how many places young women were sexually trafficked in northern virginia. 81 places. i had a group come by to see me from my church asking me to go on a bill to deal with sexual traffic it in thailand, but i stead, it's in tyson's corners, it's in annandale, it's all over. so in the whole area of sexual traffic, lastly in the area of manufacturing and repatriation and bringing jobs back. now the chinese government is fragile, environmental issues are big problems. the chinese people want freedom in 20 years, china will probably be the largest christian nation in the world. they're ready to kind of change this government, so it's time to bring business back into america. there are some of the things,

lastly, i give fattah all the credit. you can't talk to someone who hasn't had a loved one with alzheimer's disease, parkinson's, mr. fattah has taken this initiative. i'm sure the next member will sort of have their own issues as well. >> you spoke of $600 million, you're looking for them to accomplish with their mission can you take a minute to talk to me about that? >> it's important having an asset at the forefront of technology innovation. pushing the envelope, we have privatized travel to the administration and congress's

cooperation in the leadership of frank wolf. we now have multiple companies who will be flying back to the space station. for hours on the floor of the mission control. when the mars rover landed -- to put a human being on mars is what the goal is. it's going to take a lot of know how we're building the biggest rocket ship ever. it's an investment we need to continue to make and lead. by finding our way to space, we find technologies that enhance america's ability to lead globally. and we have -- we've kind of put on the side some of this for too many years. i would say all the way back to

the previous efforts where we have not made the investment we make going-forward into the future. we're pleased with the investments that are being made now. there's a lot of work fork us to do. if we want to inspire our kids. one of the things we know inspires them. is space exploration. and human space flight. a lot of them won't be astronauts, they will study math and science. >> i spent time with the science committee chairman on a regular basis. it's a regular discussion in the texas delegation, as we talk about the attributes of nasa, what the mission is and moving forward. i well remember one of my favorite movies, the rocket boy

s and lamar -- chairman smith is well aware that we need to give a vision of math and science and the attributes therein. i appreciate both of you working to funds those initiatives. i think we can get us on a stem attribute where people who are in second and third grade understand what we're trying to do i think we've gotten away from seeing these things. i saw where the inspector of the fbi passed away. i grew up in an era where they were on on sunday nights. these eras of hard work and honesty i appreciate you paying

attention to that and encouraging that. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate your recognizing me. i an want to thank our colleagues also. for the work we have put into this bill. i particularly appreciate the cooperative nature of the presentation that was made here today. i'm a huge fan of frank wolf also we were together the other day. and i said we had a wolf and a frank, and a fox in the house together. we have to find someone to replace him he's a great roll model for all of us, i appreciate also the emphasis on nasa and on stem programs as

somebody who's been pushing the skills act significantly and knowing that we have a lot of jobs out there that aren't being filled in this country. people with the kind of background that the very stem programs have present, maybe could do a better job of filling them. we have 209 different stem programs in the federal government. i think our money would be better spent if we could do something to consolidate those programs. and possibly get to the students even earlier than we do now. someone who's spent a lot of time in education over the years. i know that's an area where we twrul need to be working. i appreciate the emphasis you all have put on this, i would like to take a personal point of

privilege. in recognizing a guest i have today. reverend charlie martin is going to be our visiting chaplin tomorrow and i asked limb a few minutes ago if he'd like to sit in a little bit on the rules committee meeting. he said he would. i also have javier sosa, who is one of chairman layton's constituents. a graduate of yale university who's been doing an internship program with me. this is not his first time, but he said, can i stay too. he's a glutton for punishment but i'm delighted to have pastor martin here. he lives way out in the country. i mean, far out in the country.

i'm delighted he's here, he's an astute person that cares a great deal about our country and what's happening, i'm delighted he's spending some time with us here in the capital. i have no questions of our colleagues and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to add my welcome to the guests and i -- in a strange twist of irony. a young woman was sentenced to prison for a purchase of guns that she made. highpowered watches that she gave her soul, more like it i suspect gave to a gentleman who spent a lifetime for killing his grandmother. he killed his sister, two firemen, and previously wounded another fireman on christmas eve

in rochester, two years ago. it makes me really sad to think that the amendment that you had, or actually, i guess it was from the administration to ask that gun dealers notify the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms within five days, i don't understand the logic behind not allowing something like. statistics show now that fewer people are buying guns. the people that buy guns are buying more of them. we're particularly sad in our district, and i don't think they're going to be very happy to find out there's something that could have kept that young woman from doing that was turned down by this committee. i hope we can do better than that the idea that it would

burden small businesses i can pretty well assure you business sold guns in rochester wouldn't have minded a bit if they could have saved those three lives. >> there was an amendment offered, was not successful in full committee, under the rule we see it will be brought up and aired again on the floor. >> the public wants it. >> there's an attempt by the leadership of the committee to try to work through some of the challenges around this. this was fully debated. this is something i support. i think there should be notification, but the congress has to be able to work well in this manner, and the votes may or may not add up in the same

column we want them to at the end of the day. >> but you need to try. >> all of these issues, whatever they may be are air ed. >> thank you both. >> thank you very much, mr. wood-all. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i was going to congratulate for pushing for an open rule. since mr. fattah has touched on that it means a lot to me. you don't come up here and say we're the best of the best, we've perfected it. there's nobody else left in the congress to add. time and time again you put in the late hours and the long days and you still encourage your colleagues to -- if they have something they believe will make it better, to give it a shot on the floor and let the votes fall where they may. >> gentleman, judge hastings.

>> i thank mr. fattah for his presentation and i'm appreciative of many of the measures they have put together. i have two concerns i would like to ask them about one is the $15 million cut in legal services and i understand our fiscal dynamics in this country. as do all members of congress and i understand that we have to make priority determinations, but i know the good the legal services program does in this nation, i'll be specific about florida. in an article in today's newspapers in florida, discussion is ongoing regarding

the fact that these cuts are to take place and legal services are going to have to put people out of work. there are 400 legal services in florida. and according to cuts as proposed, 24 of them will lose their jobs. florida as many states in the nation does an incredible amount of pro bono work through members of the florida bar. the florida bar also has a foundati foundation. and it along with some state funds which i might add were also out of the state budget legal services were cut in so far as what the state offers in

this arena and a proposal which i don't have strong feelings about as a member of the bar, our dues are $265. they've been that way for a long time. a proposal to come up with an additional $100 per member is being discussed on both sides people for and against it. some of those funds would not help the foundation which is nearly deplete i'd like to know how you all came to that determination, even more important than that issue all of us know that americans live in coastal regions.

we know that storm surge and the rise in sea level increase the likelihood of coastal flooding. yet the committee abandoned research efforts that i believe americans are greatly in need am i correct that the cut represents a 24% decrease from 2014 and am i correct that it is more than a third or 37% of difference between the administration's request. i hesitate to get too far into the weeds on this business about climate. one of my colleagues in the united states senate has set off a good deal of controversy regarding his comments, part of

which he's walked back. as a person who's been born and raised in florida and witnessing the deterioration. witnessing substantial increases in flooding as late as this past weekend in miami, miami beach florida. countless other places where we experience this substantial increase. i don't know whether it's the moon or the mountain or what's causing it. and i'm not in the business of trying to get into the discussion of whether humans or anybody else caused it. the fact is, it's happening, the fact is that your committee cut

the research in this arena, and i'd like to know why as pertains to both as each of you would be kind enough to address it, i would appreciate it. >> the committee's faced with a zero sum game. we were given an allocation and for every dollar that we give to one place, we take away from another place. the funding is at an all time high, it's never been higher. this country, we are facing decli decline. decline is really a choice. it's not a destiny we have added in money that the president has taken away with regard to nasa. if we fall behind the chinese may beat us back to the moon. the chinese may beat us to mars. we record funding above the administration request on human

trafficking. for a young woman or anyone to be taken in and to be exploited so we are above -- we are above violence against women for too long. it's a zero sum gain. we've tried to treat everyone as fairly as we possibly can. but at the end of the day, we're given so much of an allocation, and everything we do fits into that allocation. if nasa falls behind we're in trouble. many people before they go to bed look at the weather -- many were saved in mississippi, alabama and many other parts of the nation we just looked at the priorities based on how much money we have. >> let me say it like this, we're in the process in which

the administration has made its proposal, the senate will come forward with a proposal. in many categories, our proposal is above the request. whether it's mentoring or national weather service, i could go to a list where it's above, and then there are issues, cases where it's below. and then there are some places where priority has been determined. human trafficking has a major increase in this bill also in this process, there are some -- there's a process that will emanate with a final bill in which i can tell you as we sit here, legal services corporation will be in a stronger position

than it is today. when we join with the senate to have a final bill. there is a process in which the house has a set of priorities, the house has a majority. and what we've been able to do here is to find a way in which we could put together some priorities. it's not a perfect bill. it's not a bill that others who set down would come to. the senate will pass a bill. if you look at how this is happening with legal services over it, each of these years, at the end of the day, we'll be in a better position when we came to the end of the road than at this moment. this is a substantial improvement as we go through it now. >> i don't deny what either of you said, and i have a keen

appreciation for it, and appreciate the fact that you are operating with a zero sum -- a finite amount of monies and i understand that the problem i have, and will continue to have. and while i'm appreciative with what you've done with noah, if i were on the committee, i probably would not -- out of any parochial interest but particularly important with the environment we're in, with russia and china, now having said that at the end of 2020 we won't be able to use their rocket rockets they're inclined to not want to go forward with the effort efforts that some in the world

thought were cooperative. but i come down to just the fact alone that a lot of poor people can't afford lawyers. and a lot of poor people need lawyers. therefore, i would have argued somewhere that i could find funds to come out of other areas of commerce and justice to ensure that legal services would be fully funded. i appreciate where you're coming from, i've seen that same darns. in the environment we're in i'm not sure that dance is going to stand up to the tunes that have been played previously. i have an ongoing concern there i can't express to you the two of you, and anyone how important

the coastlines of the united states of america are, not just florida, but the entirety of our coastlines, i defy any one to tell me any of them are being built up in any substantial way. when i flew out of ft. lauderdale today i looked over and able to see probably as much as i would look forth all the way past pompano beach. it's amazing how many times i've looked there and how much there has been an erosion of soil despite all our efforts. he evidently doesn't live in miami any more, because all he has to do is be there and he

will see the flooding. i don't know how it happened, but it's happening. the only way i know we can do it is with the kinds of things you all have done and researched. in other areas. i made my statement and that's my story and i'm sticking to it. >> the chairman and i voted for simpson bowles. we were in a distinct minority in the house. the reality of these allocations in not being able to meet all of the nation's priorities is because we have not come to grips with how to rebalance the fiscal ship of the country in a way in which we can make the investment that is we need to make. we're not going to be able to lead the world on the cheek and not going to be able to protect

all of the vital interest of the country unless we have the dollars at some point to do it. this is the bill that we're presenti presenting. >> i understand what you're saying, and i understand where the two of you, who i would not be hesitant or do what's necessary to help the people in this cun. i want to share with you, statistics prove just about anything. to turn away from where you are, and to make this brief mention of the fact that the program which i also know has done an awful lot of good in our community in this country is also being cut. just to highlight something, we

have to make a determination whether we want to pay now or later. there are people who have benefited substantially from the policies we have enunciated here i'll give you an example of something that causes me agony beyond reproach. the president proposed and several of us and doubtless both of you, believe that all children in america ought to have the experience of going through kindergarten. i saw a statistic just this past weekend. if it's true, every hedge fund person in this country stands accused of not want to pay the necessary taxes that would allow for that. six hedge fund management. one month of their salary would

pay for the entirety of the kindergarten program we can keep putting the money in all of the hands of a few rich people, and i'll tell you that they will eventual eventually -- they all have bodyguards but they're going to need more going into the future of this country. their country that they own and manipulate us in the first place. that's all. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i want to give a special shoutout to congressman frank wolf, who's been such a leader on the human rights issues we had a good working relationship

in the foreign affairs committee, and the group that he co chairs with our colleague he's been a leader throughout his tenure in congress, and has been the conscience of the house we'll miss his solid values and principle stance on issues that impact the downtrodden and those who feel they have no voice. he gives them a voice. thank you, mr. wolf for everything you've done and on a personal note. megan adwyer from virginia and cameron silverblade. from debbie wasserman-schultz district. thank you, megan and cameron for being with us today. and for helping us out all the

time in our office. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're delighted you're here with us today. you need to come up here more often. >> i want to add to the accolade s for chairman wolf, he's been a friend for the last ten years, we'll miss you, frank and can i ask a question about the title iii bill. mr. hastings made the point, we will reach a point where our ability to co travel with russia to the space station will be exhausted and will we have a way of moving our personnel back and forth from what's been a

significant investment made by the subcommittee over the years by the space station. clearly precedes my tenure in congress it's a significant investment. and we want to see our scientists continue to participate in that endeavor. >> we may have a problem. the administrator did not feel we would have a problem. if you look at the comment from the russians in the last two weeks, they are going to cut off 2020. we do rely on the russians that should not be there. >> we have funded these programs at a high level, and it could be a problem. the rocket was cancel led. he believes they can work this out. it's important to russia as it is to us. if you believe what the russians have been saying, it could be a

serious problem in 2020. >> let me just say, i believe that we are fastly moving to a position where if confronted with this program, america would be in a position to respond. i went out and visited the space x development program in california. where the cargo, california, where the cargo rocket ships were being fitted for human occupants. and they've been testing out their systems. and i think the science that is in virginia, is also developing their capabilities and doing some testing. so one of the things that might be helpful to our country would be to be presented with some challenges. and put on a quicker pace. perhaps the fact that -- with the idea that american ingenuity can figure out how to take human beings from the international space station is defined by the facts. we had a shuttle mission. we know how to do it.

we made a conscious decision in the 2006 cr to move it a different direction. shuttle feed was old. it had to be based on the examination that was commissioned under the previous administration, because of the safety issue. it was decided that the shuttle feed had to be put to bed because it was getting old. and -- but even during that whole period, we were flying most of our astronauts through -- russia was delivering them, and the buildout of the space station using the shuttle. but i think we're going to be in a position to deal with this challenge. i also think that the other issue that's really confronted here is the use of the atlas rocket, the russian-made rocket for -- and whether or not we're going to use an american-made engine at the end of the day, is going to be the next issue as we go forward. but this is a -- it's a challenge.

but that's when, you know, you get a chance to figure out -- that's what diversity is about. it helps you figure out who exactly you are. i think america can meet this challenge. >> i appreciate your confidence. i hope that you're correct. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i've gone out and visited and seen the work and the buildout on this. >> gentleman yields back his time. i want to thank both of you on behalf of the committee. you've both presented yourselves in an articulate way. and i think you've defended your work very well. i know, and you know, that there are people who serve on this committee and who serve as your colleagues that have ideas, that make your job even more difficult. but to defend what you do in the context that you have put it in, and especially doing it together, is important. it's important, i believe, for

the american people, not only to have confidence, whether it be in the department of justice, or the secretary of state, in the department of state, or in the commerce department. each of these are very vital and crucial areas to the success of this great nation. and it makes me feel proud to know that both of you are not just working together, but finding better ways to do i guess what could be said more with less. thank you for your presentation today. if you have anything that you want to leave in writing, we'd love to have it into the record. you're both excused. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i'd like to join in what has been said about our visitors. reverend martin, thank you very much for taking time to be with us today. we normally have a lot of fun up here. today is just fun. but we're delighted that you're here. and for the interns, megan and

cameron, who are here with illiana, thank you for helping us with some work today. i know that you -- there was no free lunch today. you probably didn't even get lunch. but i do appreciate you coming up and trying to work with us, so that we would be able to accommodate, including our next two witnesses, two very dear friends of this committee, and your colleagues that are here. we're delighted that you're here. i see you got your name on the front of your work. i know that often you -- we do put our names on our work. but this would be in reference to your final term in congress. your service, not just to the people of your district, but the people of this country, and the men and women who serve in the military. and i want to join, as i'm sure we go around the room, your colleagues will acknowledge your

strenuous support of the men and women of the military, the purposes of thoughtful content. as you go and sell what we do to the military, and work with them on getting things better. so we're delighted you're here. mr. smith, you're a locker mate of mine downstairs and i see you on a regular basis. i don't want to say i've watched you and mr. mckeon on tv. you're thoughtful and careful in your thoughts. and i think meticulous in the product that we expect to see today. i want to thank you both for being here. if you have anything in writing, without objection, that will be entered into the record. mr. mckeon is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for those very kind words. chairman, ranking member slaughter, thank you for meeting today to discuss our national

defense operation act for 2015. i in particular would like to thank my partner, my ranking member, adam smith. we've had opportunity now of working together for four years. and it's been -- it's really been delightful. he does not back down one bit from his position. he argues very strongly for the things that he believes in. in fact, we almost had a blowup in our markup, and we backed off. and fixed it. and i think that, mr. slaughter, your side should be very happy with him as a ranking member. thank you. but we really have had a great

relationship. and i'm hopeful that you'll continue that, as we go forward. because this, our committee -- members of our committee understand that we really are working for the men and women in uniform. and we really are working for the national defense of this nation. and so everybody on the committee understands that. and that's how it's been for 52 years. and we've passed a bill every year. sometimes people think that because we've done it for 52 years, it's just automatic, we do it, and it just happens. and it's expected. but i think we have great staff. and they do a tremendous job in preparing things so that when we finally get to markup, it looks easy. and that -- and it's not. it's because they do a tremendous job of laying the

groundwork. and that's all of our staff. in fact, i think if adam and i were in a room, and all of our staff was there, we couldn't tell you which ones past the first few are democrats or republicans. we don't deal in that. i'm proud of the bipartisan transparent and inclusive process that our committee undertakes each year. our mark is a result of diligent, bipartisan oversight that's been conducted throughout the year. it was made available to the public five days in advance of our markup. likewise, all of our markup sessions were open to the public and video was streamed live. 95 amendments were offered. of those, 154 were adopted. it passed out of the committee with unanimous support. 61-0. one member left early and went home and went to bed.

in the interest of time, i'm looking forward to your questions and i'll provide a short summary of the bill. it will authorize $521 billion for national defense, and an additional $79 billion for overseas contingency operations consistent with the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement, and the house passed budget. it maintains the ban on earmarks. the bill provides war fighters, veterans and their families with the care and support they need, deserve and have earned. it continues to advance our committee's efforts to prevent sexual assault in the military, increases troop pay, and curbs increase out-of-pocket expenses for military families. it provides the authority they need to support an enduring mission in afghanistan, to continue pressuring al qaeda and its affiliates. while the bill reflects difficult choices, given the limited resources it preserves key war fighter capabilities,

and ensures our armed forces are ready and capable to meet current threats, while preparing for future challenges. the bill guards against achieving false short-term savings at the expense of vital long-term strategic capabilities. it also recognizes that we must get more defense for the dollar, and therefore, includes provisions that tie into the committee's recently initiated comprehensive defense reform effort. one thing i want to say, and i think it's -- we face very difficult choices this year, based on the budget control act, based on the lack of resources, and my principle that i've tried to stick to in pushing forward this year is, keep as much as we could. we were given a budget by the sk and the chairman of the joint chiefs that cut more than we cut.

and i understand -- what i'm hoping is that next year, hopefully, we'll do something about sequestration and get something that we can work with better. otherwise, next year's going to be very, very difficult. with that said, i like forward to a robust debate on the house floor this week. i respectfully request that this committee issue an appropriate structured rule for this legislation that allows for full debate on national security matters, while respecting the house ban on earmarks. i also ask that the rule provide all necessary waivers for prompt consideration of legislation, and that the rule provide for at least one hour of general debate. in addition, i ask that the rule provide authority for amendments to be considered and blocked. thank you for the ability to testify before you here today. i look forward to working with you, and members who are our colleagues getting past the third consecutive defense

authorization bill. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. we're delighted, mr. smith, that you are here. and the gentleman is now recognized. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i want to start by echoing the previous comments. he's been great working with him for the last four years. we work in a bipartisan fashion. neither one of those things are easy. and mr. mckeon has really continued the tradition of -- i'm sorry. and buck has continued -- it's on. sorry. that's all right. buck has continued the tradition of working in a bipartisan way and i very much appreciate that. and i'm always honored to be able to co-sponsor the amendment today in this bill, after buck have served congress very well, particularly this committee. by and large i agree with his comments about the importance of

this bill. it continues to fund our troops who are still at war in afghanistan. the other thing that i really like about this bill is it recognizes that our challenges right now are primarily from terrorism, asem metric warfare. and prioritizes the special operations command and cybersecurity threats. i think it sets the right priorities in that regard. he does correctly point out the challenge going forward. the defense budget is vastly less than we thought it was going to be. you can argue over what's a cut and what's a reduction and an increase. but three years ago, we thought we were going to have a lot more money this year than we do. and certainly, if sequestration comes back next year, it sticks around for the full eight years, there is going to be an enormous amount less money than what was planned for three years ago. that means we have to make changes. the administration put forward a series of changes, in a bunch of different areas. they proposed a brac. they made reductions in certain

compensation. they were going to lay off 11 ships from the navy, discontinue the a-10, and several other -- and to try to make sure we're rearranging the guard issues. for the most part the committee got rid of all those changes. found the money creatively for 2015. the problem is, it creates a bow wave. 2016, 2017, we're not going to be able to do that. so i do think that as we go forward in this process, congress, house and senate, you know, if we don't like the cuts that the administration put out there, we're going to have to put up alternatives. and it's worth noting that the administration asked for 28 billion additional dollars. they acknowledge the budget they were handed from the budget agreement, from this body two years ago, or a year ago, for 2014 and 2015, didn't give them enough money. but that $28 billion is not forthcoming. so they have to live within the budget that was presented to them. i don't think it's helpful for

congress to dock every one of those hard choices and create a bigger bow wave down the road. i'm going to have two amendments on that. one, to forward a brac. i know bracc isn't popular. i know of no rational argument against doing it, other than, oh, my god, i don't want them to close a base in my district. understand, if we don't do the bracc, the estimate came out today that there's $6 billion a year that the military spends on installations and facilities that they do not need, that money comes right out of readiness. it comes right out of our troops. so i think that's a choice we'll have to make. also offering up an amendment to the navy's plan to lay up 11 cruisers and three amphibious ships to save money on the navy side. if we want 11 carriers, we've got to save money somewhere. and by not doing that, by not

laying off those 14 ships, we are raiding the ship modernization account to keep them going. that account's got $2 billion in it. it won't a year from now. if we don't do this layup. there are choices to be made. i look forward to the debate on the floor. but i agree with the chairman once again, i think we've produced a good product. we never forget underlying this bill, it is support for our troops and families. passing this bill continues to give that support, and i urge us to do that. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. both of you spend a lot of time dealing on issues, notwithstanding with the military, but also the men and women and their families. and i know that each of you, each year you come up here, you speak favorably about not just the interaction, but favorably about how proud we are of those men and women. and i know during the hearings that you have, you have regular

visitors. i would like to acknowledge, if i can, a gentleman who has just come in to be a part of this hearing, to watch this hearing. he's from the united states army, the 82nd airborne. specialist lavonne, if i pronounced his name right, is joining us. for those of you who maybe watched on c-span, this young man who's walked in here, appears to be a double amputee. a man who has served our nation, and i'm delighted that he is here today. we don't have -- we will not have him come and make testimony today. but him being here, on behalf of not just his branch of service, the united states army, but also representing what i grew up with, and all of us understanding the 82nd airborne as an important component of our fighting force.

and the men and women, representing the men and women of the united states military today. so specialist, we want to thank you for being here today. the debate that is going on is one where we're trying to determine the policies as we move forward in this next year. and it is the gentleman from washington and the gentleman from california, the ranking member and the chairman, who are bringing together a bill which was unanimously reported out of the committee. and so it's important to note, as you are here today, representing the military, i think it's important for us to note that we're trying to work together. the military looks at congress to do the funding, to work on the policy, and i'm delighted that you're here and joining us today. thank you very much, sir. i've got a question for each of you. mr. chairman, over the last few years, your colleague on

appropriations, mr. colverson, and you last year, spoke about dod and the medical records, as it related to them moving this transition to the va. can you give me an update about that? not the va side, but the transfer of records, and that process that's going on. and really both of you, but mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to you first. >> we have had a couple of meetings with both secretaries, and with both committees. and it's a very difficult thing to cut through that bureaucracy.

the major jurisdiction is with the veterans affairs committee. the problems that we've been reading about lately. but we have worked -- it seems to me that it's a very simple thing. when somebody joints the military, a record is created, and it would seem that it would be possible when they're discharged to just transfer that record to the va. for some reason, it's not that easy to do. and they are now, bob tells me, moving the records electronically to the va. that's a big step in the right direction. i think when you talk to members of the veterans committee, you'll find that's a huge bureaucracy over there, and trying to get them all to even talk to each other is part of the problem.

do you have any more to add on that? >> no. just to stay that we're not where we need to be. the medical -- electronic medical records have not met their promise at this point. primarily because systems do not properly communicate with each other. and that's true between the dod and the va. we're working on the problem. we've got a lot of progress to make. as the chairman said, we have some, but there's a long way to go. it ought to be seamless. one of the hardest problems is when you move out of the dod, benefits, a lot of things transfer over to the va. we have got to have a better method for getting those records over there. electronically is the best way to do it. we've just got to get the systems talking to each other. >> from time to time, at least once a year when you come up here, i know you hear from members about their own ideas, and their own attributes about the things they hear from people back home. i would like to, once again,

without being on record, to tell you i spend a good bit of time in dallas, texas, with veterans, members of our military, people who have served our country honorably, and it wasn't back to world war ii record, it was over the last four or five years in their service. and trying to document what they've done, and move forward. and i will just tell you, you're in more meetings than i. appreciate the time that you do spend on this issue. until it is not just resolved, but until it works the way you think it ought to. i trust both of you. but i remain very skeptical of the department of defense and the va in their effort to effectively deliver what they said they would do. that's not a hit on either one of them, simply a work in progress. but i hope that you will, and the committee, and certainly the staff knows this, stay after

this. there are too many people who want and need this to be fixed faster. faster. but i'm in favor of doing it right. and so i hope that your attention to that detail will be accomplished. and i look forward to watching the results of what you do. and i know you want it just as much as i do. second matter is one that you can either comment on or not. but our great nation was rocked once again when the occurrence of the military shooting occurred in ft. hood, texas. it also happened up here, right two miles from here. and i'm very much hopeful that the department of defense will have a chance to come up with

better answers. i think it's not surprising sometimes that a person or two have lost their way, and will take it out on what we call workplace violence. i can understand that. but for 10 and 12 and 16 and 18 people to be gunned down without defending themselves is a problem. i was in kabul this week. during the break, i had a chance to be with lots of men and women. a good number of them from california. as always, a bunch from texas. and i do recognize that they are in a -- while not a war theater, they're in a war zone. but virtually every one of them had their weapons on them. and i believe that there has to be a look at a policy, because of the problem.

and that policy, i would hope, would be something that you would be a part of. i do not know the status of that. and if either of you would choose to speak about that at this time, i welcome that. otherwise, i'll let someone else speak at this time. i defer to the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your week. i've reported out of committee, and i know that doesn't come easy. it comes hard. i'm holding the president's statement of administrative policy. it's the longest veto message i've seen in my three years here. and -- >> it was just as long last year, if that makes you feel any better. >> i will have to go back and -- it hits those issues that are in fact what you would expect folks to struggle with.

whether or not money can be spent to move guantanamo detainees back to the u.s. whether or not compensation should be slowed for men and women in uniform. whether or not changes should be made to the army guard and system in the absence of a commission report. i want to touch on that one just for a moment. i've certainly heard a lot from my guardsmen and service people back home. folks who love this country, and want to participate in doing whatever is right, whatever the right answer is. but are wondering if we're dealing with a budget-driven strategy, or a strategy-driven budget. and certainly prefer when it comes to national security of america, we're dealing with a strategy-driven budget. and they feel like, and certainly our community agrees with them, that they are a vital part of making that a success. i don't know the challenges that

you all face making the entire authorization bill come together. but it means a lot to me, that in the -- with all of the competing pressures that are upon you, when men and women from back home, who you know, have a love for this country, a love for our armed forces, to speak out and say, we're concerned. we may be moving too fast. we may be moving too far. we want a cause. you all have been willing to listen to that discussion. i'm grateful to you for that. mr. smith? >> the problem with the budget thing is, you know, as i said up front, the administration has said they want more money. so, yes, the budget is impacting our strategy at this point. but that's a choice we all made. i would turn sequestration off tomorrow if i could. but it's there. so we have to make decisions in response to that. the guard and reserve have put

forward a plan to moving around their assets that is set in place to save $12 billion over five years. and i've met with and fielded several phone calls from my general in my state. i said, if you don't like that plan, give us another one that saves the same amount of money. because that's where we're at. we're not in a position to get rid of cuts, and not find savings. so that's the only challenge we have is the budget challenge. but keep in mind, this is the number the congress set. sequestration is going to keep coming for eight years. so if we don't want to see that happen, we'll have to make some changes here legislatively. >> this will be the last bill that i'll get to visit with the chairman on this. it has made my three years in congress easier, knowing that your hand was at the helm. we battled sequestration, being

one of many, very difficult issues we have struggled through and having your voice there was always a comfort. because for all the different directions folks are pulled in, i have never seen you pull in but one direction and that is advocating on behalf of the men and women who voluntarily serve in our service. i am grateful to you for your counsel during these years i've had in congress. >> i'm leaving congress, i'm not leaving the fight. as long as i have breath in me, i'm going to be arguing for more money for defense. because i look around the world, and i'm scared. i mean, we've talked -- you can look at the whole middle east. you can look at what putin's doing in russia. you can look at the problems that we're having with china. i have people almost daily when

i'm here in washington, come into my office from around the world, defense ministers, members of other legislators, and they all have the same question, where is america? are you going to be here? they see the cuts that we've made. in 2010, we made a pledge before the election that we would cut everything we understand were in serious financial problems. and we, the republicans, wrote a pledge that we would cut everything that homeland security and defense. we had 87 freshmen come to town and say, no, everything's on the table. not all 87, but enough of them, that we have since that time cut over $1 trillion out of our defense. for the last couple years and going forward, the next eight, ten years. you don't make those kind of cuts without seriously cutting

our ability to defend ourselves and our interests around the world. and i had the secretary of the navy and the cno and the marine commandant in, and they were explaining to me how we're growing our navy. the secretary said, you know, we're growing the fleet. and i said, explain that to me. and so he tried to explain cutting the 11 cruisers out of our 22 cruisers. we're just moving them into a modernization. we're taking them offline, and then we're going to -- i said at the end of the day, we'll have 11 less than we have right now. he said, no, we're going to modernize 11, and then we'll put them back in. yeah, we're going to have 11 less. i turned to the cno and i said, how many ships do we have? he said, 283. i said, how many next year? he said 273. we're supposed to be trying to have 313, or 330 -- i mean, a

lot more ships than we have, or are going to have. and in the meantime, the same thing, we look at the pacific, and the president talked about a pivot to the pacific. everybody in europe when they came in said, what does that mean? are you leaving us? are you leaving europe behind? no, it means we're also going to put more emphasis on the pacific. but the pay commander explained to us the size of the pacific. you take all the land mass on the earth, and put it in the pacific, and have enough room left over for africa and another africa, and another australia. and we're going to be taking care of that with less ships. next year he'll have 130 days where he has no aircraft carrier. and, you know, these are the ways that we calm problems.

i had a member of the japanese legislature come in and lay out to me how much the chinese have been encroaching into their air space. and how it's really accelerated the last few years. and he showed me a chart. the last time he visited, he's been here four times in the last year and a half, and it went from about four or five years ago 18 times they had to scramble their jets, to this year 400. he said it's to the point now as high as it was during the cold war. so they're concerned. and they want to beef up their defense, their ability to defend themselves. because they don't think we're going to be there if they need us. i think taiwan is concerned. south korea is concerned. you know, it's a very difficult situation that we find ourselves in. and i voted for sequestration. you know, we had a choice. most of our votes aren't black and white, and you can just vote for a good thing or a bad thing. it's choices that are difficult.

in that, if we hadn't voted for that bca, the government would have shut down. i was assured by leadership that we would not have sequestration. well, we got it. and we got it in spades. and we're paying a price. and we -- those of you who are going to be here, i'm leaving, but i'll tell you, if you don't fix sequestration next year, and if we have to -- next year -- i've had a lot of members come up to me and they're concerned about the national guard. they're concerned about the reserves. they're concerned about the warthog. they're concerned about drones. they're concerned about their bases. they're concerned about lots of things. all i can say is, as bad as it is now, next year it won't even be comparable. we truly will next year hollow out our military. and i just hope that some way, you'll be able to work out

something, and change that next year. otherwise, we will no longer be the power that we are right now. >> the chairman will hold me to that commitment, that you won't leave that fight, you'll just leave that contact information as you walk out the door. i'm sure you'll find your phone ringing on a regular basis, as particularly the younger members try to struggle through that. and want your expertise. thank you very much for what you do. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentle woman is recognized. >> i thank you both. and i -- i don't know if you know it or not, but last week i praised you to high heaven on the floor. i hope that hasn't hurt your reputation. i so much appreciated your statement about, we did not need more benghazi studies.

debating in the select committee. and i understand that one of the committees is going to do it yet again, subpoenaed secretary kerry. i don't know how people get their work done, constantly called up before committees here over and over again. but about today, i understand exactly what you're saying. but we are obliged by treaty, are we not, to fight for japan, if anybody attacks them, and south korea, and australia? >> we have seven treaties. five of them are in the pacific. >> right. so whatever -- so they're worried we're not going to be there. i'm worried as to how we're going to pay for it. and i'm really concerned about that. because we have schools and highways crumbling all over the united states. we can't have high-speed rail anywhere in america. we're so far behind. our airports -- you know, we built one airport from the ground up in the united states

since 1972, stapleton in denver. i really appreciated what the first george bush did in the gulf war. he said if we're going to go fight it, you have to give us money. and they helped pay for it. maybe we ought to look at something like that again. . . more aircraft carriers? >> more? >> how many do we have already? >> we have 11. >> and they've -- >> by law we're supposed to have 11. >> they did not cut one. >> and the atn, and the u-2s, you believe they should still be produced? atn and the u-2? i understand that those were recommended by the administration to do away with is this. >> and i support the administration on that. >> do we really need those? i remember when they did the v-12, and they said the only time they could have really used that to any advantage was

vietnam. and it was way too late when we started building them. but i do appreciate, that if you build everything for defense, that it's going to be difficult to find cuts in the budget. >> i'm reading a series of books right now on world war ii. and you know, we were all in in world war ii. >> because of the draft. >> and i was a kid. we went from a very small military to a very large military. >> at the beginning of the second world war. >> very quickly we did that. but we lost a lot of people. >> we did indeed. >> we were putting soldiers -- it just -- it makes you want to cry reading, those people that got sent over there, going through northern africa and then through italy, and then d day. the number of people we lost because of lack of training,

lack of leadership, lack of resources, there were people that land ed -- i mean, we don' want that again. nobody wants that. yet we did it again in korea. and then every time after a war, we've taken our military down, and then we pay the price. they pay the price afterwards. because they have to kind of build back up. we built 87,000 planes in one year in world war ii. >> but we don't need that now. it looks to me -- >> who knows what we need. >> it seems to me we're getting so mechanized and so high-tech -- >> we can't do a thing right now to stop putin. if he wants to take all of ukraine, he's got it. >> yeah, it's all over the place. >> that's right. that's right. and they didn't -- a few years ago they didn't do that. >> but it shouldn't all be on our taxpayers, on our men and

women who volunteer to go. and, you know, we're talking about the va a little while ago. i really think this statement needs to be made. my district, i already had problems with the va when we just had some second world war veterans from vietnam, korea, the gulf, and now in this 10, 12, 13 years of war that we've had, we have maimed between 46,000 and 50,000 young americans with life-altering wounds. >> no, we haven't maimed them, the enemy has maimed them. >> we sent them there. >> we sent them there for a purpose, and they've done very well, and we should have very proud of what they've done and accomplished there. but we didn't maim them. >> but i will tell you that we have to be prepared to pay for that. >> you bet. >> the veterans administration, the contract that we made, is the cost of doing war. and i have felt for a very long time that the whole veterans

administration should be under the defense department. because that's where the money is. and in any case, we have this bill before us today. and i do want to ask, i want to put the policy in. >> without objection. >> let me read just the last paragraph. oh, right. okay. it does say -- i'm sorry. but what he says here, that he looks forward to working with congress to address his concerns, because those are constitutional concerns, including the respect of the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces. so let me put that in the record. and i yield back my time. >> the gentle woman yields back her time. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and having served on the armed services committee now for a year and four months, it's really been an honor to work with both the chairman and the ranking member. it's great to hear from time to time, although banter will go back between the ranking member and chairman, but i think it's always done with such decorum. you can have differing ideas. and you can have differing idea of how to get from point a to point b. it doesn't make either one of them righter or wronger than the other, it's just a different viewpoint. i'll be honest with you, i've heard a lot from ms. slaughter, that really i'm biting my tongue on some of it. but first of all, i want to go and i want to thank you for your service. you know, i've had a son that served in the 82nd airborne for

six years. he's still active duty army. and he was deployed to afghanistan and iraq. but for the grace of god, he came back whole. and there's been so many of our young men and women who volunteered to go into harm's way for this country. and for their fellow soldiers, i will tell you. in talking to all three of my sons that served this country, they do it for their buddies, the guy or girl next to them. they do it for that reason, to make sure they come home. we have been blessed in this country in so many ways. and i will tell you that the armed services, i think, get sometimes not their just due in regards to how you've put us in a position to have all the things that we have today.

going back to, you know, whatever war you want to go back to, those men and women made the sacrifices so that a lot of us could stay home. only 1% today serve. and they do it with great distinction. and i'm very proud obviously, because i have three sons that all are army. and they love what they do. because otherwise i don't think they would do it if they didn't. but the armed services committee has tough choices to make from time to time. and i will agree with the chairman, and i voted for sequestration, and it was probably the worst vote i ever made. as it relates to our military. as it relates to our armed services. it has put us in a position, and mr. smith hit on it earlier, that we've done some things, i think to get us through this upcoming year. but after that, it looks bleak.

when you look at what's going on in the world, it is not safer. and we've had admiral mccraven testify in front of the committee, he's in charge of special operations command, and he was very clear and distinct in regards to what special operations can do. in that there are a number of folks that think they can do it all. like he said, it can't reopen the straits of hormuz. it can't push back north korea if they invade south korea. it can't do things that a major military force can do. in all the generals that testified in front of our committee, and correct me if i'm wrong, i think they've all said that we've done a terrible job in the past in predicting our future combat roles. >> they said we've done a

perfect job. we've been wrong every time. >> i stand corrected by the chairman. so when people say, hey, listen, don't worry about it, it's all going to be asymmetric warfare, it may be true. then again, it may not, because when you see the resurgence of russian and then what china is doing, and today i believe they indicted five or six chinese military officials for espionage in this country as relates to our businesses and our corporations, when you see what's going on with russia, particularly the -- where they are in regards to the black sea, and the denial that they have now of the ability to deny because of having crimea, access to the black sea, it has not gotten safer. and mr. chairman, i worry just like you, and i believe mr. smith does, too, because he

talks about the same issues about sequestration. you've been here longer than i have, and i hate to see you go. because you add a lot of -- a lot of -- a lot of experience, i guess, in regards to how do we move forward. i worry about all the classified briefings that we sit through, and we can't talk about here, and about the threats that face us. i had a son just come back from africa and he said, dad, you know -- and they were training canadian forces in africa. and he said, you know, the chinese are operating strongly in africa. if we pull back from the world front -- and i absolutely agree that we shouldn't be the world's policemen -- but if we pull back, and this is just my humble opinion, that there are so many other actors out there that will

fill that void, whether it be china, whether it be russia, or some other state actor, that it's going to put us in great jeopardy. particularly our friends. we've heard from our friends. and i concur with your statement, chairman, that they're concerned about where are we going to be if needed. and we have great intentions, but if we don't have the ability to project the force forward, we're going to be in a precarious position, i think. so it's really not a question, it was more of a statement. i just want to thank both of you, your leadership on the committee, both from the minority side and the majority side. it's been a great year and five months, i will tell you. the markup that we just went through is painstaking, to say the least, in regards to all the

amendments that were offered by all the members. and tomorrow i'm going to get to handle the rule, i believe, as it relates to the amendments. and that is a process in and of itself. so i want to thank you so very much. and mr. chairman, once again, i want to thank this young man for his service to our country. and lastly, on the issue of the va, you know, we pre-fund the va. i don't think the va has been turned down on a budget request, but what we have seen with the va, and i think all of us as members have had to deal with it, is how they deal with our service men and women when they need them the most. and i think we're seeing that come true now in a number of instances throughout this nation, whether it's in phoenix. we just had an issue down in the

gainesville va hospital. but there's others across the nation that are coming forward. and i think it's just horrendous that -- it's not a lack of money, it's a lack of accountability and a lack of direction by the va to make sure that they're there for guys like you. and that is my heart-felt thoughts on the issue. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i want to thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, as you know, the gentleman, mr. nugent, has accepted the assignment to come to your committee. we felt like, i did, the speaker did, that we would be better served. and of course, you see the kind of service that he's given to be a part of your committee. i appreciate the gentleman's comments very much. i need to notify the committee, the gentleman, mr. smith, left, as excused.

he received notice that he needed to go to the white house. he was going to vote and leave. so i gave him permission to do that. i normally do not do that. and i did not have a chance to effectively communicate it. but we did communicate. so he has headed off. and i want everyone to know that he was not leaving for any other reason. i believe he's been successful at his testimony up to now. but i would want the committee to understand he had to leave and not for any other reason. >> mr. chairman, mr. hastings and i were at that same meeting. i will yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from orlando, florida, is recognized. the gentleman has no questions. the gentleman from louisville is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i didn't get the invitation to go down to the white house, so -- let me just

say, i want to thank the chairman for his service. because we are going to not be able to rely on his services after this term. and that's too bad. the country will recover, but it will be a struggle. mr. chairman, i just want to thank you for inclusion of section 571, under subsection h, which deals with the purple hearts for the soldiers that were wounded in ft. hood in november of 2009. this is important to us back in texas. and i appreciate the careful wording of the amendment, so that it does not alter the importance of the purple heart award. but at the same time recognizes the sacrifice that those individuals have been through. thank you, mr. chairman, i'll yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you once again, not only for the work that you've committed to, on behalf of yourself, the -- your district, but also the hard work from the men and women of this great country.

and you will be missed. you have done an awesome job, but you also deserve a chance to move forward. and i know patricia will be delighted to have you home. i will miss her also, but we're delighted. thank you for taking the time to be here today. the gentleman is now excused. i would like to also acknowledge, i know we acknowledged specialist lavonne who is here. burt caswell, our dear friend of every single member of congress, is here, and accompanying as he does so often the members of the united states military men and women from around the country, who have been in service to this great nation, and are currently either at walter reed or bethesda. i want to thank burt for being here today also. you're excused, mr. chairman, if you choose. i would now be in receipt of a motion from the gentle woman

from north carolina. >> mr. chairman, i move committee grant hr-4660, making appropriations for the departments of commerce and science for the year fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes in open rule. the rule provides one hour general debate, and the ranking member of the committee. the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the rule. the points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21. the rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the rule authorizes the chair to accord priority in recognition to members who have pre-printed their amendments in the congressional record. the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. section 2 provides for hr-4435,

the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015 under structured rule. the rule provides one hour general debate equally dividing control of the chair and ranking minority member on the armed services. the rule gives consideration of the bill. the rule provides that the amendment and the nature of the substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. there are provisions in the bill as amended. the rule makes an order for those amendments in the rules committee report. each amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report and offered only by members designated in the report, shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided by the proponent and opponent.

finally, the rule provides no further consideration of the bill shall be in order, except pursuant to a subsequent order of the house. >> you've now heard the motion by the gentle woman from north carolina, which is the home of the 82nd airborne division. i would yield to the gentleman from georgia for an explanation of the rule. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you'll see what you expect to hear an open rules, and what might be unusual just to get the authorization. for the general debate and seven additional amendments. four on the republican side and three on the democratic side. >> i thank the gentleman for his explanation. in fact, as the gentleman did explain, we will be back tomorrow at 3:00 to consider the other amendments that -- which no decision has been made on. but this was to allow the

opportunity to get started on the floor, and a chance to try and give a more fuller opportunity for debate. with that said, you've now heard the motion from the gentle woman from north carolina. is there discussion or amendment to that? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion from the gentle woman from north carolina. those in fair, signify by saying aye. opposed no? the ayes have it. mr. woodall will be managing for republicans. and mr. mcgovern will be managing for democrats. i would like to once again reiterate our just awesome thoughts for the gentleman from the 82 rnd airborne who represents the united states military today. mr. lavon, i want to thank you for taking time to be with us. we had a debate.

we had a discussion. and i hope that you will be able to know to your colleagues, not just in the 82nd airborne of the united states army, but also in the military, that the men and women of the united states congress are thankful and respectful of the service and the things which have happened to you in your life, and we will continue to follow them. and thank you for being here today. does the gentle woman wish to be heard at this time? thank you very much. any other member of the committee? thank you very much. we'll now be in -- we've completed our work for the day and we'll reconvene tomorrow at 3:00 p.m.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> attorney general eric holder announced the indictments yesterday of members of the chinese military who allegedly hacked into the computers of u.s. businesses and still proprietary information. that is next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal," a look at today's primary elections and an update on the mers virusat the top of the hour. guest: >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs in washington directly to you. we offer complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry.

we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hdmi cuts on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the justice department filed charges against five members of the chinese military unit for hacking into the computer systems of five u.s. companies and one labor union in order to allegedly steal trade secrets. we will hear from attorney general eric holder and officials from the fbi in this 30 minute news briefing. >> good morning.

in the 2013 state of the union address, president obama called theft of corporate secrets to foreign countries and companies " a real threat to our security as well as to our economy." we are here this morning to discuss a matter that proves this threat warned about by the president is all too real. we are announcing an indictment against five officers of the chinese people's liberation army for serious cyber security breaches against six american victim companies. these represent the first-ever charges against nonstate actors for infiltrating the american commercial targets by cyber means. a federal grand jury in pittsburgh has found that these five military officers conspire together and with others to hack into the computers of

organizations in the western pennsylvania area and elsewhere in the united states. the victim entities include westinghouse electric, alcoa, allegheny technologies incorporated, united states steel, united steelworkers union, and solar world. this is a case alleging economic espionage by members of the chinese military. the range of trade secrets and other sensitive business information stolen in this case is significant and the man's an aggressive response. the indictment alleges that these officers maintain unauthorized access to victim computers to steal information from these entities that would be useful to their competitors in china including state owned enterprises. in some cases, they stole trade secrets that would have been particularly beneficial to chinese companies at the time they were stolen. in others, they still sensitive internal communications that would provide a competitor or adversary with insight into the

strategy and vulnerabilities of the american entity. in sum, the alleged hacking appears to have been conducted for no other reason then to get advantage of state owned companies in china at the expense of businesses in the united states. this is a tactic the united states government categorically denounces. as president obama has said on numerous occasions, we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to united states companies were to the united states commercial sector. our economic security and our ability to compete fairly in a global market place are directly related to our national security. the success of american companies since our nation's founding has been the result of hard work and fair play by our citizens. this is how it ought to be across the globe. success in the international market by should be based solely on the company's ability to innovate and compete not on a

sponsored government ability to spy and still business secrets. when a foreign nation uses military or intelligence resources and tools against an american executive for corporation to a trained trade secrets or sensitive business information for the benefit of state-owned companies, we must say enough is enough. this administration will not tolerate the actions by any nation that seeks to illegally sabotaged american companies who undermine the integrity of fair competition in the operation of the free market. this case should serve as a wake-up call to the seriousness of the ongoing cyber threat. these criminal charges represent a groundbreaking strip forward -- step forward in addressing the threat. this makes clear that state actors who engage in economic espionage even over the internet from faraway places like shanghai will be exposed for their criminal conduct and

sought for apprehension and prosecution in an american court of law. with that, it's my pleasure to senate -- turn it over to the assistant attorney general, john carlin. >> thank you, sir. the national security division's mission is to protect our nations security by using every legal tool available to confront and defeat threats to our country. that tool today is an indictment backed by the independence and credibility of our criminal justice system. the threat is from members of unit 61398 of the chinese military that targeted the u.s. right at sector for commercial advantage. we alleged that members of unit 61398 conspired to hack into computers of six u.s. victims and still information that would provide an economic advantage to the victim's competitors including chinese state-owned enterprises.

in the past, when we brought concerns such as these to chinese government officials, they responded to publicly challenging us to provide hard evidence of their hacking that could stand up in court. today, we are. for the first time, we are exposing the faces and names behind the keyboards in shanghai used to steal from american businesses. thanks to the investigation of the fbi and the hard work of the western district of pennsylvania, this indictment describes with particularity specific actions on specific days by specific actors to use their computers to steal information from across our economy. it describes have a targeted information in industries ranging from nuclear to steal to solar energy -- renewable energy. while the men and women of our american businesses spend their business days innovating,

creating, and developing strategies to compete in the global marketplace, these members of unit 61398 were spending their business days in shanghai stealing the fruits of our labor. it shows that the business information that these individual stole including trade secrets would have been particularly beneficial to chinese companies. let me give you some examples of the allegations in our indictment. about the time that solar world was rapidly losing its market share to chinese competitors that were pricing exports will be low-cost, these hackers were stealing costs, pricing, and strategy information from solar world computers. while westinghouse was negotiating with the chinese state owned enterprise over the construction of nuclear power plants, the hackers stole trade secret designs for components of those plants. to be clear, this conduct is criminal and it is not conduct

that the most responsible nations within the economic community would tolerate. at the department of justice and the fbi, we have repeatedly pledged we would do more to hold those accountable to engage in these actions. today, we begin to fulfill that pledge. we will continue using all of the tools at our disposal to pursue those who steal our intellectual property no matter who they are or where they reside. i would now like to turn it over to davidhickton from the western district of pennsylvania. >> thank you, good morning. as you know, pittsburgh has long been preeminent and home to organized labor. as a result, pittsburgh has become the target of state-sponsored cyber intrusions. the organizations targeted by the chinese defendants named in the indictment are united states steel, the largest till company

in the united states, westinghouse, one of the world's leading developers of nuclear power technology, alcoa, the largest aluminum company in the united states, allegheny technologies, a large integrated specialty metals company headquartered in pittsburgh and with united steelworkers union, the largest industrial union in north america and solar world, a leading solar products manufacturing company. these victims are tired of being rated -- raided. it's important for their government to take a stand against criminals who infiltrate and exploit their computer networks. some of the malicious activity described in the indictment appears designed to benefit the chinese owned steel industry. our domestic corporations struggle to compete with china on the pricing of steel and other goods. our competitive advantage has

been to engineer superior, stronger, and more advanced products such as tubular goods, and seamless standard line pipes. these initiatives cost billions of tellers in capital in research and development costs and these computer intrusions enable the theft of this technology and blunt their ability to compete. at the time of these computer intrusions by the chinese military, u.s. steel, the steelworkers, and ati and other companies were involved in trade disputes to address dumping by chinese owned companies through accepted international dispute resolution mechanisms. the success of these entities and trade litigation also made them targets. the hackers stole internal trade strategy, attorney-client

communications, and cost analysis. the conspiracy by chinese hackers targeted each of these entities at critical times such as in the midst of negotiations to build a nuclear power plant or in the middle of a trade case. the effects of economic espionage are far-reaching. obviously, the victim companies lose their capital investments in research and technology. the important message is that cyber theft impacts real people in real and painful ways. the lifeblood of any organization is the people who work, strive and sweat for them. when these cyber intrusion occurs, production slows, plants close, workers get laid off, and lose their homes. this happens in steel towns in western pennsylvania like braddock, mckeesport, and

claritin as well as in many other similar towns and cities in the united states. this 21st century burglary has to stop. we would not stand idly by if someone pulled a tractor-trailer up to a corporate headquarters, cracked the lock, and loaded up sensitive information. hacking, spying, and cyber theft for commercial advantage can and will be prosecuted criminally even when the defendants are state actors. these victim organizations and indeed every organization are entitled to a fair shot on a level playing field in an intensely competitive global market. we thank the fbi for its great work. it took world-class investigators to follow a complicated trail of computer evidence to one building on one block in one city in china. we stand ready to bring these defendants to justice in federal

court in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. thank you. we will now hear from bob anderson, executive assistant rector of the fbi. >> thank you. good morning, everybody. as my colleagues have said, today's actions charging five chinese military hackers for illegally penetrating the computer networks of six u.s. victims demonstrates very clearly that we will not stand by and watch other comp -- other countries stealer intellectual property. it's no secret that chinese government has lately sought to you cyber espionage to obtain economic advantage for its state owned industries. diplomatic efforts and public exposure has failed to curtail these activities. we have taken it to the next step of securing an indictment of some of the most prolific hackers of the 3 poa. these individuals are alleged to

have used a variety of techniques including e-mails that launch malicious software to steal proprietary and sensitive information from our u.s. victims. the victims have suffered significant losses as a result of the tactics. our future is being built every day by the innovation and effort of american workers and companies. none of us can afford to watch it be stolen. we believe that there are many other victims and how today's actions encourages others to come forward and talk with us. as stated earlier by the attorney general and my colleagues, this announcement is a culmination of several years of work by those represented on this stage and many others who are not here today. that includes a task force from the department of justice national security division, the united states attorney's office, the fbi's pittsburgh office, the

cyber division, the counterintelligence division, and the criminal division at fbi headquarters. this investigation has touched 46 fbi field offices in the last several years. it is a landmark case that shows how interaction between u.s. government and private enterprise can succeed. this first indictment of chinese cyber actors clears the way for additional charges to be made. this is the new normal. this is what you will see on a recurring basis, not just every six months, not just every year. it's very clear -- if you're going to attack americans whether for criminal or national security purposes, we are going to hold you accountable. no matter what country you live in. thank you. >> before we take any questions, i would like to make a further

statement. i want to confirm that over this past weekend, there was a series of law enforcement actions undertaken across the globe related to a separate cyber hacking case. working in close coronation with their international partners, we conducted a series of arrests on the other actions targeting the creators and providers of malicious computer software known as black shades which can victimize ordinary americans by stealing and exploiting their personal information. there is an announcement at noon in this matter in new york city so i will refer you to the southern district of new york u.s. attorney's office for other questions related to this case. suffice to say these two cases show we are stepping up our cyber enforcement efforts around the globe whether the perpetrators or foreign governments or civilian hackers, we will not tolerate this. we will be glad to take your questions.

>> [indiscernible] >> it's our hope that the chinese government will respect our criminal justice system and let the case proceed as it should and let justice take its course. we hope that the chinese government will work with us in connection with this and bring these indicted men to justice. we are continuing to remain vigilant when it comes to cyber threats that emanate from china or other countries. >> is it likely that these defendants would ever stand trial in a u.s. courtroom? if it's not, what's the real goal? >> our intention is for the defendants to have due process in an american court of law. that is the intention of what we have done today, to hold accountable people who have engaged in activities that violate american criminal law. that is their intention.

>> do we even have an extradition agreement with china? >> you can never tell how things will play out. we have stated what our intention is and have brought a charging indictment and what is our hope to have these people stand before an american jury and face justice. >> you mention this is the first of its kind prosecution. what tools were available to you to make this happen now in 2014? >> i will defer to the folks who actually did the work. >> i am reluctant to talk about the details beyond what we have shared with you. i am grateful for the leadership of the president and the attorney general and we have both the will and manner and means to achieve what we have put before you and western pennsylvania. >> since these are state actors,

is it possible you bring subsequent indictments against the state entity? >> we are not going to discuss what the possible charges might be brought in the future. these cases are hard. it was through phenomenal work by the fbi that we were able to bring a case that can say by name what people did in -- and the specific actions they took. we hope the conduct. by bringing criminal actions but if it doesn't, we'll continue to use every tool at our disposal. one thing is clear -- the status quo cannot stand an american businesses cannot continue to have their secrets stolen day in and day out. >> in light of the nsa spying controversy and the chinese government's frustration with what happened there, is there any worry that they could retaliate in a legal context and

start filing charges against u.s. officials who spied on china? i assume these guys cannot travel outside china. >> all nations are engaged in intelligence gathering. what distinguishes this case is that we have a state-sponsored entity, a state-sponsored individuals using intelligence tools to gain commercial advantage. that is what makes this case different. >> can you put a dollar value on the information that was stolen? >> it's not possible to put a dollar value at this point. the indictment alleges the threshold required to charge. all of you know what it takes to do the research and development for these new projects to compete in the increasingly

competitive global market and you know what the impact is with these ciber occurring so the dollar value will be substantial. >> is it billions of dollars worth of information? >> i don't know the range but it is very substantial. >> you said the investigators were able to track these actors to a block in a building where they worked and did all of this. was there an opportunity to apprehend them or work with partners to actually bring them to justice to face u.s. justice in a court of law? >> we have been able to chart specific individuals by name. we have mentioned where they work am their department of the people's liberation army 61398. we hope and anticipate that we

will be able to bring them to justice in the western district of pennsylvania and have them have due process and be able to face their charges in a court of law. >> were you able to find them in this building or was this just another government building? the impression i got is that these individuals were tracked down to this particular building on this particular block. why not take them in? >> the building we are referring to is in shanghai, china. we hope that these individuals come to face their charges in a u.s. courtroom but beyond that, i cannot comment further. >> can you speak in terms of the u.s. jobs that have been lost as a result of these kinds of

hackers? >> there is more data on that but i can speak directly from western pennsylvania. we have taken everything that has been thrown at us and western pennsylvania and faced all the challenges of the global marketplace. if you look specifically at the example i told you about earlier and the investments, u.s. steel, for example, bought the plant in texas to compete and they expanded their capability at the mckeesport operation accra cost and expense. this is over and above the research and develop cost. when these intrusions hit and the market was flooded with the low-cost pipe from china come these plants were padlocked and people lost their jobs. it has a real and direct negative impact in the jurisdiction where a practice and the same is true in lorain, ohio. that was another location for

some of this investment to compete. all around the country there has been a real and demonstrable loss of jobs and him -- and negative impact in our communities. >> you say that plants in texas was shut down as a result of the allegations you are making? >> the below cost sales of competitive products and the cyber hacking -- there was a substantial trade case about this in 2009 that you can look at. yes, absolutely, i am saying this cyber hacking leads directly to the loss of jobs here in the united states. >> can you talk about why now? this is something you have been working on for a long time. what made you decide this is now the time to unseal these charges? >> these cases take time to bring. we bring cases when they are at

a point where we can identify individuals or entities responsible for the conduct. in response to a missed opportunity -- you have to keep in mind that the people who were charged in this case have never been in the united states so it's not a question of being able to put our hands on them in the united states. >> they would not have done this presumably without the approval of the chinese state. do you expect the same state to just hand them over? what else can you do to bring them to justice? >> we hope we will have cooperation from the chinese government and we will see what happens. it is in the interest of china to be seen as respecter's of the rule of law. our hope will be that they cooperate with us.

to the extent we don't have that cooperation, we will use all the means available to us to ultimately have these people appear in a federal court here in the united states in pittsburgh and give them due process of american law. there are a range of things we can do and we will employ all of them. >> why now? you mentioned these cases take a long time. a lot of this activity has been going on for a long time. there was some mention that the leadership gave a green light to this case. wasn't a problem in the past to get that greenlight? >> it is really a function of the great investigation that was done by the people who are standing behind me. it took a number of years to do this case together. it was really a function of having to a point where we felt comfortable ringing the charges that we are announcing today and

not as a result of any kind of interaction or problems we had within our government. >> this indictment focuses on certain industries. to what extent, do you see other american industries affected? >> i would express concern about other industries that potentially are at risk not only from china but other countries as well. as we have all indicated, i hope this serves notice to every country in dash around the world that engages in these practices that the united states take this seriously and we will bring charges were for. and take all measures we possibly can to hold individuals responsible for their conduct. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the house is back in this morning for member speeches.

they will work on several members -- measures this afternoon including one condemning the abduction of nigerian schoolgirls, a veterans affairs bill, and the u.s. waterways agreement. live house coverage is on c-span. the senate is back in the morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span two. they will work on presidential nominations this afternoon. on c-span three, federal communications commission chairman tom wheeler will testify on capitol hill about net neutrality in media ownership lie that 10:30 a.m. eastern. primary voters go to the polls in a number of states today including can suck the, georgia, and pennsylvania. we will have live primary coverage tonight on c-span two. >> coming up, an update on the justice department announcement indicting five chinese military officers for computer hacking. we will talk to ben fitzgerald of the center for a new american

security. thy conversation with dr. michael dell about the potential threat of the mers virus and we will take your phone calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter on "washington journal," next. .