the targeting of certain political groups by the irs. taking questions from members of the house oversight committee.

live at 9:30 on c-span3. visa,ives from target and along with the head of the federal trade commission will testify about security breaches. 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. 3. the two top members of the house intelligence committee unveiled legislation that would end bulk collection of metadata under the fisa court. mike rogers and dutch ruppersberger >> good morning. we appreciate all of you being

here and the members who joined us today. first, i want to thank the judge and all the democrats on the committee and republicans, it has been about nine months of intense negotiation to try to come to the conclusions of that we could move forward on an issue that has been contentious, often misunderstood. something that we think protects america. i want to talk briefly about this program. passionately i believe this program saves american lives. we believe it was legal. it was overseen. it was passed by congress. the review committee of section 215, nobody saw any illegal activities or misuse. we know the program served its purpose. was legal. had the proper level of

oversight. it did create discomfort with america. making efforts to call into the united states, we had to have a program that accomplish that. let's begin with how we got there. after 9/11, one of the gaps in our ability to protect the united states against an attack like 9/11 was the fact that we had no ability to find when someone in a safe house in yemen found into the united states for one of the hijackers ended up flying into the pentagon that day. there were seven such calls. that is a gap. with the community decided to do in conjunction with congress was find a way to fill that gap. all the reviews, from the ig to congressional review to the professionals review panels down no misuse of the program.

americans need to buy into this. if we are going to be able to track terrorists calling the united states, what kind of a program we put together that will allow us to maintain the program, and reaffirm the confidence americans have. we believe we have done that. we think we have found a way to end the government's ball collection of telephone metadata and provide a mechanism to protect united states and cap those terrorists who are pulling in united states. we have met with the stakeholders. nine months, met with industry folks. we've spent long hours talking to each other on the committee trying on a right way forward.

i do believe now we have found that compromised. a couple of highlights of the bill. what we will ban under section 215 is the use of fisa to collect local electronic medication records, e-mail, metadata, and internet data, the use of fisa collect bulk to the personnel records, etc. we can go into more detail in the questions. that is the primary concern of the average american super concerned about the government holding large quantities of phone metadata. no content, no names, just the data. we think we have found a way to do that. we can explain it later. i want to allow my ranking member to make comments.

this is a significant step. the white house is moving to our position on this. we have been sharing with them for a few weeks. this is an important step for them and moving forwards we can get on to other important matters. i will turn it over to the breaking member. >> thank you. i want to acknowledge the leadership. we have been working on these issues to protect our country for at least the last nine months. the chairman and others in the committee have had negotiations. we had come to an agreement so that we can have a bipartisan bill. i do want to knowledge to members here today, working on cyber issues. i want to thank him for his input.

also, i want to knowledge thompson and schiff who have worked closely with me to get our issues together. basically, what we're doing is we're listening to the american people. we also know our committee has a responsibility to to protect the american people from terrorist attacks. we cannot let 9/11 happen again. we know that if we would've had information that the 215 would have given us we might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks. we do not know at that time the terrorism was in san diego plotting this attack. what we're doing is, number one, ending all collections. the government will no longer be able to have metadata. the metadata was legally -- but there was a perception issue. the public was concerned that the nsa or the intelligence

community was maintaining information. mike and i knew we had to deal with the perception. people who work at the nsa everyday get up in the morning and feel strongly they are doing the right thing. they're not breaking any laws. there is not one instance in the program anything was illegal. notwithstanding that, we decided we felt strongly we were going to do something to make a difference. as the chairman said, the phone companies now will have this data already, will be taking a warrant, giving it to the phone companies, and then we will pass reasonable articulate suspicion. if in fact there is a terrorist at a safe house in yemen.

if that terrorist called united states, that would be the test we would need to get the information. what is more important in our country, which makes our country so strong, is the process. overseeing the procedures. the courts will evaluate every individual case as it occurs. that doesn't happen now. we have the fbi will provide this information. it has to pass the test -- it has to pass the test at that point. we also want to deal with other issues. transparency.

we think it is important the public knows how important the mission is, and how to work with the military to save our country from terrorist attacks. i'm going to stop now. >> we will open this up to any questions we have. i think from cbs. >> what do you say to people who say their are no safeguards? >> two things. you get two bites of the apple. you have a program review. you have to have a court authorization for the program itself and its guidelines and standards. within a prompt review of the numbers, and we do that for circumstances. these things happen in real time. what the court will do is review each individual selector.

they will approve the program as what qualifies as articulate suspicion. then they will take the information within a short time and make sure it meets the standard. if it doesn't, we require a purge of the information. you get two levels of judicial coverage on the particular search. we are talking about foreign numbers calling into the united states. >> what happens if the court says that was not okay? >> that information is purge. they will do a review. it is required under the law to be purged from the system. >> there is no incentive for the fbi to come to start this process. knowing that if they don't have the test, it will be expunged. there'll be a test. >> they are not getting names in this.

that number would come in. it only gets phone numbers. no names, no addresses. it still has to meet that suspicion test. subsequent to that, if they want to find who owns the number, they have to turn over to the fbi to get their legal standard to find out who owns that phone number. the big change here is a one-time the program would send all this information, put it in a lockbox, americans felt uncomfortable with that and this is the alternative. that is a major difference when it comes to book collection. -- bulk collection. it was -- we think there could be in the future abuse.

that is what we're trying to do. alleviate that concern that there could be abuse in the future. >> let's talk about what intelligence is. getting information, getting enough information for more tests for probable cause or that type. intelligence is getting information and building on that. that is why you have the test. >> just a quick clarification. if what you're trying to do is collection, [inaudible] can you explain why --[indiscernible] >> first of all, we need the program to function. this is a critical program.

to catch foreign terrorists calling into the united states. we believe that the other bills out there doesn't make that standard to protect through intelligence gathering so we can find out who is planning attacks. that was a big part of it. they will approve the program. set the standards for r.a.s. and then when the selector, that means 555-1212, we get that number from afghanistan, pakistan or yemen or fill in the blank of 20-some-other countries and that number comes in and tell you why it's a terrorist, the judge would say here's the requirements you have to meet in order to even submit the number.

they can begin collect in real-time and the court must promptly review to make sure it meets the standards of the court. if it doesn't, all of that information must be purged. >> let me try to answer the sensenbrenner issue and deal with it head on right now. in my opinion, the sensenbrenner bill and i understand what he is attempting to do, it's a good start. but it makes our country less safe. why? i talked about the example of a known terrorist calling from a safe house in yemen. under the sensenbrenner bill, in order for us to be able to have the ability to see who that person is calling and get that information, under the sensenbrenner bill, you have to have an ongoing investigation. that's not an ongoing investigation. right there, we wouldn't have the ability to see who is calling into the united states because we didn't have an ongoing investigation. what sensenbrenner is attempting to do is getting information for a probable cause, for evidentiary hearings, that type of thing.

we are in the intelligence business. we have standards in intelligence. and yet, we understand listening to our constituents who have concern about privacy and we should. we should always be concerned about privacy. what we're doing is attempting to get this information so it can move over sometime and get more information if there are bad guys that want to attack us and take it over to the probable cause sensenbrenner side. >> are you negotiating over prism? what about snowden, is this a victory for him because his claims and concerns were correct? >> his concerns were not correct. this was a legal program that had proper oversight. he had five different places he could have taken his concerns, he chose none of them. 95% of the information he took was related to military, tactical and strategic

information that we now believe is in the hands of the russians. a lot of that information benefits the russians and there is information in there that benefits the chinese military as well. it is important to put into perspective what he did in this particular case, which is create confusion on a legal program. he had no understanding whatsoever of all of the level of protections nor the court-level of protections nor the i.g. inspections and he has do a complete disservice. it created a misperception about the information. after all of the reviews and there has been plenty, the president is now up to two, there has been no abuses in the program or misuse of the information.

the concern always has been, but couldn't there be in the future? we took that to heart and sat down and said we have two goals here, one is to regain the confidence in americans what these programs really are and it's really hard to cut through the misinformation, a lot of unicorn chasing information and it has to meet it against terrorists communicating in the united states. >> why is the potential alleviated by the phone companies holding onto the data? >> there is no new requirement on the phone companies in this bill. they have metadata which is their way of collecting information to bill customers. these are called business records. and the metadata is the way they have billed. when i was in the f.b.i., they called them pen registers or track and trace. this has been going on longer -- as long as the phone has been there.

there is no new requirement there. >> isn't there a risk that the phone companies abuse this the way the government would abuse this? >> the phone companies have access to it today, so we didn't change that. and this bill doesn't require that you hold certain pieces of information. it is absolutely nonbinding on any information. these are records that they already have. there is no new information they have to collect, zero. what we're saying is, just like you would do on other criminal matters is you try to go to the company and say we need to see these business records based on this r.a.s. standard. it happens thousands and thousands and thousands of times a day in criminal investigations today in the united states. so there's nothing new about that. >> how is this different than a national security letter? couldn't you accomplish the same thing? >> the national security letter is an administrative subpoena in the course of a criminal investigation that could either -- it could be intelligence-related but a different legal standard on different programs.

we didn't touch that program. the program we are dealing with today which has the number one concern today in talking to our colleagues and americans, they didn't have a comfort level with the n.s.a. in bulk metadata even though we had huge levels of protection. i believe privacy is better protect, but we didn't change any of that but the way the government collects that information. we didn't change anything at the phone company. >> some of the national media this morning have said that this program will now have the phone companies collecting the data for us. they have that data. under the f.c.c. regulations, they have to keep all of these numbers of all of their customers for 18 months. what we are doing is saying, number one, we are passing the r.a.s. test and looking at each case. that is not the case in the

program. we are going to individually court test. they aren't doing anything different than they are doing now and we are not forcing them other than the warrant which will pass the r.a.s. test. the phone number we need. >> yes, ma'am. >> you had mentioned that you had worked industry in the past five months. what was their reaction to this proposal and are they asking for some kind of compensation for whatever work they'll have to do on their end? how does your proposal differ from what the administration wants to see? >> well, again, we provided -- start with the administration piece first. we have been working on it for nine months. it's within our jurisdiction and responsibility and we believe it's important to talk to all of the stakeholders to make sure that this works.

we believe from what we read in the paper yesterday, unfortunately that's the way we had to read about their proposal. what we read yesterday, they are coming closer to our position here. we think this is a bipartisan well-thought through haggled over stakeholder event and still protects the programs and we were encouraged to see they are moving in our direction. we provided them legislative text a couple of weeks ago and read about their proposal in the newspaper. we had a meeting at the white house yesterday where we tried to get parameters and that was helpful. we are going to get there. hopefully by the end of this week, it will come to an agreement how to move forward. first part of your question -- >> as a democrat, i should respond. we have been working with the white house and the white house

includes the intelligent community. we have had conversations with high levels in the white house. we met yesterday. i believe we are very, very close. the white house understands we need to do something with the issue of holding bulk collection because of the concerns of our constituents. we need to balance to protect our citizens. we know it's a dangerous world and terrorists out there every day to try and kill and attack us or our allies and we had to have the balance and we believe we sought that balance. there are a couple of things we have to work out. but based on the information we provided them and we have vetted everyone. we have vetted the phone companies and communicated with the white house. this should be a team effort. it shouldn't be a republican or democrat. that's why we are standing here in a bipartisan way. the stakes are too high. i believe the white house --

could be one issue and to be honest with you and i'm not sure where that white house is. might be we had discussions -- by the way, we have pre-judicial also and reviewed the procedures. we had pre and post. and we don't have the exact time but once we get the phone number, the courts are going to involved right away, depends how long they will take to get it back. where mike and i are concerned about the pre, we want a flexible system. if that yemen person is calling over and getting ready to coordinate an attack, we are moving right away. the privacy rights of our country are being protected because the courts are involved all the way through. if we can't pass the r.a.s. test, it's expunged. >> is there compensation for what they are requesting? >> no, they aren't seeking

anything new under the law and we don't provide any language under the law for direct compensation. >> they like the fact that they are having a warrant and like the fact they are not being forced to hold the information longer than they would under the f.c.c. there has been a lot of negotiation, but we wouldn't be here now. >> what is one of the reasons for the original n.s.a. phone collection that they needed to store the metadata longer than 18 months and why is the 18 months sufficient now? >> in any one of these programs you have to find a balance. again, i believe the program is legal and overseen and determined by 17 judges 37 times that was constitutional and met all the tests. >> that's u.s. district court and supreme court.

>> and there are hundreds of appellate court cases that reaffirm the underpinnings of this program. the way it was set up protected civil liberties. the five years, we went back and said at some point you have to be able to find a balance. preferably, i started out with maybe we ought top keep the program that has been tested and overseen and can protect civil liberties. we are beyond that. now our number one goal has never been phone collection but how do we catch these people trying to call into the united states and can we do it in a way that prevents another 9/11. that's the bottom line. under the arrangements of what we have, it at least provides us the majority of what we need. it's not everything. we need to understand, when we make changes, you assume a little more risk. i think -- when i look at everything we have been able to put together, i think the risk is a place we can accept as we move forward and try to fill it in with other programs and other

things and our intelligence collection overseas. >> to answer your question why we need the program to begin with after 9/11, it's like finding a needle in the haystack. you need the haystack and that's what the program is all about. and after snowden, there was a lot of mistrust and we have to deal with it. like an official representing our constituents. i represent the n.s.a. these are some of the most patriotic, smartest people and they go to work every day. and believe me, they are not happy they are being criticized for doing something they didn't do. for the benefit of the whole program, country and get the citizens to understand what

intelligence does, we start at number one all bulked out. that's major and huge. but we are going to go further. we have judicial review on each individual case, that's huge. we want to get into the issue of transparency. congressman langevin wants to open up some of the issues in the fisa court and maybe six months after the case, the public review, fisa court decisions. we are listening and we need the balance. can't have security if you don't have privacy and can't have privacy unless you have security. we feel strongly that this seeks the balance. in my opinion, it makes our country less safe because you will never pass the test when we are trying to gain intelligence and have an ongoing information to get information. we can't get there and i could never be a part of that to put our country at risk for another terrorist attack. there are a lot of bad people that want to attack us evidence and it's our job to do it to stop it.

>> can you talk about where the legislation goes from here? >> we had a productive meeting with our two senate colleagues and working with them on a whole host of issues, literally before we walked up to the press conference today. you know, we are feeling pretty good, people coming around a solution. no longer can we be all for it or against it. that is unproductive and it creates an absolute misperception about what isn't exactly happening. the united states government is not listening to cell phones across america and not reading your emails. unless they have a court order through a domestic law enforcement agency to get those. that is a drastic difference from what you mere often talked from politicians and the media. we have to stop all that.

it's dangerous to us protecting ourselves in a more complicated and more dangerous world. so through all of that and all of the conversations, we have been able to bring in republicans and democrats on our side and having great discussions with the senate. there are people who are married to their own particular positions. that's the nature of this beast. the power of the solutions in a bipartisan people that meet the standards that people were concerned about will pass the house and will pass the senate. as i said, the president is not far from our position. and we look forward to putting the final touches on the negotiation to get where we can finally be for something to move through and put this behind us. we have important issues to deal with. i mean this is absolutely critical as we move forward. >> we are going forward in the press conference today to send a message to the american people

that we have a drastic major change that will not put our country at risk. we also have to educate our respective caucuses and we have far left and far right and going to educate them on what this is and tell them what the balance is. we in the intelligence committee know how serious these threats are and they are very serious and we have a lot to do in the area of technology and the area of cyber. not getting off of where we are on this bill, but look at the target issue, the issues that are out there in the future that we are going to have to do. educating our caucuses and get the votes to move forward. we are almost there with the white house. we have some things to work out but in the end, we all want the same thing. >> following up on that, though, is there a time line in which you are hoping to finish this, by the election, by the summer? >> it's going to take on a natural rhythm.

we have other solutions to deal with and just in conversations with members, some members want to look at this and try to make a decision about where they want to be and they wanted to find a balance. our instructions, when we sat down, and said we are going to work this thing out, said, let's find a balance. it was a long path. other national security bills will be on the floor and other issues from energy and commerce that will have to deal with these issues. it's important to put it on the table and say that's what we are working for and build a coalition and get it done. we aren't going to say a time line. we don't know. more people that understand what we have done and what it looks like, the more support we are going to get moving forward. let me get these folks in here.

>> you say that russia has access to the snowden documents, which documents and what's your evidence for that? >> as i said, there is a great defense report, damage assessment report, that details all of the information, a that we believe he has and the fact that at least by those analysts believe that that information, some or all, would be in the hands of the russian intelligence services today. the question is not he is under the influence of russian intelligence services today, the question is when did that start, that seems to be the debate. that means that that information, which is deadly to our military army, navy, air force, marines, some of whom are in combat zones today and some of the information that was

stolen, definitely could lead to the death of soldiers on the u.s. battlefield. it's serious. and i think the media got confused that they got everything he had. that is not true, they didn't get hardly anything that he stole. the vast majority of what he stole had nothing to do with any of the issues we are talking about today. i forget what the number is today, 97%, 95%, you'll related to military, strategic and tactical issues. >> terrorists, especially al qaeda can change their mechanism on how to communicate and those terrorists and al qaeda specialists that we were on and watches where they were going -- it's very serious. snowden took an oath and turned his back.

i would love russia to send him back here. and i can't say -- he's there and i know the russians and i'm sure the russians have gotten all of this information. >> the assessment of the report is grave national security damage, which is the highest indicator that you can have. >> on terrorism, can you tell us where we stand on the hearing next week, what you are trying to accomplish and if asked, will you let other committee members participate? >> i have no interest allowing any members of other committees. this is the regular course of the intelligence committee to do its work and follow up on investigations. this would be the third testimony in front of the committee to try and find the answers on benghazi. i believe a public hearing given the controversy and swirl after

his two classified testimonies throughout the course of the investigation was important. and so i think hopefully this will shed some light and allow him to answer the questions that we know many people have about what he knew and when he knew it. and i have every full faith that he is going to be truthful in his testimony and wim allow us to continue all aspects of the investigation to come to a conclusion. >> who asked for those talking points anyhow? [laughter] >> next question. >> clearly the program did not pass the test with the american public. looking back, do you feel that the program should have been designed as you are proposing now as in the first place so when snowden revealed this it isn't -- - [inaudible]

>> some of the loudest protests on these issues today never read the classified reports that were made available to them. we have an awesome responsibility and every member on this committee knows it and understand it. we talk about it ourselves. it's a burden and privilege to be down there to access the most sensitive things our u.s. government does and a huge responsibility. we believe all of that was accomplished. even though it's not on the committee was made available for them to get questions on it. those on other committees that would have jurisdiction were provided updates, most of which did not take advantage of reading those reports. what i get so offended about in this whole process, those members who say the intelligence committee has run amuck, many members of this house did not do their basic constitutional

function of learning the true operational programs. and that's pretty strong talk, but i believe, because we find ourselves where we are. it was authorized by congress and then reviewed by congress. all of their operations were sent up to committees, to the appropriate committee. the expanded members were invited to come down and take part of how it worked. this was not -- there is no abuse here. no illegality, no unconstitutionality. >> i think that the first issue is that we are the best country in the world. mike and i travel to hot spots all over the world and one of the reasons is because our forefathers made a system of check and balances. we are the type of people that

this could be better. what has happened here as a result of snowden and turn a negative into a positive, we have a debate that has been going on and that debate is dealing with privacy versus security and that's a good debate to have. but we have to do what is right and get to the facts. and i think right now because of the perception issue, absolutely no illegality whatsoever but perhaps of the perception issue, we want to do better we want the constituents to know they are not violating any privacy rights. i might not always agree with aclu, but i appreciate the fact that they are raising these issues. >> look at homeland security and as a result of what happened in 9/11.

congress reacted right away. congress did -- there were some very smart people and lawyers that reviewed and the program, the minute it was passed by the supreme court, our checks and balances and our system of governing. because of the fact that we in this free country we can debate and make those issues. if we can make it better and our constituents can feel safe for privacy and the fact we are protected against terrorist attacks, we will continue to do that. that's why we are the best country in the world. >> to say there is no debate on this program is wrong. we had plenty of debates in our committee, senate committees and other jurisdiction committees.

there were debates on these programs. and i supported it when it was classified and i support it today. i think that's important. some people disagreed and didn't like it but at the end of the day, the consensus was important program and fills an important gap and have a tremendous amount of oversight. if the i.r.s. had this kind of oversight we would all be getting refund checks. that's why those of us who believe in civil liberties and our constitutional obligation believe it passed all the tests required including the judicial review. a, technology has changed when it started and the way we investigate overseas, incredibly since i have been on the committee the last 10 years. that's an unfair premise to what is a conclusion here today that candidly we are changing the program based on a perception, not a reality, which is why we have classified information in the first place.

we have to put ourselves in a policy that protects america. we found it in this program. some people disagree. >> what about all these other programs that were exposed in terms of the n.s.a. leaking encryption? and infection computers with malware? there doesn't seem to be any concern in congress. >> a lot of what has been out there is wrong. great example, the last go-around when the n.s.a. contractor got up and said n.s.a. is stealing economic data for the purposes of espionage is wrong and we didn't do it. it happened at the time when americans were trying to negotiate with europe over a transatlantic trade agreement. and i tell you, there is a lot

of intelligence officials today who will have to go back and every new revelation, knowing he is under the influence of russian intelligence will have to scrutinize it 10 times more than we did. people take it as gospel. it's not. when it came out that the united states spied on 80 million french citizens' phone calls in a period of a month and how terrible, awful and disgusting and the french screamed blood murder. come to find out, that wasn't the truth. that was information that the french intelligence services gave to the united states based on their collection protecting their troops in combat area. that's a big difference than the united states spying on french citizens, which it doesn't do. so the frustration for us is now, i would be exceptionally careful about what you hear coming out of that whole information broker system created by the n.s.a.

contractor, because we don't know, was it under the influence of the russians. if you look at what the russians are doing in the ukraine today, we better shake ourselves out of this a little bit. they have aggressive campaigns and using intelligence officers and special forces officers to run up and down and create huge problems in that particular country. we see the same thing in georgia. amassing troops and heavy equipment. they are playing for real. so this notion that we are going to have this discussion in our coffee shop without any understanding of what is happening on the ground and what the russian intelligence services are doing around the world is irresponsible. there are more russian intelligence agents in the united states today than at the height of the cold war. >> and the other issue, too, what snowden was able to steal from his country, 90% military,

the russians now have that information and understand what our sources and methods are what our strategies are and don't you think they aren't using it and it is a sensitive matter to the whole world and what is happening with putin. >> if this bill is perception more than reality as you said, what do you do to counteract this perception, monitoring, unrelated to deals in china, deals in europe? and you have been talking about what snowden took. is there a fear -- do you have any idea how much more is going

to come out? >> next year at least. >> just the sheer volume that was provided to the media is huge. there are null outlets created for the sole purpose of releasing that information. i suspect that you'll see a tremendous amount of that being released. >> talking about the perception in this country. i'm talking about the perception in other countries? >> one of these is dealing -- our business community was dealing with in europe. and don't fool yourselves, the french passed a measure to make it so they don't have to get a court order to get personal data stored on their systems in france. espionage is a french word. some notion that the europeans are aghast at espionage is just wrong and many of those european countries do use the economics to state-owned companies' benefit, which we clearly don't do here.

we have to start having an honest dialogue and start having an honest dialogue about what is happening. europeans spy on the united states of america. sorry, every single day. what we are trying to do is make sure that we get a balance in the discussion. we have gone to the european union to balance that discussion so that you can really argue on the same set of data points. to me, that's really important. >> let's talk about where we are today, we are talking about unions of america. since world war i, almost every count in this world has some form of intelligence. what we are doing here, we are starting to lead by example, we are showing the rest of the world that we are making changes based on the perception of our constituents that have concerns about privacy. we have more checks and balances of what we do in intelligence than any other country. you just heard about the french.

we have two committees. we have justice, inspector general, we have the courts. that's a lot. i used to be a former investigative prosecutor and you had to have probable cause to get a search warrant. dealing with the united states first. and then we are going to lead by example what we are doing here today. >> on the previous question, do you see any need for reforms for programs in section 702, such aspirin? >> you know, those programs are under different authority. we oversee them. we have lots of conversations about what they are. and that is an overseas-based program. and i don't believe you want to bring that in to some domestic discussion. that is a very program with a very different set of authorities which is heavily overseen by the committee. i'm not sure we ought to try to mix the two.

this is the program that caused the angst. that bulk collection of metadata. we believe it's a pretty big agreement here today that says we found a bipartisan way to end the government collecting in bulk that metadata and found a new way to protect the united states. >> there is a separate matter. there is someone -- many high-tech c.e.o.'s lobbying in washington having concerns about it. you are saying the main problems -- is it as it is sne - >> i don't believe that foreign collection on foreign soil is something that we need to change. it is really important that when we have some 26 countries with ungoverned space and al qaeda is spreading in the way that they are, which means we have more threat streams than ever before and the russians use their intelligence services and

special forces in ways that are really dangerous to liberty, democracy and freedom, including by the way, the gentleman we met who for the sole purposes of living on a farm, the russians separated from the rest of georgia, he was 85 years old and a gun put in his stomach saying don't talk to anybody on the other side of the fence. that is the berlin wall in the middle of farm country. this threat is real and the intensity of it is growing. we met a guy in the ukraine who had his face cut and he was put in a position of -- they nailed with a nail gun, nailed his hands up on the wall for the sole purpose of getting him to confess on videotape that the americans were the ones who gave money to spur the riots in the city of kiev. americans, women seemed to have

missed the boat here that this guy is up to absolutely no good. those programs that allow us to understand what is happening, i think we would be foolish and irresponsible if we disrupted them for any political purpose. i encourage all the members to come down and understand the scope of these programs so i think the misinformation that's being provided out there to whip up the frenzy of americans to think that every phone call is listened to and every email is read, is not true and not happening, is dangerous to our national security. >> let's talk about our ongoing process. it is more in the realm of the president of the united states dealing with the allies and leadership in different

countries. if one of our allies is talking to iran and we can get the information and it's against our best interest, the united states of america is our number one priority. believe me, there are countries out there that would love to find a way if they have been able to listen to our president or policy people. so this is an ongoing process, but we want to maintain it especially with our allies. i want to make sure we do what we can do to find out what russia, iran and these countries are doing. but again, i know the president has conversations with leps of other countries of how we are going to work through this process. when you look back 10 years from now and what we are doing in the area of cyber and technology, we are going to be the pioneers and have a long way as technology keeps evolving through the process, too. this is the beginning stage and trying to get it right. >> just the last point. one of the big differences in 215, somebody asked this question, do you do it pre--

have to get the court to approve every single number prior to get the number or after where you have program review? you create a new standard under the legality of saying that a foreign terrorist will have a different legal standard than a u.s. citizen and i think this is really nuts and ought to deal with this head on. let me give you an example. i left some bad guys out there in chicago, but coming back. >> if i was prosecuting, we would have gotten them. >> you have this other standard. in the criminal law today, i'm going after a crime committed by a u.s. citizen, i get a subpoena and go down to the fope company and say give me these records on this subpoena, never even gone to the court.

what they are saying is some terrorist who is calling into the united states, we want you to have the higher standard, we want you to go to the court to get that number approved before getting that information. you have created two different standards, one for foreign terrorists and one for u.s. citizens. let me give you a great example. if you're -- it's against the law, section 18, title 18, section 1821, to take dentures across state lines that are unlicensed, dentures. what we're saying, the groups that were arguing for this, we are saying it is more important for you to worry about herbie the unlicensed dentist who is taking dentures across state lines and we are going to have a low standard to that and high standard for zawahiri to slaughter 3,000 americans.

we came to the agreement on 215 that you have a program review and then an after-review of each select tore versus what most people want to shut the program down. i think it's wrong to have a better standard for a terrorist living overseas than a u.s. citizen who may be engaged in criminal activity in the united states. we shouldn't go there. wrong way to go. this bill answers that question, takes us to the next place and i do believe and we have handouts with great stuff in this bill that i think will make americans feel comfortable, regain their confidence and encourage our intelligence services to go out there and do their best which is to stop bad guys from killing americans and protect our national security issues.

>> when the order is issued is that administrative order or court-approved order? >> it's an administrative. >> so the f.b.i.? >> yes. >> and secondly, does the phone company turn over not just that selector but the two-hub connection and if so who does that? is that the phone company? >> they would request 555-1212 and that information would come to the n.s.a. based on court review and review after that to make sure it met the r.a.s. test. >> how many would that, over the course of a year? >> each individual case. if there's more information, it could be an actual conspiracy.

they are going to do their investigation and make a determination they need more, they will have to come back and do the r.a.s. test again. >> it's two hops. in the beginning, it's the two hops, but again, getting intelligence, this is where i have a problem with sensenbrenner, in the ongoing investigation, we wouldn't get any of that. you get the two hops and after you do the investigation to move forward, you need to pass the r.a.s. test to get more information. based on your field investigation with the f.b.i., you might want to go to the court and use the foundation of the intelligence to get to the improbable cause. >> no content. this is really important. there is no content in this collection, zero. it's only that metadata. >> no name, no address. and if they want content later,

there is no recording, that doesn't happen. they have to take that information, and have to again rate the case in order to go out and determine who it was if they could build probable cause to get content. those are pretty solid protections. >> we are concerned, we already from pre-court on the process and procedure, but there are those who feel strongly that you need the pre and the post together. our concern is that it would take too long. you need flexibility in the process. but if it turns out down the road after six months or a year, we can always look at that issue pre versus post and make sure we have the correct balance. we have the obligation to protect us. look at the unsophisticated attacks from the two brother in

boston. al qaeda and other terrorist groups are more sophisticated and look what happened there. >> thanks everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] tell you the truth, this year has been very difficult. finding moral leadership our organization needs. every time i have tried to talk about it, about the needs for affordable homes, jack kemp's idea, the need for the minimum wage, the need for daycare centers, raising ideas on both sides of the aisle -- the media has not been interested in that. they want to talk about personal finances. you need somebody else.

i am going to give you that back. we will have the caucus on tuesday. then i will offer to resign from the house before the end of june. let that be a total payment for the anger and hostility. let's not try to get even with each other. republicans, please don't get it in your head you need to get somebody else. please don't get it in your head that you need to get someone on the other side. let's restore to this

institution the rightful priorities across this country and let's all work together to try to achieve them. our nation has important business. we can't afford these distractions. that is why i offer to resign. i have enjoyed these years. you whoeful for all of have taught me things. vapor greeley, "fame is a , popularity and accident,

riches take wings come of who cheer today makers tomorrow. only one thing endures, character." i am not a bitter man. i'm a lucky man. privilegeven me the of serving in the greatest institution on earth for great many years. people of myto district in texas, i'm grateful to you my colleagues. god bless this institution. god bless the united states. [applause] find more highlights from 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page.

america'seated by cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today is a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. house will start off today with members speeches. at noon eastern, the work on the natural resources committee bill. live coverage on c-span. on c-span 2, live coverage of president obama's news conference in brussels with the european union. on c-span 3, the irs commissioner will testify about an ongoing investigation as to whether the irs targeted certain political groups. live coverage from the house oversight committee starts at 9:30 eastern. up on "washington journal." discusses the proposed plan to and the nsa's storage and telephone data.

degettentative diana t talks the contraception mandate case. calls and phone comments and tweets. post: good morning. it is "the washington journal." house in at 10:00. the obama administration says something -- some who have trouble getting insurance from healthcare.gov will have a short delay. those who become part of the will be part of a new category. not d