thisnt transparency in how is done. we want fairness and balance in how this is done, and that is why i am proud our group of members accepted my request of them to serve. the committee is unnecessary. it brings a heavy opportunity one thing we could be doing is passing immigration reform. june will be one year since the passage of the bipartisan bill in the senate. , onewe are one year later by one, piece by piece. nothing is what we have seen. hoping forpeople legalization and a path to citizenship. 11 million people subjected to deportation every day.

wayperson standing in the of making progress. that would be the speaker of the house. i know in his heart his intentions are good. we just hope that we will see before the one year is out from the senate bill some son of life, some sign of intention, some bill that can come to the floor. scheduledis and even on a bill that could possibly take us to conference. it is clear that their intention is to do nothing and that is totally unacceptable. we have a bill, 200 cosponsors, hr 15, including three republicans. many more republicans told us they would go for the bill. give us a vote, mr. speaker. the votes are there. give us a vote. in another display of industry and dash of indifference to the needs of the people, republicans are proposing to take food out of the mouths of our chosen once again. the agriculture budget would

overrule doctors so that schoolchildren will eat fewer fruits and vegetables and admit moms and babies get more potatoes. potatoes are not a bad thing. it is a stable but it is not everything you need for your diet. it also limits the summer feeding pilot program. it is so important inroad areas. originally designed to deliver food to school children when school is out. school children rely on or custom lunch for essential nutrition. excluding urban children would serve to penalize hungry children because of where they live. this is not who we are and i hope we can work to restore the original intent of the pilot to cover children firm both rural and urban areas.

i salute first lady michelle obama. children can't learn when they are hungry. motivation, as a many children, so in america go to sleep hungry. that is so unacceptable in the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world. many people in government and politics are drawn to it because of that injustice. as we prepare to commemorate memorial day, that beautiful day, especially with our veterans and their families, yesterday, the president forcefully reiterated his commitment to get to the bottom of allegations of gross misconduct at some veterans administration sites across the country. our military leaves no one behind on the battle field.

home, say, when they come leave no veteran behind. the allegations of misconduct that have been made are completely and utterly unacceptable. that behavior will not be tolerated. once we have the facts, and this has to be evidence-based and we know something for sure already, there must be accountability. but we must think in a bigger way about veterans affairs. when i became the leader, before we had the majority, we planted a fight for the veterans. we said this would be one of our top priorities because we owe so much to the veterans. this was in 2007. no, 2005. 2005. veteran service

organizations to see what their priority is. it was a long list and we said you have to prioritize so we know what we have to go out there and fight for in the near term and then add to that list. proposed gotwe republican support, as you recall, at that time. when we wanted to expand the veterans budget and the rest. in the minority, one of the -- veteranrman of the committee, he supported some of our initiatives. the republicans deposed him this year and threw him off the committee. it wasn't until he got the majority in 2007 that we were to do many of the things. advance appropriation so they would not be at the mercy, veterans would not be at the mercy of some other arbitrary ,imetable. the veterans budget so many things over a period of time, it agent orange and some

of the other responsibilities , recognition ptsd of that and the needs for that. it added to the workload of the veterans affairs committee. maybe they don't have the absorptive capacity for it. maybe, when we go to war, we need to think about its consequences and ramifications. you would think that would be a given. but maybe it wasn't. afghanistan,into leave afghanistan for iraq with unfinished business in afghanistan. 10 years later, we have all of these additional veterans. in the past five years, 2 million more veterans needing benefits from the v.a. that is a huge increase. hisd,nie sanders

opening remarks he said policymakers have to consider what this means after the war to veterans and their families. so maybe we just have to take a bigger look. incrementally, it is hard to absorb 2 million veterans in five years. needs like ptsd, agent orange, which we proudly ford to opportunities veterans to get benefits. we have the affordable care act that is out there that is aididing more federal -qualified clinics around the country. maybe we should look at how we deal with our veterans needs in a way that says let's help them closer to home.

whether that is a federally qualified health clinic or some other institution that provides health care closer to home, especially important for our veterans who live in rural areas. -- aftere when we did 9/11, we decided we would establish a new department. notppened to think that was our most efficient work. but it's like a camel. a horse-drawn by a committee. this agency that had so much jurisdiction. that,atever i think of the fact is that we did establish another agency. maybe we should look at the v.a. , instead of thinking incrementally, to think entrepreneurially. how do we get care extra merely v.a.de of the walls of the to our men and women where they live, where they meet and in a timely fashion. hope that the committees

of jurisdiction, the veteran affairs committee in both the house and the senate, the appropriators in both places, maybe a piece of it in the armed services committee could take a look to see how we think in a bigger way about how we meet the needs of our veterans instead of incrementally over time. the incremental approach doesn't work when you get 2 million more vets over the past five years. the absorptive capacity is almost impossible and most importantly, we must meet the needs of our men and women in uniform when they come home. they are our heroes. what hasn't been talked about, we did that day at the senate and yesterday here at the a reception to honor elizabeth still, secretary senator lizabeth stull for her work with caregivers. caregivers inlion our country caring for our men

and women in uniform, our veterans when they come home. many of them with unseen scars. it is such a sad thing. many of the caregivers who were , largely many of them receive no compensation for this. caringillion people are for our men and women in uniform. another consequence of war that probably was not accounted for when we went into the war in iraq. we were goingtan, in. but we could have dealt with it, finished it come instead of starting another war and prolonging another war. but that is another story. if you ask me, i will tell you that. in any event, here we are wasting time on an unnecessary investigation. asyou look at the purpose, spell that in the resolution,

everything in there has been dealt with. and the last thing to deal with is to have better protection at our facilitiesnd across the world and take that up in the proper committees of jurisdiction and where these committees and resources would decided. we have to establish a committee purposest all of the spelled out here. been there, done that. what is the purpose? what is the timeline? what are the milestones of success that we should be looking for? that is why we send people to the committee. not to validated. not to give it legitimacy. but to try to give the american people some transparency, some sense of what is happening here. just a diversionary

tactic for not being able to come up with anything good to create jobs, to grow the economy, to pass immigration reform, to do the things that we really need. pass immigration reform, we would reduce the debt by almost a trillion dollars. we would increase the gdp of our country. it is an economic issue. you can make a business case for it. create jobs, grow the economy, do the right thing. honor our responsibilities to the american people. any questions? yes, ma'am. theou are talking about need to address the bigger problems in the veterans is -- veterans affairs administration rather than doing it incrementally. can you describe more of what you are looking for? are you looking for the veteran affairs committee and the house and the second two look over more operation? in thee is legislation house that talks about some

overhaul of veterans affairs. but i am saying, in that context , we have to think in a big way. because this is a very big challenge. i again, the fact that we can treat people in places other than the v.a. hospital has to be streamlined. we can't have another backlog of people waiting for permission to go to a federally-qualified clinic in their region. there has to be a conference of look at it. but i think a bipartisan agreement on it but let's subjected to the test and see what works. theagain what meets individual needs of those people. i think there are some initiatives already in the works that say overhaul. i am just saying let's think bigger. >> you are looking for some congressional action. >> i said the committees of jurisdiction should look at this.

not calling for a special committee. [laughter] if that was necessary at some point, it would the a more useful use of our time than on benghazi. , speaker boehner was talking about shinseki. not -- he said it is not just the guy on top but everybody below that is at fault here. sort of there is some agreement or consensus to look at the entire system. given that politically the competition has always been who can stay the closest to veterans, how do you create the look at the entire system rather than sneak around the edges this time? when you say tinkering around

the edges, when we had the majority, we did not tinker around the edges. we made some of the biggest progress for veterans in error country since the g.i. bill -- in our country since the g.i. bill. in terms of allocation of resources, in terms of opportunity for our second g.i. our that we had for agentfghan veterans, the orange initiative that is there -- the list goes on and on. in fact, if you want me to, i itl show you a film of how was introduced to the american legion conference several years ago about what we accomplished. it was huge. >> there are more benefits now, but -- >> we are talking about going back five or six years. have had 2e, we million more veterans. what i am saying is let's take a system.the

let's take a look at the system. what we did was drastic. it wasn't incremental. but now with additional 2 million veterans -- and by the way, veterans from iraq and ushanistan are going to cost $4 trillion to $5 trillion in their lifetime. anyourse, that doesn't have of the hidden costs of what it means to caregivers and their families, their opportunity cost of not being able to work because they are a caregiver at home. we have to look at this. politics has no place in this. this has to be in a place that says what is necessary for this person and this person, this person as we look at the staggering statistics to address them so they affect people one person at a time. be goodems to

-- everything is relative, but the purpose of the veteran affairs committee is something that i think both democrats and republicans value and would be willing to work together to go forward. i am impressed by some of what the -- chairman miller said about these issues and of course bernie sanders. you can just imagine. he is so good. but when i went to the american legion to introduce their commander, i was very impressed by the statements made by the republican senators on the veteran affairs committee as well. you want something system why that wouldn't get bogged down. >> the more the public knows about any subject, the better we do at addressing it.

president lincoln said public sentiment is everything. aware sentiment is very and has definite opinions about what is going on now. i think you always have to be hopeful, extend a hand of friendship, see where you can find common ground. this is our responsibility. these are our families, our veterans, eric euros. as i say -- our heroes. as i said, we planted a flag. had the speakership and we could move these initiatives. yes, ma'am. transparency, it took a long time to come together to pass this bill. do you think that there will be further reforms or do you think this bill is satisfying middle ground? copperink this bill is a

mines. they came out of both committees unanimously. john conyers who led the way for the house democrats on judiciary and judge or brewers in conyers'sand credentials are without question here. but all is with the idea that an -- that more needs to be done. >> may i follow up on that? clashes with the intelligence community. that is an understatement. you like to say you have the scars to prove it. some of the concerns -- not just on your side of the aisle, but largely on your side of the aisle -- the language of this reform bill is going to eventually bytion an aggressive intelligence community and very smart attorneys for an aggressive

intelligence community. do you have sympathy for that point of view? many interest groups, including internet companies from your part of the world, have backed away from this bill because of those concerns. >> we had a big, strong democratic vote on our side, not to-one, but almost 2-1 in favor of the bill. this is theo say bill that we would have written, but it is a compromise. it is an attempt to move forward. some of that opposition came late because of some additions that were made after the committee action and i think that that will get some examination on the senate side. but we really have to make sure that, again, we have liberty and security. it has always been the balance. protect people with respecting their rights to privacy. right now, we have liberty,

security, and an american brand name. we cannot have the american brand, which makes america the leader in the world in all of questionedlogy be because of actions that might take place in the intelligence community. >> you have been so clear in the past about how you feel about the intelligence community's congress.s to mislead why is it different in this case? >> here's the thing. let me be really clear. i have great respect for our men and women who serve in the intelligence community across the country. they are courageous. they protect our freedom. many of them risked their lives. and we owe them a great deal. there are those though who are involved in some of these frankly, whatite i was referencing when we had this conversation several years ago, was the direction of the ,hite house, of the bush

especially cheney, white house andaggressive collection interrogation and the rest. and you have no recourse because you can't talk about it. then they can say anything they want about what they told you or when they told you. but what they are doing and you are not at liberty to say, i know you are does -- are doing something other than that. sprangon't thing that from the community. i think that sprang from the dick cheney wing of the white house. i think it was political and that is unfortunate. we got theen majority, we passed legislation to make the intelligence community much more accountable to make the administration, whoever that might be at the time of

bush-cheney, not be unilaterally able to just order things up. the third branch of government, the judicial branch had to be involved in decisions about collection and the rest. you lists ofive the changes that we made. we didn't make every change because we still had to get signatures from president bush. and then when president obama became president, we moved closer to a place that respected our need to protect our security as well as respect our privacy. , the revelations that came out were harmful to our security, to our privacy, and to american brand name of , which we want to be permanent in the world and we don't want to be shut out from that. that would hurt our security. that would hurt our security. so, yeah, no, you don't mess

with the intelligence community without them coming at you some way or another. that is just the way it is. but the fact is you have to speak out. i think that this legislation is an improvement, a vast improvement over current law. is it everything we need to do? it is always a work in progress. >> let me go back to the v.a. >> we will have the harvey milk stamp ceremony at the executive branch in a little bit. we are very excited about that. you talked about the bipartisanship on the committee. there is bipartisan frustration of the veteran affairs committee. responding tonot the subpoena that the committee sent them from some democrats have called for secretary shinseki to resign. are you satisfied with the administration's response to these developments?

is it doing everything it should be? >> let me tell you something about the president of the united states. i have watched people on this issue because this is a priority for us on day one. this president, even before he came to congress, had major concern about america's veterans. of course, when he became a senator, he was part of some of the initiatives we had to do what i said earlier, to increase the benefits and opportunities and services for our veterans. i know this is a high are you ready for him. now he is commander-in-chief. of he sees the ramifications some seeds that were sown a long time ago when you have two wars over a long period of time and many more, millions more, veterans. i know that he is upset about

it. we all know that. we have been told of that. i've seen firsthand. none of us could be satisfied with how you can immediately address some of these concerns. and you have to address them. you have to correct them and you have to take action. and some of that action might be in the courts. this is deadly serious. it -- and general shinseki is a four-star general. i first met him in the field of battle in bosnia. patriot, a person who cares very much about our veterans. he fought side-by-side with them. that, if you change somebody at the time come -- at the top, that means the system -- in other words, this is intrinsic into the system and just changing people at the top

may appear to represent change. but it's the culture. it's the system. and it's the challenge that they face, with all due respect to the v.a. in terms of some of the criticism we have had over the years. they have 2 million more veterans in the last five years. i think they are dealing with it in a very important way. .trong concern looking for evidence. the evidence-based. supporting what commerce one kirkpatrick called for from the inspector general and all of that. let's just get the facts on what this is so that we know. it doesn't mean we are going to find out if these things happened. we know they did. but what is the extent and what is the remedy? decide.it up to them to

when the administrator was there went for four years or something , i thought that might be a sign of some things to come. he was scheduled to leave anyway, just in a few months anyway. but there is a need. the american people care about this. there are needs among the veterans and their families and caregivers, about all of us who care whether in in a public role or personally in our daily lives. a path thatbe on takes us someplace, not just the registering of concern. i have confidence in the white house because i know how much this means to the president. it always has come along before he was president of the united states. be in the meantime, we could passing bills that create jobs. one of the things we need to do for our veterans is to honor

them with our work, honor the sacrifice that they make and build a future worthy of their sacrifice. so when they come home, they can have jobs and they can have education and they can have opportunity, that they can provide for their families, that they are not homeless in our communities. that number is coming down drastically under the obama administration. so let's remember that our veterans not only get their benefits from the veterans affairs committee and the veterans administration, but springs from all of the other things in our society, whether it's social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, living wage, job creation, entrepreneurship, ability to create jobs because they can get credit and they can get contracts from the federal government and the rest.

there is plenty more that our veterans need in terms of their economic success for themselves, for their family, for the children, that go beyond the veteran affairs committee. one we talk about the difference between parties, we are not talking about it. we all value our veterans. i respect that. but the budget we put on the table has an impact on veterans to a large extent. .eyond veterans affairs when we did sequestration, i insisted and others did, too, that we separate veterans out so they were not affected by the -- the veterans administration was not affected by sequestration. however, all the other cuts that are made have an impact on all americans, many of them veterans. , notloyment insurance extending it, many of those people are veterans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are seeking work again. that is just one example. again, we need to honor them

on the battlefield when we are at war. when they come home, leave no voter behind. and enjoy it, observe, have a -- rial day thank you very much. happy memorial day to you. >> if you missed anything of what leader pelosi had to say or how speaker banners remarks, you can see it on www.c-span.org. coming up later, we will go to president obama who will be delivering a speech on tourism. just before 4:00 eastern here on c-span. while we wait for the president's remarks, we will show you a portion of today's washington journal.

host: joining us right now, veteran phil roe. what did you think about the veterans -- the presence actions >> we have a situation where we are treating 8 million veterans, 22 million of us. certainly, the the a system, a lot of veterans rely on that. i thought he was a little delayed in doing that. we have been pushing for these answers for months. finally, a just came in a new story broke about what happened in arizona came to a head. we had been investigating -- we have a small committee, a subcommittee, oversight investigating committee is small and the staff a small so we don't have unlimited resources. congress forn the

five and half years. we investigated a problem with radiation and theories things during the time that did not make the national news very much. this one did because it involved the possibility of loss of life. we will find out that the president did what he had to do. it is difficult to get direct answers from the v.a. it's a large, bureaucratic system. there are 152 medical centers across the country. centersunity outpatient which have served the veterans very well. numerous others -- you have the benefits side. earlier in the show, one of the allers talk about not having enough resources. i have asked the secretary every

year when he brings a budget into our committee, do you have the resources to carry out your mission? his answer has always been, yes i do. he has been very generous -- congress has been very generous. i know there is an independent line. the one committee i said on is totally nonpartisan. it is about taking care of veterans. host: there is a chart in investors business daily. the number of veterans under the care of the ba dropping since 2000. capitals spending increases. is this a volume problem? guest: that is veterans now alive. we are spending more money on each veteran than we did 10 years ago by a lot. about thed you think volume increase from iraq and

afghanistan? west: 77% of the veterans -- that iscare of not it. host: should the secretary have been fired? guest: i like him. i have tremendous respect. if you earned four stars in the met army -- the people i have highly praised the men. having said that, this is happening under his watch. should goink we out and say, you need to be fired now. we need to get fo the facts. the inspector general will do a willjob and our committee parallel that investigation. i can assure you, it won't be a single lens. host: you expect hearings and looking into it yourself?

guest: no doubt about it. host: what do you think about the move? guest: i don't have any problem with the administration having some eyes and ears. if i were the president, i would want somebody there. he has a person, a secretary that should be able to report directly to him. at the secretary has not done his job, he should go. if that has happened. we don't know that it has or has not. i'm glad we have investigated because at 26 centers out there, may not know exactly what has happened. this is what is alleged to have happened. a veteran would come in and ask for an appointment and they would take you and enter your information into a computer. instead of hitting the enter button, they would see you in another area and entered into

another system that was not logged in the general system. .ow you have two veterans one that has a long list of people and one list that gets you in within two weeks. your name is moved over to this list. if that happened, heads should roll. are rewardede based on meeting the metrics that the v.a. sets up. if they get a bonus and the person out there gets a $9,000 bonus. die and somebody got a bonus -- host: the house asking a bill that would give the secretary more flexible the on who to fire. the supported -- do you support it? guest: absolutely. almost everybody supported it. if you were the ceo, if you have somebody in there, you need to have the power to get rid of

those people if they are not doing their job. that is what you do in the private sector. you go ahead and remove that person and put somebody in who can do the job. we give the secretary some extra power. host: some people concerned about the bill itself. guest: i don't know what they are concerned -- i have no concern. i want him to be able to do his job and not hide behind a bureaucracy. the v.a. is a huge system. over 320,000 police. host: what do you think about the voting in the senate? guest: they should pass in the senate. why wouldn't you want to give him the power? if you want to ask questions about the v.a., (202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3881 for republicans.

(202) 585-3882 for independents. (202) 585-3883 for veterans. caller: i appreciate why the gentleman is saying -- even -- my i am a democrat husband is a veteran from the vietnam era. when you schedule your andintments, you get -- this has been going on for some time. it most doctors would not see him within a month's time. he would get glasses and it would be eight months before he would get hise eye exam and it would be eight months before he would get his glasses. they outsourced it. still -- he still

cannot see out of these classes. to wait two months before they will set up an eye exam for him. then it's almost a year before he ever gets glasses. something has to be done. myfar as medical records, husband can't get them. first of all, thank your husband for his service. i served in 1973 and 74. yourtainly appreciate service. i share your frustration. the ba has the ability to outsource that into the private community. -- the v.a. has the ability to outsource that into the private community. some i've problems

myself and you are absolutely correct. you have to get it in a timely fashion to find out. one of the things we will push them to do is allow veterans like your husband to be able to go ahead and if you can't provide glasses and eight months, send a veteran out to the private optician and let him get the glasses in about a week. host: miami, florida up next. public line. -- republican line. caller: my husband is a vietnam veteran with a disability. we're are retired from the federal government. what many people do not understand is, people who work for the v.a., just like any other agency in the government, it does not matter who is the president or who is the head of the agency, the people underneath are the ones that are the problem.

every room are people saying that we are getting a new head of the agency. maybe things will change. things never change. those people do whatever they want because they know nothing is going to happen. veteran.d is a vietnam right now, we found out he has a heart condition. even though it was found out at the v.a., we already made arrangements for him to see a cardiologist outside of the v.a. we are able to have issuance must medicare -- plus medicare. guest: thank your husband for his service in vietnam. i will be going to vietnam in a week for a visit. i'm looking forward to that. many of us have demons we need to flush. we should be about serving veterans.

i agree. we should be about serving veterans. i practiced medicine in tennessee. we have a wonderful medical center about a mile from my front door. i came to

people have talked about how good the carriers. i think one of the problems is it is going to see systemic and health care. it became harder and harder -- i -- it becamedoctor harder for my patients. host: a viewer asked about the role of private contractors. them,, too?after

>> sure, if there's a problem. they would send him over to me. maybe they didn't have an ob/gyn doctor. i would see those patients. sure, if you have someone misbehaving, doing whatever they are doing, absolutely. texas.p next, austin, sorry, that is the wrong line. independent line, hello. caller: i work in the tech industry and we talk about eating your own dog food. i would like to know if you would support legislation that electeduld require our sedatives to receive their health care through the pa system and improve the v.a..

guest: i would go to the v.a. in johnson city, tennessee in a heart -- in a heartbeat. in tennesseears where i am teaching at the medical school and seeing private patients. absolutely, i would. does it mean that there are not v.a. centers around the country that are not doing their job? they obviously are. the management job is the secretary's job. our job is to be sure that we provide the funds they need. by the way, one of the things we have done here that you do in texas is that you have a two-year budget cycle down there. your legislature comes in. you pass the bills and you are done. we are now doing that with

advanced appropriations for v.a. when you had the shutdown last october, the v.a. never missed a link because there appropriations were advanced. we are already talking about 26 he -- 2016 and having money put aside. if we hadn't appropriated the money, if congress hadn't done its job and appropriated the money, they would not know if they could hire a nursery dr. or a technician. now they do. they know they have the money, they can better staff and it is a better system. host: "the washington times" has a front-page story looking at delays, going back to the bush administration. a viewer is asking if this wrongdoing is something new or it has never happened before. guest: it has happened before. i do not know if this particular thing with the list has happened before, but delays have happened.

it has been a chronic problem and the reason is remember, there are 22 million veterans, but only 8 million are served through the v.a. health system and disabilities. it only serves one-third of all veterans. host: as far as being a medical person, other ways to streamline that? guest: i think there are. any system where you get a top-down system, it does not work as nimbly as my private office did. we could move quickly. as the caller from laura brought out, anytime you get into rules, regulations, it is frustrated for me to see how slow it works. it can be done. that is one reason we passed a bill to give the secretary tools. host: does that mean less regulation? guest: if i could be in charge, i would absolutely do that to try to streamline things, and i

would also try to put good people in charge of the v.a. medical center and hold them accountable. that is what we do in our medical center at home, hire a ceo, and if the ceo does not do the job, you get a new ceo. host: delaware. go ahead. caller: hello, to her for taking my call. i wanted to make a couple of comments. if something similar to this would have happened in the private sector, every one of you would be requiring that these people be fired, pensions be taken away, the middle actions action be taken

-- >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. please, please, everybody, have a seat. thank you. thank you. it is great to be here in cooperstown. in addition to just wonderful people, those of you all across america and around the world who have not been here, this is a gorgeous place. by helicopter and had a chance to see the landscape and it looks like a spectacular place to spend a few days, a week, however long you want to stay. i'll bet people would be happy to have you. yet, ih he is not here want to acknowledge the governor

of new york. he had a conflict. he is on his way up but he is really focused on jobs in , you'renew york governor andrew cuomo. i want to thank your mayor for having me and his great hospitality and everybody involved in arranging the visit. we've also got the deputy secretary of homeland security was here. [applause] he is important because he is helping bring travelers to america. it is a great honor to be the first sitting president ever to visit the baseball hall of fame. [applause] the timing could not be better. first off, summer mark sebastian the 75th anniversary of the hall of fame. thomas iomised frank

would check out the place before he is inducted in july. [laughter] i'm so glad i did. obviously, i didn't have a chance to roam around as long as i wanted. but thanks to the wonderful hospitality here, i saw the ball that william howard taft through in the first-ever presidential opening-day pitcher. i saw the white house walker of to bask in and got the 2005 world series win. yes. request, ie's offered a jacket of my own. the mediat with all attention about it, there was also some interest in the jeans i wore that night. [laughter] but michelle retired those jeans quite a while back.

i love baseball. america loves baseball. it continues to be our national pastime. for any baseball fan out there, you've got to make a trip you're -- trip here. as much as i would love to talk baseball all day and with a baseball legend here today, it is hard not to talk about baseball all day long, i am actually here to talk about jobs, good middle-class jobs. believe it or not, places like this institution, the hall of fame, is trying to do with jobs and economic growth. it has been about five and half years since the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes hit. thanks to the grit and determination of the american people, we have been steadily fighting our way back. over the last four years, our businesses have created 9.2 million new jobs. we had an auto industry that was

flying dust that was flatlining. it is coming back. rather than create jobs and other countries, more and more recognizing that it makes sense to invest right here in america. we've got great workers. we have the largest market in the world. we have a whole bunch of stuff working for us and we are certain to see in sourcing rather than outsourcing of jobs. so we've made progress. but too many americans out there are still working harder than ever and can't seem to get ahead. more to spur do growth and economic development and create more jobs that pay a good wage. we should be making it easier, not harder for businesses to invest and create jobs here in the united states. we should be making sure that people are rewarded for hard work and responsibility rather than see their wages and

salaries stagnate. and we should be making it easier not harder for striving on students to -- striving young students to afford an education that will be the key to 20 for sentry jobs and make sure they can repay all that loan that that too often they are taking on when they go to college. there is a new bill that will do more to make sure that college students are getting a fair shot. unfortunately, we've got a congress that all too often spends a few days a week blocking initiatives to create jobs and raise wages and help young people go to college. they seem to be more interested in politics right now than performance. that is a challenge. who iswork with anybody focused on what we need to be focused on and what all the people who sent us to washington are focused on and that is how we improve the economy and create more jobs. if congress isn't going to act,

i am going to do whatever and any steps i can take to create jobs and opportunity for more working families. so far, we have seen, for example, the house republicans lock legislation that would raise america's minimum-wage. so i have been working with states and cities and businesses to go ahead and raise their minimum wage anyway. orderissued an executive making sure that, if you are contracting with the federal government, you've got to pay your workers a higher minimum wage, at least $10 and $.10 an hour. i believe, if you work full time, you shouldn't be in poverty. we saw senate republicans block an up-and-down vote for equal pay for women. i went ahead and took action on my own to make it easier for women to find out whether they are being treated fairly at the workplace and be able to take action. when it comes to creating jobs, last week, i was out in tarrytown where workers were able to break around on the

replacement of a bridge ahead of schedule because my administration fast-track that project and other projects across the country. i met with ceos from around the world who are investing and hiring in america because we made our trim or competitive. today, i am here in cooperstown to talk about some new steps that will lead to more tourism, not just within america, but getting more folks to come and visit the treasures come money national treasures that we have all across this country, including the baseball hall of fame right here in cooperstown. because terrorism translates into jobs and into economic growth. when visitors come here, they don't just check out the ha ll. they rent cars, stay at hotels, yet restaurants, and that for upstate new york, the baseball hall of fame is a powerful economic engine.

last year alone, travel and tourism were responsible for $1.5 trillion in economic activity across the country. trillionut that, $1.5 supporting nearly 8 million jobs in communities like this one. and when tourists come from other countries and spend money here, that is actually considered a type of export. we don't always think about it that way, but we should. nothing says made in america better than the empire state building or the hoover dam. folks who work at restaurants and hotels who serve fans in cooperstown have the kind of jobs that cannot be off-shored. you can't ship the grand canyon overseas. when it comes to tourism, the good news is that we have a great product to sell. people want to come here.

i was reminded of that yesterday. i took a walk from the white house to the department of interior building. keep in mind, i don't get to take walks very often [laughter] every once in a while, i am able to sneak off. i am sort of like the circus better -- the circus bear who breaks the chain and everybody starts was bring the bears lose. so i go out and take a walk. it is a beautiful day. even though i went for several blocks, it was probably about it 10-minute walk. -- in thatt an span, i met tourist from italy and brazil and china and ukraine on the national mall. come fromhat people all over the world to see our parks, to see our monuments is something that we should take great pride in as americans and it's good for our economy. so just like we are helping our

businesses to sell more goods made in america in markets all across the world, we are spending a lot of time and focus trying to make it easier for folks from around the world to come see america and spend money here. two years ago i went to disney world to announce new action to make it simpler for lers to visit mecca. since its low point after the recession, our travel and tourism industry has added nearly 580,000 new jobs. last year a record 70 million tourists visited america from other countries, more than the populations of texas, florida, and new york combined, and they spent their money here. earns moreon earth

money from international tourism than we do. the growth of international tourism created about 100 75,000 jobs in the last five years and helped drive america's exports to an all-time high. we are making great strides in welcoming more visitors to america, but we can do even better. i want to turn the 70 million tourists that came last year into 100 million each year by the beginning of the next decade. and it meeting that goal is here to help create jobs in new york. [applause] that is why earlier today i took the actions to meet that goal. i met with several ceo's of travel and tourism companies. i have directed my administration to work with airports, airlines, hotel groups, states, and cities to do more to improve the traveler experience and reduce weight times for folks entering the

united states, without compromising our security. we have folks today who are showing us what is possible. thet donahue is the ceo of dallas-fort worth airport. there he is. we have from my own hometown, rosie, the aviation commissioner from chicago. them are responsible for the busiest airports in america. the average wait times to cut sports and -- through customs and passport control has fallen to 15 minutes. it takes you 15 units to get through if you are an international traveler. that is a big deal. if folks spend less time at the airport, they are more likely to come back for her return trip. when they go back home, they tell their friends, america was there to greet us. i have made clear that national security remains our top priority. there's no reason we cannot replicate the success stories of

places like dallas and chicago all around the country. we can automate password talents, bring it top from private-sector defined best practices, to help move lines faster, we can add new staff at customs. we want to bring more visitors faster, more jobs faster. if they come into jfk faster, faster,e into laguardia maybe they can get to cooperstown faster and start bat faster.ruth's creating jobs is not always easy. standing here and looking back on more than 150 years of our baseball history, the describes our history in so many ways, we're reminded while the obstacles we have overcome to get here. this all has memories of two world wars that we fought them on. it has memories of color

barriers being broken. jackie robinson's uniform. the record of his first season as a dodger. it shows us the history of communities, that we built, across the new continent and the ways we connected with our country and our world. and how women athletes started getting the recognition they deserve. so we have faced challenges before, but we do not respond with cynicism, and we cannot respond with gridlock. every generation faces tough times, but in the words of the great yogi berra, it's just deja vu all over again. we know we are up to these challenges. just as our parents and challengess faced and a lot tougher than the ones we face, and just as they went ahead and build an economy where hard work was rewarded and the

responsibility was rewarded, opportunity was open to all people, we can do the same. those values on down through the generations. they passed them down to us. when you come to the baseball hall of fame, part of what you are learning is there is some eternal timeless values of grit and determination and hard work and community and not giving up and working hard. those are american values, just like baseball. and there is no reason we cannot do the same. that is what i am going to be working on as long as i am president of the united states. i'm going to be fighting to make sure that those values live out of better jobs, higher wages, stronger economy, stronger communities. i hope you will join me. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪

>> the president has signed a memo giving the homeland security and commerce secretaries a plan to increase tourism. it also asked them to work with the 15th largest airports to cut weight times. wait times.

a busy day for the u.s. house. embers past a programs bill that provides funding and $80 billion for afghanistan and iraq. tomakers approved a measure improve the process for how the nsa collects telephone records. home for the memorial day recess. they will be back in session next wednesday, and you can follow the house live on c-span. the american enterprise institute held a forum earlier today on the conservative domestic agenda. mitch mcconnell discussed the leadership of the majority leader harry reid and said he has turned the senate into a graveyard of ideas. you can see all of senator in herll's remarks later schedule. here's part of what he said. >> i do not mind saying that senator reid has done tremendous

, tremendouse senate damage to the senate. brogating to himself powers that have traditionally been with committee chairmen. his propensity to block amendments on his own side has prevented for years the organic development of policy that has always characterized the senate at its best. let me give you two statistics to illustrate how bad it is. you may have heard recently republicans pointing out that we have had nine roll call votes since last july. senator barrasso checked this week to see how many ever credit call votes have taken place since july. they have had seven. nobody's ideas are being given a

hearing, a debate on the senate floor. and of you have suggested it is certainly the case, and looks like the senate has turned into the house and the house has turned into the senate. speaker owner has given the minority in the house during the same time 136 roll call votes. this is not the way the senate was operated at any point in its past. even under what some would argue the most tyrannical majority leader ever, lbj. people's muzzled the representatives, and through them, the people themselves. he has opted for secrecy over transparency by moving the bill-writing process from the senate floor into his conference room. most notoriously, of course, we all recall in the drafting of obamacare. i do not need to tell any of you

what he has done to the spirit of comity and respect that the public has every right to expect from their leaders. if republicans were fortunate enough to reclaim the majority in november, i assure you, my friends, all of this would change. a says majority under my atedership -- a sen majority -- i would work to restore its traditional role where good generated, and voted upon. we would fire up the committee process. i mean democratic ideas, to. i do not know what they are afraid of. what are they afraid of? they have 55 votes. this is not the way the senate used to operate. i used to, members the price of being in the majority, you have to give the minority votes that

you are not going to like to get votes across the floor. duffomorrow, jessie describes the problems of the veterans affairs department. a look at immigration and what the current deportation policy is. writer on a recent piece looking at gerrymandered congressional their strict. -- congressional districts. life friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. people in the movement decided to take the cause of marriage equality to the supreme court. that is what i chose to write about. i am really gratified that "the new york times" called it a stunningly intimate story. i was fascinated.

i wanted to know, what would it feel like to be a plaintiff in a major civil right litigation case? one that was high profile and controversial. what did that feel like? what was the judge thinking as he was considering the evidence. of the twists one of the alternately turned out to be gay himself. what does it feel like to want something that everybody else has and be told you cannot have it? >> from the first attempts to jop california prop 8, becker on the new civil rights movement, saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00, part of three days of tv" this weekend on c-span2.

join other readers in the discussion at booktv.org. as we mentioned, the house passed a bill earlier today changing the rules in the way the nsa collects phone records. it bans all collection wire carding governments to ask courts for those records. we show you the floor debate for the ill was passed. it is an hour, 15 minutes. mpore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: pr the founding of the american -- from the founding of the american republic, this country has been engaged in a profound debate about the limits of government. in the federalist papers, the founders argued passionately for a federal government that would protect the american people from foreign threats. at the same time, the founders struggled to create a structure to contain and control that government in order to protect the god-given rights of the american people. they carefully crafted the constitution and bill of rights to accomplish these two

different yet complementary goals. in essence, this debate has illuminated the exceptionality of the united states. the ceaseless effort to he restrain the reach of government is in our d.n.a. as americans and for 225 years, we have refused to accept the idea that in order to have national security we must sacrifice our personal freedoms. some, however, think these goals are in conflict with one another following last year's unauthorized disclosure of the national security agency's data collection programs operated under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa. today the house will consider legislation that once again proves that american liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. we can protect both american civil liberties and national security without compromising either one. for nearly a year the house judiciary committee as studied this issue in detail.

we have held hearings, condulted the obama administration, and worked across bipartisan lines to ensure these programs protect our national security and individual freedoms. this bill, the u.s.a. freedom act, was unanimously approved by both the house judiciary committee and the house permanent select committee on intelligence. the u.s.a. freedom act makes clear that the government cannot indiscriminately acquire americans' call detail records and creates a new narrowly taylored process for the creation -- tailored evered process for these records. this ends bulk collection by keeping americans' phone records in the hands of providers and requiring the government to get the permission of the court to request information from providers using a specific selection term in their request to the court. that limits the scope of information collected. for example, the government would have to identify a specific person or account as part of any request for

information or tangible things. furthermore, the u.s.a. freedom act bans bulk collection not just for the controversial telephone metadata program but for all of section 215 authorities, as well as n.s.l. letters and pen register trap and trace devices. these limitations will protect americans' records of all types, including medical records, email records, telephone records, and firearms purchase records, among many others. at the same time, the u.s.a. freedom act ensures that the federal government will continue to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept terrorist attacks. the bill preserves the traditional operational use of these important authorities by the f.b.i. and other intelligence agencies. it provides needed emergency authority to national security officials if there is an immediate national security threat. but still requires the government to obtain court

approval of an application within seven days. the u.s.a. freedom act increases the transparency of our intelligence gathering programs cureo in an amicus the fisa court. this will be chosen from a panel of experts to help ensure the court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of americans when reviewing the government's request for records. it also requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of the law, and mandates that the government report the number of orders issued, modified, or denied by the court annually. last year's national security leaks have also had a commercial and financial impact on american technology companies that have provided these records. they have experienced backlash

from both american and foreign consumers, and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace damaged. in january of this year, the justice department entered into a settlement with several companies to permit new ways to report data concerning requests for customer information under fisa. the u.s.a. freedom act builds upon this settlement, allowing tech companies to publicly report national security requests from the government to inform their american and foreign customers. from beginning to end, this is a carefully crafted, bipartisan bill. i would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, crime subcommittee chairman jim sensenbrenner, full committee ranking member john conyers, intellectual property subcommittee ranking member gerry nadler, and crime subcommittee ranking member bobby scott, for working together with me on this important bipartisan legislation. i also want to thank the staffs of these members for the many hours, weeks, and months of hard

work they put into this effort. furthermore, i would like to thank my staff, caroline lynch, the chief counsel of the crime subcommittee, and sam raymer, for their long hours and steadfast dedication to this legislation. i might add that sam is going to be missed by the committee as he he moves on to take a new responsibility in the private sector, but he wanted to be sure that he could be present today for the passage of this legislation through the house. i thank sam and caroline for their long and dedicated hours put in to making sure that this was a finely crafted piece of legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr.oniers -- mr. conyers: i rise to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise in support of the u.s.a. freedom act. the version of the bill pending before us today is not a perfect vehicle. there is more that we can do and must do to ensure as the fourth amendment requires the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. but let me be clear the compromise bill before us today is a significant improvement over the status quo. it is a good bill. now, with this legislation we stand poised to end domestic bulk collection across the board. in section 215 of the patriot act and the pen register authority and in the national security letter statutes by requiring the use of a specific

selection term. before the government may obtain information or tangible things. this legislation will create a panel of experts from which the foreign intelligence surveillance court can draw expertise and questions involving privacy, civil liberties, and technology. it will also require the court to disclose every significant opinion it issues because in this country there should be no such thing as secret law. and we have accomplished all these things while providing president obama with his requested authority for the limited prospective collection of call detail records. any bill we might have offered on this subject would have been imperfect, but we have been

careful to include the critical safeguards in this legislation. with the additional reporting, declassification, and transparency requirements laid out in the measure before us, we believe the government would be hard-pressed to attempt to expand its surveillance authorities beyond the narrow intent of this legislation. as the administration stated yesterday in a formal statement of policy, the u.s.a. freedom act prohibits bulk collection. this is our intent. and we will hold the current and future administrations to this intent. in closing, i want to thank chairman goodlatte and mr. sensenbrenner of wisconsin, mr. nadler of new york, mr. scott of virginia, for their tireless

leadership on this issue. i also want to express appreciation to chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their willingness to work with us to reach this point. the house is poised to approve the first significant rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act in 1978. we must seize this opportunity. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3361, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. million goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds. i neglected to add another key member of the committee, congressman randy forbes of virginia, a member of the judiciary committee, who has also been a key bipartisan member of this negotiation.

at this time it is my pleasure to yield six minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, the chairman of the crime, terrorism, and homeland security investigation subcommittee, and the chief sponsor of this legislation, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for six minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i want to thank the house for bringing the u.s.a. freedom act to the floor today. i was the chairman of the judiciary committee on september 11, 2001. in the wake of that tragedy the committee passed the patriot act with unanimous bipartisan support. the bill easily passed in both the house and senate and president george w. bush signed it into law. i believe the patriot act made america safer by enhancing the government's ability to find and stop terrorist attacks. we were careful to maintain the civil liberties that distinguished us from our enemies. we are here today because the government misapplied the law

and upset the balance between privacy and security that we have thought to preserve 13 years ago. in a feat of legal gymnastics, the administration convinced the fisa court that because some records in the universe of every phone call americans made might be relevant to counterterrorism, the entire universe of calls must be relevant. that decision opened the floodgates to a bulk -- practice of bulk collection that congress never intended when the patriot act was passed. senator leahy and i introduced the u.s.a. freedom act to end bulk collection, increase transparency, and to re-establish a proper balance between privacy and security. after months of input and negotiations, and an historic ecoof its vote on the patriot act -- echo of its vote on the

patriot act, the judiciary committee unanimously passed the freedom act. the challenge we faced was to draft legislation that was tight ough to avoid abuse, without incringing on intelligence collection. perfect is rarely possible in politics and this bill is no exception. . in order to preserve core operations of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the administration insisted on broadening certain authority and lessening certain restrictions. some of the changes raised justifiable concerns, and i don't blame people for losing trust in their government because the government has violated their trust. let me be clear. i wish this bill did more. to my colleagues who lament the changes, i agree with you. the privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, i share your disappointment. the negotiations for this bill were intense. we have to make compromises, but this bill still does

deserve support. don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. the day we have the -- today, we have the opportunity to make a powerful statement. congress does not support bulk collection. the days of the n.s.a. indiscriminantly vacuuming up more data than it can store will end with the u.s.a. freedom act. after the freedom act passes, we will have a law that expresses congress' unambiguous intent to end bulk collection of americans' data across all surveillance authorities. the bill requires that in addition to existing restrictions, the government must use a specific selection term as the basis for collecting foreign intelligence information. and maybe more importantly, after this bill becomes law, we will have critical transparency provisions to ensure that if the government again violates our trust, congress and the public will know about it and

will be able to do something about it. the freedom act gives private companies greater discretion that disclose their cooperation with the government. these disclosures gives the companies increased autonomy and will alert the public to the extent of data collection. the bill also requires public notification of any decision that contains a significant construction of law. expressly, including interpretations of, quote, specific selection term, unquote. this is the end of secret laws. if the administration abuses the intent of the bill, everyone will know. that's why the freedom act will succeed. it bans bulk collection and ensures disclosure of attempts to dilute it. today's vote is the first step and not a final step in our efforts to reform surveillance. it gives us the tools to ensure that congress and the public can provide an adequate check on the government.

in the post-freedom act world, we have turned the tables on the n.s.a. and to say to them, we are watching you and we will. i want to thank chairman goodlatte, ranking member conyers and congressman scott, nadler, forbes of virginia, for all their hard work. i also want to thank the staff for so many long hours. i cannot overstate the amount tears ective sweat and from carolyn lynch, heather, joe put in this bill. but most of all i want to thank my wife. cheryl has always been the world's largest and loudest advocate for the preservation of civil rights. she encouraged, supported it and some might say demand i lead this effort. there's no question that we would not be here today for this historic vote on the u.s.a. freedom act if it weren't for her. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize the ranking member of the intellectual properties subcommittee, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today we have the first chance in more than a decade to finally place some real limits on the sweeping unwarranted and at times unlawful government surveillance that many of us have fought against for years. first and foremost, and as the administration stated in the statement of administration policy, this will end bulk collection under section 215 of the u.s. patriot act and ensure the government will be prohibited from using the national security authority or trap and trace devices for bulk collection. it will not allow a specific

selection term, something like a perm pern's name or an account or telephone number as he basis for obtaining information. this will have a reasonable relationship between the particular records and the subjects of the terrorism investigation. i share the concerns that the current definition of specific selection term may still allow overbroad collection, but given the presumptive relevant categories that congress has already identified in section 215 and because the bill will now require participation in the fisa court that can overly ad the law, they can't use a telephone code just because the terror suspect might be use a phone in that area code. moreover, to the extent the fisa court ever construes the selection term too broadly, other reforms in the bill will ensure that congress and the american people will know about it immediately and can rein

them in. these changes are quite significant as are the new restrictions to the use of fisa section 702 which allows the n.s.a. to target persons located outside of the united states. the u.s.a. freedom act on the floor today certainly does not give us everything we want or need. it is a product of heated negotiations across party lines. it is far from perfect but is an important step forward and we will work to fix remaining problems and strengthen the bill as it moves to the senate. but a no vote on this bill oday may mean no reform at all. this must end. this bill makes critically important changes that we must all support. that's why i will vote for it and i will urge everyone else to vote for it. with that i thank congressman sensenbrenner and goodlatte and conyers and scott and forbes and all the staff members who worked on this bill. this is a signal occasion.

it's the first real progress we have made. not enough but a really good first step. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, who's worked so hard on this, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i join the author of the bill, the gentleman from wisconsin, chair of the judiciary committee, subcommittee on crime, mr. sensenbrenner. my colleague from virginia, the chair of the full committee, mr. goodlatte. the gentleman from michigan and ranking member, mr. conyers. mr. nadler, my colleague from virginia, mr. forbes, in proposing this amended version of the u.s.a. freedom act. i commend my colleagues for working together to develop a bipartisan approach to

addressing some of the shortcomings in our foreign intelligence surveillance statutes. as recent revelations about the way that -- recent revelations about the way some of these statutes have been used have come to light, members of the judiciary committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the statutes, studied the issues, proposed solutions and worked together to find a way forward. we also worked with our colleagues from the intelligence committee to find common ground in order to bring meaningful surveillance bill to the floor today. the bill, as amended, addresses the abuses and answers privacy protections, provides more rigorous review of critical questions of legal interpretation and increases transparency so our citizens will know what is being decided and done in their name. while the administration has already indicated that it will change its procedures, to paraphrase president reagan, i think the best course is to trust but codify. while this version of the

u.s.a. freedom act does not accomplish all that we had hoped for it, it is in fact a significant step in the right direction. i therefore urge my colleagues to support the legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the time is as follows -- the gentleman from virginia has 7 1/4 minutes left, and the gentleman from michigan has 12 1/2 minutes left. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from california two minutes, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i certainly respect the role that mr. sensenbrenner has played in this and honor him and his wife, cheryl, for their commitment to freedom, but i must oppose the freedom act that's on the floor today. this is not the bill that was

reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously. i voted for that bill, not because it was perfect but because it was a step in the right direction. after the bill was reported out, changes were made without the knowledge of the committee members, and i think the result is a bill that actually will not end bulk collections, regretfully. as mr. scott has said, our job is not to trust but to codify, and if you take a look at the selection changes made in the bill, it would allow for bulk collection should the n.s.a. do so. further, i would note that the transparency provisions have also been weakened. the 702 section would no longer be reportable by companies who receive orders, and instead of the attorney general noting decisions that change the law, it's now sent over to the director of national intelligence.

regrettably, we have learned that if we leave any ambiguity in law, the intelligence agency will run a truck right through that ambiguity. i think that's why all the civil liberties groups have withdrawn their support from c.d.t., open technology. i would add freedom works and other libry tarian groups have also -- libritarian groups have also pulled their support. companies like facebook and google have pulled their support of the bill. now, i hope that we will defeat this bill and come back together, because we do work together well here in the judiciary committee, and fix the problems that were created. i think at the insistence of the administration and give honor to mr. sensenbrenner's original bill that had 151 members co-sponsoring it. and with that i see that my time has expired and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: simply to point out two things. first off, as the gentleman from wisconsin has noted, this legislation is an effort to ring together widely points of view of how to maximize our national security and our civil liberties and there are those outside groups that were just referenced who would like to see more than the language that they were able to obtain in this bill. but i think it's very important for everyone to know that while those groups, some groups have withdrawn their support for the bill, they do not oppose the bill. and that is a very important distinction for members to understand. mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, a member of the

judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee for yielding to me and i also want to thank the efforts of the judiciary committee and the select committee on intelligence for the broad and intense work they've done on this bill. the u.s.a. freedom act starts with the right concept and that is that the civil liberties of americans were under risk even though we have very few examples of people being victimized by it. there's not a level of comfort in this country. and so the move to block the federal government from storing metadata and still allowing for them to be able to set up under a fisa warrant a query through privately held data is the right way to go. it's a conclusion i drew early on in the many hearings i've been to, both classified and unclassified hearings.

i quizzed the witnesses. i put my mark down on those committee hearings, but what happened was the process moved quickly and over a weekend there was an intense job to write a bill that turned into a substitute amendment and a debate in the judiciary committee referred over to select committee on intel, both committees acted quickly. i offered an amendment before the judiciary committee. it was voted on, but i have to say that in my opinion it was not considered in the fashion that would have allowed for the full judgment of the judiciary committee to weigh in. my amendment is set up that allows for the intelligence community to negotiate with the telecoms, the telecommunication providers for a period of time longer than required by the f.c.c. i think it's not possible for anyone who supports this bill to argue that it makes us safer. it protects our civil liberties more, but there's a window beyond the f.c.c. requirements that i'd like to see available than something on a voluntary

basis. so i want to come here to this floor and put my marker down on that concern so we should not sacrifice the security in america and we should protect the civil liberties of americans. we can do that at the same time. i think this bill falls somewhat short, although the underlying concept of the bill i do support. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize a very active member on judiciary committee, sheila jackson lee of texas, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. and i thank the ranking and the chairman for this work and mr. sensenbrenner, who we have worked with from the beginning of the first stages of the patriot act when the judiciary committee passed it out after that terrible and heinous act of terror, bipartisan. unfortunately it was changed.

today i want to announce that megadata collection as we know it has ended. that is a major tribute to the american people. and the judiciary committee and intelligence committee heard them. more importantly the intelligence committee and judiciary committee stand united. can we do more? should there have been an open rule or a number of amendments that may have wanted to be in? yes. i believe in participatory democracy, but today we end bulk collection on the patriot act section 215. we can always do better. today we prevent the bulk collection under fisa pen register, and to the american people we increase the transparency. let me make it very clear, when we first discussed and debated the patriot act, reverse targeting to me was heinous. it means that it captured and innocent person as we were looking for someone who happened to be a terrorist. today in this bill we have any

communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are determined to be located in the united states and prohibit the use of any discreet communication that is determined to be to or from a united states person or a person who appears to be located in the united states except to protect against an immediate threat to harm. it is eliminated. reverse targeting is no longer. in addition, i introduced a bill some time ago called the fisa court and sunshine act of 2013. in that bill it required the attorney general to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of the fisa court allowing americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the patriot act. and the foreign intelligence surveillance act to conduct surveillance to keep americans safe. i am pleased that in section 402 and 604 of the us freedom act it requires the attorney general to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion. it opens it up to the american people. that includes a significant construction of interpretation

of the law and submit to congress within 45 days. mr. conyers: i yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. as indicated the bill specifically contains an explicit prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things pursuant to section 215. the freedom act provides that section 215 may be used only where specific selection and term is provided. as the basis for the production of tangible things. clearly we worked very hard to ontain what was an ame ba -- amoeba that would not end. as i indicated on section 301 was included as it was in my amendment in h. 3773. let me conclude, mr. speaker, by simply saying the bill of right lives. the bill of right is for the american people, both the right to freedom, both the right in essence to privacy, and our

respect for the gathering of intelligence to protect us from terrorists. this bill, the freedom act u.s.a., is, indeed, an enormous step forward. let's work together to move us even more, but today we end megadata collecting as we know it. mr. speaker, i believe we have made a giant step forward for civil liberties, respect on the integrity of the american people and their right to freedom, and as well for the protecting of all of us from terror. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. holding: mr. speaker, on wednesday the state department acknowledged that terrorist attacks worldwide have increased by more than 43% last year, killing nearly 18,000 people. mr. speaker,ed odds are rising we will be hit here in the united states.

that's why a balanced legislation that protects civil liberties and keeps americans safe is so important. and the u.s.a. freedom act does just that. i rise in support of the passage of the u.s.a. freedom act. bipartisan legislation that reforms our intelligence gathering programs while importantly preserving operational capabilities that protect national security. this legislation will make sure that americans are protected at a time when the world is a more dangerous place than when the patriot act itself was enacted in the law. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. honda, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add my thanks to the work that has been done up to now. i became an original co-sponsor of the u.s.a. freedom act because i was disturbed by the

revelations about surveillance programs. the bill is a good step toward balancing security and privacy. but this amendment does not. it leaves opened the possibility that bulk surveillance could still continue. and it no longer protects the public through the fisa court. i'm disappointed that this popular, bipartisan bill has been so drastically weakened and i can no longer support it. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. hold, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. r. hold: i thank the gentleman

-- mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. and i recognize the work that mr. goodlatte, mr. conyers, and others have put into this. but it still falls woefully short. this legislation still allows the government to collect everything they want against americans. to treat americans as suspects first and citizens second. it still allows decision abouts whom to target and how aggressively to go after acquaintances of acquaintances of targets to be made by mid level employees, not federal judges. most important, the fundamental decisions under this will be made by a -- against a weak and inferior standard that does not reach probable cause. so that the government can spy on people based on weak suspicions and not on legally established probable cause. now, my friends say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. the perfect, how could anyone here vote for legislation that doesn't uphold the

constitutional standard of probable cause? probable cause has been well established in law for two centuries to keep americans secure by keeping intelligence and enforcement officers focused on real threats. not on vague suspicions or wild goose chases. a decade ago there was a major change in the relationship between americans and their government. this bill does not correct it. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. does the gentleman from virginia continue to reserve? mr. goodlatte: at this time i yield myself one minute to respond to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: a number of the things the gentleman has stated are not accurate. first of all the selectors all have to be approved by court order. secondly, it's important for everyone to understand that the information gathered is targeted to foreign nationals not to american citizens.

thirdly, the increased transparency that's created by this legislation, both in the fisa court itself and with the fact that the data is now going to be required to be retained by the companies that own the data and not held by the government, provides extra assurance that if some kind of massive data collection grab were attempted by the government, it would be exposed as mr. nadler pointed out earlier. and finally, the special selectors' language that was carefully worked out in a bipartisan manner, carefully limits the ability of people to gather data. it has to be based upon discreet requests, and discretion has meaning in the law. it has to be limited to identifiable persons and things. and it has to be done in such a way that the court approves it. i would be happy to yield.

mr. holt: why not -- mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. holt: is it not correct that this bill does not invoke the probable cause standard? mr. goodlatte: this is not a search under the fourth amendment and probable cause has never applied. the gentleman is attempting to change the law if he thinks that -- mr. holt: would the gentleman yield further? mr. goodlatte: i would yield further. mr. holt: does any american doesn't think this is a search? mr. goodlatte: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. when it comes to gathering information about foreign nationals who are deemed to pose a national security threat to the united states, the fourth amendment does not apply. and a court must still order the particular selectors that are used. the gentleman's characterization is inaccurate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. i am yers: mr. speaker,

going to yield an additional minute to mr. nadler of new york. a member -- senior member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i have heard arguments against this bill and all of them amount to one argument. the bill doesn't go far enough. i agree. it doesn't. but it is rarely a good argument against a bill to say it doesn't go far enough if it goes a long way towards solving a real problem. this bill will end bulk collection. it will end it under section 215. it will end it under pen trace and track, it will end it under n.s.l.s. without this bill. and i hope it passes in the senate, we'll have no chance to end bulk collection, and the current framework which allows the dragnet surveillance of our citizens will continue. i wish this bill were stronger. but what we are able to get now, it's a major step forward and not to pass this bill now would

say to the n.s.a. continue what you are doing. we are placing no restrictions on you beyond what the law already has. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: rather just a minute instead of such time as i may consume. i wanted to take this opportunity to thank staff on both sides of the aisle for the hard work that went into drafting the bill and the many compromises that were reached when we went into the final product. in addition to carolyn lynch and

am raymer, with chairman goodlatte, bart forsyth with mr. ensenbrenner, our own staff, erin, heather, all deserve appropriate credit and praise for the many late nights and long weekends that they spent working on the public's behalf on this critical legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman wish to continue to reserve? mr. conyers: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i have only one speaker remaining and would be prepared to close our portion of the remarks if the gentleman is prepared to do so. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. i yield myself an additional minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. conquears -- mr. conyers: it's to clarify the term specific selection term, because the definition of specific selection term that appears in the compromise bill isn't perfect, but the u.s.a. freedom act still ends bulk collection. that's why we are here. under the act the government may not obtain information or tangible things under section 215, the fisa pen register authority or the national security letter statutes without using a, quote, specific selection term, end quotation, as the basis for production. critics are correct, this is not as clean or straightforward as

the definition approved by both -- by the intelligence committees and judiciary. nothing in the definition explicitly prohibits the government's -- the government from using a very broad selection term like area code 202 or the entire eastern seaboard. . but that concern is largely theoretical. the type of collection is not likely to be of use to the government. ms. lofgren: if the gentleman will yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman wish to reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized.

mr. conyers: i'm going to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has three minutes. the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. the definition of specific selection term includes a phrase -- pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of information -- and that's intended to keep the definition within the four corners of the statute. in will now be an amicas the court to have the expansive reading of this text. ke reading that took relevance in section 215 to mean all called detailed

records, end quote, are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the law. under this bill any fisa court opinion interprets this definition -- interprets this definition must be declassified and released to the public ithin 45 days. if the government tries to expand this authority, the public will know it in short order. the house, the house is poised to prove the first significant rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act in 1978. we must seize this opportunity

if this bill is not approved today, we're giving our intelligence people in n.s.a. a green light to go ahead. i cannot imagine that happening in this body. and i support h.r. 3361 yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. speaker, 86 years ago, justice lewis brandize wrote in s dissent in holmstead vs. the united states, secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. they recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect. they knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material