we have a provision in the bill that authorizes -- keyword, authorizes -- the department of defense to train and equip carefully vetted elements of the syrian opposition so that they protect the syrian people from the kind of horrific attacks we have seen from the includedre is also certain kinds of equipment, authorization for certain kinds of equipment as well as training. the equipment part specifies certain types of the event which we are authorizing, not requiring, not mandating. i finally did.

ok. unspecified. elaborate on your guantanamo proposal? i can't remember what i did last year. [indiscernible] that was stripped out in conference, i believe. .his was very different it's kind of the opposite of what ultimately happened last year. but it's a very important provision offered by senator graham. i supported it. it was a very strong vote to add the grand provision that gives congress the opportunity to say no to a plan basically, to transfer detainees to the united states. they already can transfer

detainees to third countries. have a moratorium on a transfer to yemen for a year. ship --estions on the, to questions on the combat ship [indiscernible] . is there any provision in your build to -- >> yes, there is $100 million in the bill to begin development of an alternate american engine. whichis also language insurers as much competition as possible between the united launch and spacex. without breaking the current block buy, because the current -- blocked by contract saves us about $4 billion.

mandated? >> it's like any other expenditure. authorization. >> can you talk about what the languages specifically to foster competition? >> we will give it to you tomorrow morning. then you will have some incentive to read the whole release we get to you tomorrow morning. you address open sky streaming in regards to russia? >> we did. there is language in there which will increase the communication where the administration has reason to believe there may be a violation. we agreed on language that will increase the communication between the administration and congress if there is any evidence of a substantial or significant violation. we want to be more comfortable

that we are being notified and we drafted language to achieve that goal. >> [indiscernible] >> from my perspective, unless answer, i willk have to let you read the document tomorrow. continue,apache plans does the guard commission you create run the danger of being ?vertaken you are not freezing anything the army is actually doing. what is left? >> we are not freezing anything the army is doing and what area. if you're not freezing any of the administration's plans to move helicopters around, change ends and so forth, what is left commission to decide or

will everything be done by the time -- ,> we put a limit on the number which won't be reached, in any event, until the commission reports. if they have an idea of a number beyond that they can express their views. ok. not have a second shot? yes. >> the house bill puts priority on the asia-pacific area. is there anything like that in your bill? >> there are so many provisions in our bill. i don't know if i can -- --requesting strategies >> ok. were you able to hear that? a second chance. go to a third shot. yes.

anythinghink we have on -- nothing that i can think of. you know what? i think we will call a halt to it. is there a dollar figure that we have -- what? 320. three dollars and $.20. [laughter] thank you all. look at our primetime schedule starting in less than an hour. majority leader harry reid and other leaders hold a conference on immigration policy. on c-span two, president obama heads to the baseball hall of fame in cooperstown, new york, to discuss tourism and the economy. , a subcommittee holds a hearing on the transit

system and lack of funding for repairs. the american enterprise institute held a forum earlier today on the conservative domestic agenda. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell discussed the leadership of majority leader harry reid and said he turned the senate into a graveyard of ideas. here is more. thatdon't mind saying senator reed has done tremendous to thetremendous damage senate. tremendous damage by relegating to himself powers that have traditionally belong to members of committees. he has turned the senate into a graveyard of ideas. he has prevented, for years, the organic development of policy that is always characterized the senate at its best. let me give you to statistics.

you may have heard republicans pointing out that we have had since lastall votes july. we check to see how many the democrats of head. seven. ideas are being given a hearing or a debate on the senate floor. some of you have suggested and it is certainly the case that it looks like the senate has turned into the house in the house has turned into the senate. speaker boehner has given the minority in the house 136 roll call votes. this is not the way the senate was operated at any point in its under lbj.

so, he has muzzled the people's representatives, and through them, the people themselves. he has opted for secrecy over transparency by removing the bill writing process from the senate floor into his conference room. most notoriously, of course, we all recall in the drafting of obamacare. and i donated tell any of you what he has done to the spirit at theony and respect 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 his would change. as senate majority under my leadership would break sharply from the practices of the reid problemn approach of solving. i would work to restore the

senate as a place where good ideas are debated and voted on. democratic i mean ideas to. i don't know what they are afraid of. they have 55 votes. the price of being in the majority is you have to give the minority votes you are not going to like in order to get the bill across the floor. >> if we don't step up the enforcement side, i mean, the enforcement side brings the media attention. the only thing we can rely on to make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story. first of all, that is a lot of victims. that, to me, would be a depressing conclusion. so we have to figure out some to up the ante that is short

of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. a 13 team person can do it. but again, the changes i have seen in addition star to make is underhey are immediately investigation. no fine yet. we don't know if the fine as $30,000 or upwards of one million dollars. >> in all fairness, the fines will be paying for this. we have an issue of budget in our government. where does that money come from? we cannot just handed out. institutes that have done wrong can fund their own enforcement and i think every survivor would ask to back that up. >> this weekend, senator claire mccaskill on combating rate than sexual assaults on campus, saturday morning on c-span. and on book tv, lynne cheney, the wife of dick cheney,

examines the political philosophy and presidential tenure of james madison. on american history tv saturday morning at 10:00, the life and work of red cross founder clara barton. followed by your questions and c-span three.on >> house minority leader nancy pelosi held a weekly briefing earlier today with reporters at the capitol. this is 35 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming back this afternoon. we had votes for a couple of hours this morning, and i had hopes that the timing would enable us to meet then, but thank you for being here now. the clock is ticking. the time is passing. here it is nearly june. the american people want us to be working to address their priorities to create jobs, to grow the economy, to pass the minimum wage, pass comprehensive immigration reform, and here we are instead,

republicans continuing to try to exploit the tragedy in benghazi by pursuing another unnecessary investigation. eight reviews, 25,000 documents, millions of taxpayer dollars. it is hard to see what the purpose of dragging this on and what the timetable is of dragging this on. as i mentioned, because of the concern we had about how republicans would treat witnesses and their availability and documents, we thought it was necessary to have some watchdogs in the room. we considered the sacred ground, the ambassador, others, their memory. their families are in our hearts and our prayers. two of the families said do not

do this again, and we should not put the american people through this, place doubts in their mind about the security of our country and, of course, the interest in keeping the american people safe, and that includes our diplomats and others. we want transparency in how this 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 cost, the cost of time, when we should be doing other things, meeting the needs of the american people. 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. here we are one year later, one by one, piece by piece. nothing is what we have seen. 11 million people hoping for legalization and a path to citizenship. people subjected to deportation every day. one person standing in the way 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. a hearing is and even scheduled 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. a program originally designed to deliver food to school children when school is out.

so many children rely on school 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. one of my motivation, as a mother of fine, so many children 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. and we say, when they come home, 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. we met with the 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. some of what we proposed got 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 -- the chairman of the veteran 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 able 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 timetable. the veterans budget, so many things over a period of time, it agent orange and some of the other responsibilities that we have, ptsd, recognition 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. and so we go into afghanistan, 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. as bernie sanders said, his 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. the additional needs like ptsd, agent orange, which we proudly added to opportunities for veterans to get benefits. we have the affordable care act that is out there that is providing more federal aid-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. i was here when we did -- after 9/11, we decided we would establish a new department. i happened to think that was not our most efficient work. but it's like a camel. a horse-drawn by a committee. this agency that had so much jurisdiction. but whatever i think of that,

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 outside of the walls of the v.a. to our men and women where they live, where they meet and in a timely fashion. i would 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 capitol, i had a reception to honor elizabeth still, secretary senator lizabeth stull for her work with caregivers. probably 5 million caregivers in 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 there yesterday, largely many of them receive no compensation for this. yet 5 million people are caring 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. well, afghanistan, we were going 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. if you look at the purpose, as 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 embassies and our facilities across the world and take that up in the proper committees of jurisdiction and where these committees and resources would be decided. we have to establish a committee to revisit all of the purposes 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. all of it 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. if we 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. >> you are talking about the 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? >> there is legislation in the 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. and again what meets the 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. >> this morning, speaker boehner was talking about shinseki. he said is not -- he said it is not just the guy on top but everybody below that is at fault here. so maybe there is some sort of 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 space to 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. bill that we had for our iraq-afghan veterans, the agent orange initiative that is there -- the list goes on and on. in fact, if you want me to, i will show you a film of how it was introduced to the american legion conference several years

ago about what we accomplished. it was huge. >> there are more benefits now, >> there are more benefits now, but -- >> we are talking about going back five or six years. in that time, we have had 2 million more veterans. what i am saying is let's take a look at the system. let's take a look at the ystem. what we did was drastic. it wasn't incremental. but now with additional 2 million veterans -- and by the way, veterans from iraq and afghanistan are going to cost us $4 trillion to $5 trillion in their lifetime. of course, that doesn't have any 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 ime. there seems to be good cooperation -- 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 ogether 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 ell. >> you want something system wide that it wouldn't necessarily 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. public sentiment is very aware 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. when i had the speakership and

we could move these initiatives. yes, ma'am. >> on transparency, it took a ong 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? >> i think this bill is a opper 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 committee and conyers's 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?

ou had your clashes with the intelligence community. that is an understatement. you like to say you have the scars to prove it. given 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 allow exploitation eventually by 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 2-1, but almost 2-1 in favor of the bill. that isn't to say this is the bill that we would have written, but it is a ompromise. 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. how can we 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 eader in the world in all of this technology be questioned 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 willingness to islead congress.

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 eal. there are those though who are involved in some of these actions who quite frankly, what i was referencing when we had this conversation several years ago, was the direction of the white house, of the bush, especially cheney, white house for aggressive collection and 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. but i don't thing that sprang rom the community.

i think that sprang from the dick cheney wing of the white house. i think it was political and that is unfortunate. however, when we got the majority, we passed legislation to make the intelligence community much more accountable to congress, to make the administration, whoever that might be at the time of bush-cheney, not be unilaterally able to just order things up. there had to be the third branch of government, the judicial branch had to be involved in decisions about collection and the rest. nd i could give you lists of 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. what you saw, the revelations that came out were harmful to our security, to our privacy, and to american brand name of technology, which we want to be permanent in the world and we don't want to be shut out from hat. 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

ranch in a little bit. that's why i have to go. we are very excited about that. >> on the v.a., you talked about the bipartisanship on the committee. there is bipartisan frustration of the veteran affairs committee. the agency is not responding to 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 riority for us on day one. this president, even before he came to congress, had major concern about america's eterans. 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. now he sees the ramifications of 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. general since it -- and general shinseki is a four-star general. i first met him in the field of battle in bosnia.

it was a number of years ago as a member of the intelligence committee when i was visiting there, a four star general, a patriot, a person who cares very much about our veterans. he fought side-by-side with them. i don't know 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 epresent 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. strong 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? i leave it up to them to decide. when the administrator was there went for four years or something like that left, 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 aregivers, about all of us who care whether in in a public role or personally in our daily

lives. this has to be on a path that 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 long before he was president of the united states. but in the meantime, we could be 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 age, 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. when we talk about the difference between parties here, we are not talking about 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. beyond 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. unemployment insurance, not xtending 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. so 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 memorial day -- thank you very much. happy memorial day to you.

>> house speaker john boehner today. weekly briefing his is 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. this week republicans are taking action on jobs to help middle-class families and small businesses. yesterday an agreement was reached on legislation to strengthen our job-training system to make it more effective for those who need a job. for americans who are having a hard time finding the skills they need for the jobs they want, these reforms will help close that gap. the same approach republicans championed in the skills act, and i want to thank representatives for their work.

this week the house passed on a bipartisan basis a water resources bill that will help economic growth. this reforms the way our country develops and maintains vital ports and waterways and in so log, will help strengthen our economy and keep america competitive. notably this bill is earmark-free. i hope the senate will act on both of these measures. both republican and democrat majority of the past, the use and the number of earmarks skyrocketed. we pledged we would do things differently. when it comes to earmarks, we have kept our promise. for the fifth year in a row, we are doing appropriation measures without earmarks. defense authorization, no armarks. highway bill, no earmarks.

now the water resources bill, no earmarks. now we have got the two top democrats in the senate who are plotting to try to reinstate porkbarrel earmarks. my position and the position of our team has not changed. this is about earning the trust of the people we serve. as long as i'm speaker there will be no earmarks. we all share the american people's outrage at the horrors at the v.a., outrage the president belatedly echoed yesterday. the white house talks about its efforts to increase v.a. funding, but where is the accountability? the house passed the v.a. accountability act. instead of waffling, the president should support a bill the house passed and call on democrats in the senate to pass

it immediately. the president has made a lot of promises to veterans. it is time for him to start keeping them. >> mr. speaker, the chairman is trying to compel witnesses to testify next week. should they be moving forward at this at the same time the i.g. investigation is going on? do you confidence in the i.g. inquiry? >> the effort by mr. miller along with his democratic counterpart is to try to compel the department to turn over documents that have been subpoenaed. the fact is they have not complied with the subpoena. and i think there is an effort underway to have a hearing with the top managers at the v.a. next week. >> you like to be respectful of the process, but are you confident that will help you get to the bottom of this? >> i am not confident that the i.g. has shown the interest or

capacity to get to the bottom of what is a systemic failure of an entire agency. if you were a doctor and you were seeing a patient, you would want to know to the extent of how sick that patient is before you would begin to prescribe some method of curing them. i think it is very important in this situation we get to the bottom of just what is wrong. it is more than just waiting lists. and i think it is important for us to understand the failure that has gone on here. >> you have been reluctant -- you have not called for secretary shinseki to step down. do you think he should be at the helm? >> i have not called for shinseki to resign, although

i'm getting a little closer. here's the point -- this is not about one point, the secretary. it is about the entire system nderneath him. the general can leave and we an wait around for months to go through a nomination process and we get a new person, and the disaster continues. so i do not want people to get confused about the shiny ball here. the shiny ball is a systemic failure of this agency. >> if that is the case, why are ou getting closer? >> the reports that continue to come are appalling. hese are men and women who served our country -- we cannot just let them down. we let them die. this is awful stuff, and somebody ought to be held

accountable for it. >> mr. speaker, along those lines, have you heard a lot from your constituents in the past about problems within the veterans hospitals and the veterans health care system? >> we have, but we have heard a lot more over the last couple f weeks. some of them have been prompted by a newspaper in my district that has done articles about problems in the dayton center, hich prompted a lot more phone calls and horror stories from our veterans. >> we came here to ask you why are you blocking immigration reform? it has almost been a year -- >> me? blocking? >> yes, you. >> immigration reform is an issue i've talked about for 18 months. the fact that congress needs to deal with this. and i have made it clear we are

not going to be able to go with the senate bill, a bill that no one has read. we are not going to do it. i think we are moving in a piece-by-piece fashion on this, and a commonsense way is the way to do this. the president has responsibility here as well. when he continues to ignore obamacare, his own law, 38 unilateral delays, he reduces the confidence of the american people in his willingness to implement an immigration law the way it would pass. the president has to rebuild this trust if we are going to be able to do this. >> with immigration reform, the senate passed that almost a year ago, and you have not moved on that. >> i just gave you an answer. there's nobody more interested in fixing this problem than i am. >> you can do it -- >> well, listen -- >> you can do it, mr. speaker,

and you have not done it. >> i appreciate your comments. >> a year ago the house came within a close vote to defund. what has changed over the last year you think? >> when you look at the nsa reform bill people are a lot were comfortable that government is not storing all of those metadata that we were. and i think we also in this bill make it clear there is no access to this data without a court decision and the standards for that decision are higher than what they were. >> turning to politics, how you aid it were you that the -- elated were you that the establishment beat back the tea party on tuesday? >> a lot of good candidates running all across the country of all different stripes. i thought the election went well.

we are going to have good candidates on the ballot. i'm not going to enter into this distinction between tea party and republicans, because it's a distinction you are going to have a hard time finding. >> back on the metadata bill, how would you describe the cooperation that you have had with the administration, and are there things that are getting better on the national security issues? >> we work with the administration on a whole host of issues. i think on this issue, the administration, their position and the position of house republicans frankly was pretty close. as i said on the floor, i appreciate the work of chairman rogers and chairman goodlatte, but i also appreciate the work of congressman conyers and others who came together to find a way to help maintain these programs in a way that will continue to make america safe. >> now that leader pelosi

-- >> let your hair grow. >> now that leader pelosi decided to appoint democrats to the committee, how do you envision a process moving forward and how soon will you get started and they report back? >> i would not be expecting you will see a lot very soon. both democrats and republicans have to hire staff. the committees are required to turn over their records to the select committee. they will have to have time to go through all of those documents. they will have to decide what we know and what do we not know and then figure out how to do it. so it is going to be a while before we see a whole lot here. >> to follow up on immigration reform, in a half-hour, senators durbin, reid, and schumer are going to call on

you directly. you are on the record for not wanting the senate bill. what about a step-by-step approach? nothing has been moving in that direction either. what is your response to that? >> there are a lot of conversations going on. the president has a responsibility here to show us that we can trust in to enforce and immigration law the way it is passed. the president is going to have to take some actions. he is going to have to demonstrate that we can trust him, simple as that. >> yesterday a republican governor of pennsylvania decided to not appeal the decision that brought marriage equality to that state. because of that decision, it's illegal for them to be fired or discriminated against on their job. if a republican is going to bring this to pennsylvania, should the house schedule a vote on the nondiscrimination act --

>> i think we will leave that decision to the governor of pennsylvania. >> you said you do not have confidence in the inspector general's report at the v.a. you don't they're addressing the situation. what specific steps do you want the administration to take to address the waiting periods? >> i think i will reserve judgment on exactly what the specific steps are. what i do know is that the house of representatives has a responsibility to get to the bottom of these issues, and we will be working forthrightly to do that. >> on the nsa, this bill, it is fairly narrow. you have had pushback from tech companies who say it does not go far enough and wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the problem would be solved, but it does not address a range of other things. do you think that tech companies' concerns are unfounded? is there anything else that the house is planning to do on the n.s.a. issue this year?

>> i'll deal with the second one first. i do believe this will address the issues that need to be addressed with the n.s.a. for this year. i do not know what the concerns of some tech companies are, but their views were clearly represented in the discussion that came to this agreement. hanks. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," retired sergeant jesse jane duff talks about the future tenure of eric sin sectiony. and then we look at immigration and what the current policy is. and christopher on his piece on

congressional districts. your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. you can see that live tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. coming up tonight on c-span, the senate democrats on immigration legs. congressman steve king from iowa responding to comments of im by senate leaders and n.s.a. data collection. senate majority leader harry reid said today that the obama administration will have to act alone to halt deportations if the house does not move on immigration reform by the end of the summer. politico writes that the issue is timing. senate democrats believe there is a narrow window of about six weeks from mid-june to the end of july for the g.o.p. led house to move immigration bills. they want the focus during that period to be on republican

lawmakers, not on the administration. here is senator reid and other leaders. >> they not have anything else to do today. >> as you can see, we have had to doctor up our chart a bit. it was 328. we are using it today, 329 days since the senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill that would create jobs, reduce the deficit by almost $1 trillion. keep families from being torn apart. there is real human cost to the house's inaction. 11 million people are waiting in the shadows.

they and their families and children have been suffering. the most frequent excuse we have heard from house republicans for their inaction is one that they use over and over again -- we do not trust president obama to enforce the law. even though that is not true, he president has proven -- ellen force current immigration law. over the past 329 days, house republicans have used various excuses for why they cannot act. not why they could act. today it is my understanding that the speaker said, "i want to do immigration reform." well, that is pretty easy for him to accomplish. we cannot allow the radicals in the house like steven king, a man who says that the dreamers are drug dealers, we cannot let people like him to determine the fate of this legislation, and that is what has happened in the house.

here's a suggestion to resolve the impasse. it is very reasonable. let's pass immigration reform today, make it take effect at the beginning of 2017. if republicans do not trust obama, let's give him a chance to move the bill under president rand paul or president theodore cruz. to be clear, delaying implementation of a migration reform is not my preference, but i feel so strongly this bill needs to get done i am willing to show flexibility. i will do whatever i can to help pass this important bill. we need to get it across the finish line. i hope republicans will consider this offer. it's done seriously to show some compassion, start acting. they say no to this offer, we subject there is never going to be a time when house republicans are willing to act on immigration. senator durbin.

>> thank you, senator reid. we're about to celebrate an anniversary of a year since the senate passed its bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, a bill that i worked on with my colleague senator schumer and many of the democrats and republicans who believe that we could you this, and we did it. at a time when people were skeptical that congress could do anything on a bipartisan basis, we did something that i would say was historically significant. a year since we passed it, in the house. it would be unfair to say the house has done nothing on immigration, because it has been about a year since the house, under speaker boehner's leadership, passed the only immigration-related bill that they considered, a bill offered by congressman steven king to deny funding for a program. the program was an executive order deferring deportation of dreamers. boehner thought it was

appropriate to call that to the floor of the house for a vote. sadly, his members supported it overwhelmingly. that to me was an embarrassing moment, embarrassing that the house of representatives would take that up as their only action on immigration within the last year. i might say a word about congressman king. because of some of the statements he made, i went to his district in iowa senator harkin and had a town meeting, and i will tell you, he does not represent the feelings of the people of iowa on the issue of immigration. some of the statements he made have been part of a sad and time-honored tradition of prejudice against immigrants, and he continues that to this day. the basic question for boehner to answer, does he speak for the house republican caucus? there have been times when the speaker has apologized for some of his outrageous comments and

call him to task for something. the question now is, will he set the agenda when it comes to immigration in the house of representatives the remainder of this year? i hope not. i really hope the speaker will listen carefully to former speaker dennis hastert as well as the business and labor leaders and religious leaders across america who are calling once and for all for us to fix this broken immigration system before the end of this year, before we break for august. we need to get this job done. we need to have a bipartisan bill, passing in the house of representatives, brought to the senate, and on its way to the president. >> thank you. now we are coming up, as the sign shows, on the one-year anniversary, and it is clear the house has not lifted a finger to act. they have not lifted a finger and they have gone out of their

way to give steve king's anti-immigration amendments, ike the one that would require us to deport-- in the house, amazing. now we have this so called conservative manifesto that does not contain a word about immigration. any book about guiding the gop that does not mention immigration reform is a waste of paper. they may as well not have written this, because they will lose the 2016 election for president, the senate, and for the house if they do not do immigration reform. but they cannot. they are letting the steve kings call the shots. steve kings says do nothing, and house leadership does nothing. that is what has happened so far. we hope they will move, but thus far everything steve king has wanted what they have done. it is time to make clear that the republican will work with democrats and pass immigration reform. leader reid mentioned something

i have been talking about for a while. they keep coming up with excuses. their present excuses we cannot pass immigration reform because we do not trust president obama to enforce the law. irst, they should not pass any laws. why are they here? why don't they just go on vacation for the next 2 1/2 years? second, it is a bogus argument. as many people will tell you in this room, the president has been tougher on deportations than any president before him, and many people in the community to not like that. but, third, if they really believe that, then let's let them take up our suggestion hat leader reid and i have made, which is pass the bill

now, have it take effect january 1, 2017, and the president will not enforce the law. plain and simple. that is the reason for not doing it, we have a simple answer, plain and simple. and one other point -- we are not going to go along with minor fixes that fail to address the problems of our immigration system today. if the oil is leaking in your car, your muffler has a hole in it, you do not change the windshield wipers. that is what they want to do with this enlist act. republicans are barely considering that, but it does not scratch the surface of our immigration system. we support giving those that serve in the military the opportunity to earn citizenship, but we also want to secure our borders. anybody who thinks the enlist act that something was done on immigration form is whistling to the wind.

o here's the bottom line -- they have a six-week window, from june 10 after the last republican primary until the august recess. if they do not pass immigration reform then, the president will have no choice but to act on his own. we would much rather pass legislation, but they're worried the president is going to do something on his own? well, you have one easy, simple way to prevent it -- pass mmigration reform. and if you do not want the president to implement it, as we said, have the starting date be january 1, 2017. if the president has to act, the only blame will fall on the shoulders of the house republicans who, against the wishes of their party and the american people, are just

following steve king's dictates nd refusing to move. >> i know the extreme voices in the house republican caucus get nervous and get upset every time the word "immigration reform" is uttered, but hopefully, house republicans will pay more attention to the vast majority of the american people and that we can get this done. there is not any one that i know in washington state who thinks that the current law works. everybody in america knows it is broken, whether it is our companies, high-tech companies who know that they cannot get the workforce to help create jobs here because of the current system, or an agriculture sector that cannot literally pick the crops in our fields because of the broken system, or the many, many families who are torn apart the current system that does not affect the realities of making sure that we can keep the

values of his country when it comes to our families and taking care of them. even though this is an election year, i really hope the house republican caucus can stand up and do the right thing and do what the american people expect them to do, whether it is a budget agreement or whatever challenge we have, and that is work to fix a problem. and senator reid, our leader, has offered a compromise in the spirit of compromise that does not reflect what almost all want, waiting until 2017, but it is a compromise offer and to be taken up by the house and passed. for all of this fiscal conservatives out there who are not coming to the plate on this, i want to remind them that the congressional budget office has estimated that the senate bill on immigration would not only grow our economy, it would reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next decades. there are many, many reasons to pass this legislation, but most of all we need to show the american people that our

country can work, that we can fix laws that do not work, and that we have an obligation as leaders to step up to it. i hope the republicans in the house caucus will stand up and say it is time to do this. >> we will take some questions. yes. >> i just spoke with speaker boehner. he says he does not trust president obama. why are you keeping hope alive? isn't it time to say nothing is going to happen, no immigration reform and neither wants to say deportation, why not put the pressure now on? >> first of all, we understand what this has done to families. when i first started talking about this situation a long time ago, the words were "family unification."

there is no demographic group in the world that believes in family unification more than hispanics. that is what i believe. so that is my first goal, and what i think should be our first goal. the way to do that, once and for all, is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. as we have said here today, each one of us, if they do not trust the president, pass the law, pass it and make it effective at the beginning at the next presidency. that is reasonable. if they are unwilling to do that, senator schumer mentioned that a deadline, i will accept that, if then we should have the secretary of homeland security's report as to what the president should do from a legal perspective. and so we have waited 329 days. we are willing to wait another six weeks. at the end of six weeks, if something has not been done, we

will have a move that has to be made, and that will be too bad. it is better to change the law. we have 11 million people who are waiting and have been waiting, and i admire what the president did with the dreamers. that is something that is a tearjerker for all of us. i have an example, a little girl who came across a boat with her rosary and a little doll. she was four years old. mexico was not her home. america was her home. we're going to continue, and i think we have laid out our plan here. i am disappointed that my staff has told me, you just told me, that boehner is going to do nothing.

we gave him an offer today that e should not refuse. > senator reid, does the al: agree that president obama and the administration is not doing anything on -- are there smaller things that the president should do in enforcement? >> we have in the department of homeland security a report, and there are things in there he is considering doing. they are fairly minimal. i think the big move would have to come after having received on the secretary of homeland security what he believes can be done, and he is in the process of reviewing that now. >> senator reid if he does not act in the next six weeks, do you think the president should expand what he gave to deemers to other groups?

>> my personal feelings is it is not going to get done administratively. he have some strong feelings about what can be done if things do not move in six weeks. i will wait until jeh johnson gives the president to report. >> i asked about they do not want the senate version. they propose a step-by-step approach. i asked why that was not moving either. again the reply came back we don't trust him. in terms of strategy, we know what the talking points are, but in terms of strategy for you guys because it is obvious the house is not going to move now or in six weeks or before the elections or after the elections, what will you gain from this? >> i think our game plan has been laid out right here this morning. they do not trust the president and make it effective when we have a new president. >> senator reid.

> yes. >> [inaudible] >> here is what i want. i want chairman feinstein and chairman leahy to take a look at them and report to the senate what should be done. i believe we must do something, and i have no problem with the house having acted. i couldn't pass a test on what is in their bill. i will be able to after feinstein and leahy take a look at this. >> >> again, i think what the house has done is not unreasonable, as far as i nderstand. again, chairman sanders has done a remarkably good job as chairman of that committee. his predecessor was the woman

standing next to me, and i'm confident if the bill will get something very quickly, but i do not think we should wait around for a long time. i hope this is one thing that the senate republicans would not hold up. >> >> i think we have taken the gloves off. i repeat, we have laid out our plan. i think it is a good plan. if they do not take our offer, then we are going to have to go to the second step which is not my preference. administrative rules cannot trump legislation, but we are oing to have to do what we have to do as we prove with daca. >> is july 31 for sure. > thank you very much. >> you just heard in the news conference where senate

democrats reference to republican congressman steve king of iowa. he responded to the comments. here is some of what he said. >> i come to the floor this afternoon, mr. speaker, to address you and bring up the topic of the dialogue that has been, i'll say, flowing forth on the floor of the united states senate over the last few weeks. weeks. as i listened to that dialogue and listened to the way they lewinsky's l rules for radicals and decided they'll implement them and deploy them on the floor of the united states senate, it occurs to me when out of the mouths of people like senator schumer and senator reid and senator durbin come these allegations and sometimes allegations that name and target members of the house of representatives, it occurs to me when i came to this congress, mr. speaker, in 2003,

there was a rule that existed here that prevented a member of the house of representatives from naming a united states senator here on the floor. it was kind of a i guess shield of protectionism so the senators could not be directly criticized in the dialogue we have here on the floor. my good friend and then member of congress, tom feeney from florida, read through the rules as a good, honest, lawyer newly elected to the united states congress would, and he saw that rule and wondered why can't we utter the name of a united states senator on the floor -- senator on the floor of the united states house of representatives and could come up with no reason why we shouldn't be able to do that. so he brought an amendment to the rules that struck that prohibition and thereafter, thanks to then congressman tom feeney of orlando, the rule has been gone and it was amended and that's a good thing because now i can actually name the

people who are attacking me on the floor of the united states senate. and let you know, mr. speaker, what's going on in that other body, that body that constantly calls for bipartisan work and bipartisan cooperation. and this is what i get from senator chuck shumer, new york. may 1, 2014, on the floor of the united states senate. he decided that he would target me and blame me for the things he believes are failures of the entire house of representatives . here are some of the quotes chuck schume called me, an extreme outlier on the issue of immigration reform, closed quote. i would direct chuck schumer to the republican platform, you'll find there language in the republican platform that

supports the position that i held on immigration. and that's this, we need to respect the rule, we need to secure or borders, we need to have an immigration policy that's designed to enhance the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the united states of america. it can't be for the democratic party in america because they are so closely aligned and in fact they have enveloped the entire progressive party, the progressive party comes to this floor on a regular basis and gives speeches and presents their position. their position could at one time be found on the democratic ocialist of america's website. dsausa.org. and there socialism was celebrated as progressives celebrates socialism, they're wrapped up inside the democratic party, we don't adhere to that on my side. we adhere to the rule of law, the constitution, a secure border, a sovereign united

states of america and a policy for immigration that's designed to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the united states of america. and we have enough common ense, mr. speaker, to know that our country is limited in size, scope, however it's a large country. we cannot simply be the relief for all for all the poverty in the world. there are seven billion people on the planet, and if they all have good sense, they'd all want to live here. we need some of them in those countries to rebuild those countries and establish american principles so that they can enjoy the prosperity that we enjoy. we build, reconstruct around the principles and the other countries around the world. we need to lead the world. we don't need to necessarily bring all the world to feed all the world here in the united states. and so extreme outlier, not so. chuck schumer represents the extreme outliers and they are socialists, marxists, progressives, liberal

democrats. i'm sure one of the laboralists will be one he's embraced, mr. speaker. second quote, senator chuck schumer of me, steve king. it is beyond the pale. i'm certain the majority of republicans in the house will see their stomaches chur when they hear him spew that kind of rhetoric. that's not dialogue, mr. speaker to see that kind of thing and what i wonder is why would chuck know he would know when the stomaches of republicans might churn. i think they might churn when they hear him say those things. . my doesn't. i take this with good humor. i understand it's a tactic. it's designed to bring out a goal. and it's not necessarily to raise me up to the point where he assigns me with the full sense of responsibility and

authority to determine immigration policy here in the house of representatives. i wish it were so, mr. speaker. i don't believe it's so. yes, there is some influence there. history will decide how much. not he me, not chuck schumer. but here's his goal. i believe that senator schumer has concluded that he could taunt the leadership in the house of representatives, and that includes our speaker of the house, into brigham necessary at this legislation to the floor of the house because if it does, and if it should pass, the senate would conform with any amnesty legislation because they are controlled by democrats. and i have long known and long been restrained by people in my own party, mr. speaker, from laying out the argument as to why almost every democrat i know wants open borders and amnesty and a never-ending supply of illegal aliens in the united states of america. it's a pretty easy formula to figure out, especially if you

sit here for 10 or a dozen years engaged in hearings and debate on a weekly basis, you begin to hear the threat of their conversation and you begin to understand the real truth behind their motives. and it works out to be this. of course there are a large number of illegal immigrants in the united states. we have been using the number 11 million since we stopped using the number 12 million. but they didn't stop coming into america. i don't quite understand why we would think that there are fewer illegal aliens in america today than there were 10 years ago. i believe there are more. if they come across the border at the rates that the witnesses from the border patrol and other witnesses and the hearings have been testifying, they will say that they will stop perhaps 25% that try. when i go down to the border and ask them, they say 10% has to come first. it's probably not 10. some will say, well, a little smirk, 3%. but if i take the 25%, 25%

effectiveness on our border and you look at those whom they do interdict on the border, and you do the calculation, that turns out to be a number that's equillent to 11,000 a night. on average, 11,000 a night coming across our southern border. that would be at some of the peak levels that we have, mr. speaker. i would think it's more objective for us to dial that number back down to somewhere in the neighborhood of about half of that. so half of 11,000, 5.5,000 a night. 5,500 a night is pretty close to the last reliable information i have found on how many are coming across our border illegally. well, so i ask this question, what was the size of santa ana's army? about that, about 5,500 or 6,000. so it gives you a sense the size of santa ana's army coming across our southern border every night on average. i don't say day and night. most is at night. i have sat down on the border at

night multiple times. i have traveled on the border and done multiple trips to monitor what's going on. it's gotten a little better in arizona. it's gotten worse in texas. we don't have control of this border, but that doesn't trouble most democrats because they recognize that the millions of people that are coming into this country illegally are counted in the census. and -- if you would go to a district in california like maxine waters' district, she only needs about 40,000 to 50,000 votes in her district to get re-elected to the united states congress. if you go to my district it's well over 120,000 votes for me to be re-elected to the united states congress. and the difference in that is two things. one is, i have a very, very high percentage of real american citizens that do vote in my district. she has a lower percentage. and i have a higher turnout of people that are responsible enough to vote. she has a lower percentage. but illegal aliens are counted in the census all over america,

and when new district lines are drawn, those district lines treat people the same as citizens. the constitution doesn't say, count the citizens and then reapportion. it says count the people. so democrats are happy enough to see the country filling up with people that they get to count when they do a district because they get a democrat distric >> coming up, members of the house judiciary committee and the nsa data collection. the house majority leader eric cantor and senator mike lee and tim scott outline plans for helping the middle class. that is followed by another panel on conservative solutions to domestic issues. if we don't step up the enforcement side -- the

enforcement side brings the media attention. if we are going to say that the toy thing we can rely on is make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story -- that's a lot of victims. that to me would be a depressing conclusion are in we've got to figure out some way to up the up waitings short for another tragedy to hit the front pages .>> the house and i would say less the dollar amount to do the work .onto path that though. i think the changes i have seen institutions start to make is when they are immediately under investigation so we don't know if the finest $35,000 or upwards of one million dollars. i would like to see that investment in a bigger team. >> in all fairness, the fines will be paying for this. have an issue with budget in our

government, where does that money come from? doneinstitutions that have wrong can fund their own investigations. >> this weekend on c-span, senator claire mccaskill and the first of several conversations on rape on college campuses on saturday morning at 10:00. an examine the political philosophy and presidential tenure of james madiso sunday morning at 11:00 on c-span two. on american history tv, saturday morning at 10:00, the life and work of american red cross founder clara barton ..>> the followed by your comments live. that is on c-span3. coming up on the next "washington journal," retired marine sergeant of concerned

veterans for america discuss the allegations of mismanagement at va hospital's. then a look at immigration policy and the chances for legislation this year and our guest is mark rosenbloom of the migration policy institute. post" 00 what washington writer on gerrymandered congressional districts. liveington journal" is every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. defense secretary chuck hagel delivers remarks friday at the u.s. naval academy regulation and commission ceremony held in annapolis, maryland. you can see this event that includes navy secretary ray mebus live at 10:00 eastern on c-span. stopfocus on trying to waste and trying to catch people

who did it in the past but to actually go out and figure it out and say it is 50% or 30% or 20%. i think we're spending a lot of money. my staff time can be better spent trying to find the problems and identify the problems and help correct them. -- have the american people gotten their money's worth? >> their full money's worth? >> definitely not. thingsave been some good done, a lot of good things done and we have a lot of hard-working people. they are in many departments. even people from the department of commerce, a lot of people devoted their lives and energies over there. have we gotten the biggest bang for the buck? no. that's what we find all the time. were planning, poor execution. sopko on his role as

inspector general and how taxpayer dollars are spent on reconstruction in afghanistan sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a." >> the house voted others take 303-120 12 limit the nsa collection of phone records. numbers of the house judiciary committee spoke to reporters after the vote. the senate is likely to take up the issue this fall. >> good afternoon. i want to thank you all for being here. vote's strong bipartisan bans the ball collection of american records. getting here was not easy. for nearly a year, the house judiciary committee has worked together across party lines. with civil liberties

advocates and the obama administration to reach a bipartisan solution approved today. as the house judiciary committee work to reform our foreign intelligence committee programs, we knew that both our national security and civil liberties are at stake in the debate, but that both could be protected. the usa freedom act accomplishes both of these goals among protecting our cherished individual liberties enshrined in the civil rights, and protecting our -- and preserving our fundamental duty to keep our citizens safe from foreign enemies. it protects by prohibiting the government from indiscriminate collecting of phone records. this goes beyond just the telephone metadata program. the prohibition will apply to all records, from e-mail communications to firearms purchase records to financial records. at the same time, the bill ensures the federal government continues to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept the tax. -- attacks.

it will also guarantee transparency of our gathering operations. for example, it requires the federal government to report the number of orders issued annually. it also authorizes tech companies to publicly report national security request from the government to inform their customers. the terror threat is real and ongoing and we must always be aware of the threats we face. at the same time, congress must ensure our individual liberty is not sacrificed in the name of national security. the usa freedom act allen's is these concerns, protecting both -- balances these concerns, protecting both our individual liberty and safety. we will now hear from chairman sensenbrenner, a tireless advocate to and bulk data

-- to end bulk data collection and the author of the usa freedom act, who has been working on this through very difficult personal times right now. i want to thank him for his commitment to both his family and his country in working on this bill today. jim? >> thank you, bob. as the author of both usa freedom act and the patriot act of 2001, let me say that my concern through all of these debates is to balance out the need for increased security with the civil liberties and personal freedoms that have made america different than any other country in the world. the freedom act, i believe, does that. because for the first time, it does rain in the bulk collection of data from americans. and it does not allow the administration or the nsa to get around and use something other than section 215 of the patriot act to try to reauthorize bulk collection.

there has been some criticism both on the floor today as well as beforehand about the specific selection criteria section that is contained in the freedom act as past. -- as passed. let me say that a lot of those included, including our staffs, tried to work on a definition of a specific collection criteria that they -- the lawyers of nsa would not be able to blow a hole in and get the fisa court to do an about-face like they did making irrelevant -- making the definition irrelevant in section 215 and seven. while we are not able to lock the door and throw away the key in this area, what we have done is probably going to be more effective in stopping the nsa from attempting to use bulk collection through this

definition by requiring a classified notice to congress within a day after a policy change, and then an unclassified notice to the public within 45 days after the policy change. and that way, if the nsa goes too far, congress will be able to stop it and the american public will know what the nsa is doing. and i hope if they go too far, they will be as outraged as they were when they found out what the nsa was doing in terms of the indiscriminate bulk collection. i think the closure provisions are specifically stated as applying to the specific election criteria part of the bill. it will give us the distant early warning, a major change. and let me say, as a result of the freedom act passing the

house, the nsa might still be watching us. but now, we can watch them. and we means all of us, not just members of congress and our staffs, but all of americans through disclosure and transparency. now, i'm happy to introduce the ranking member and my successor as chairman of the full judiciary committee, john conyers of michigan. >> thank you. greetings. the usa freedom act is, to me, an important step to our reforming the in dash the nation's intelligence gathering programs and improving -- reforming the nation's intelligence gathering programs and improving civil liberties. this is a win for civil liberties today. here is why. first of all, we end woke

collection -- bulk collection. although it is not perfect, the bill itself would require the public disclosure of all significant opinions of the fisa court. and we ask for a protection of the content of the u.s. persons communications from unnecessary disclosure or dissemination. this is a great move forward. we think that our civil liberties are protected. this is the first time since the foreign intelligence surveillance act was passed in 1978 that we have taken steps to roll back some of the aspects of government surveillance.

and for that reason, i'm proud to stand with my colleagues today as we got a huge, overwhelming vote of support that makes me feel that the senate maybe even go -- may even be able to go further and take more steps. i now introduce the senior member of the house judiciary committee, a former subcommittee chairman from new york, jerry nadler. >> thank you very much. let me begin by thanking chairman goodlatte and chairman sensenbrenner and mr. scott for their great work on this bill. this is the first time since 1978 that we have advanced a bill to really rein in government surveillance. this bill will end will collection -- old collection, not only under -- bulk

collection, not only under 215, but in other ways. it does it in a number of ways. through use of national security letters and other devices. there will be no bulk collection. it is described within, and i think quite thoroughly. it also opens up the nsa somewhat. it opens up the five the court. -- court.it requires that there be an amicus to advocate the position opposed to the government position. and it provides that significant interpretations of the law will have to be given to the congress within a day and to the public within 45 days. we cannot have secrets anymore. if there were ever to be an egregious misinterpretation of the law as there was to the word relevance in the patriot act, we

would know about it and can do something about it. i want to say that these are very significant changes. the criticisms of the bid -- the bill, all of the criticisms of the bill are that the build did not go far enough. i would wish that the bill went farther. it went farther when it was initially introduced. but congress has to work its will. i hope the senate will take it a little further. but there was never a good criticism to the bill that says it doesn't go far enough, therefore we should vote against it. this ill goes quite far in ending bulk collection. and bulk collection is one of the reasons this country has established as an opposition to general war and by the british, to protect people's rights to privacy and to their effects and papers. it reopens with the fourth amendment. this goes a long way toward shutting those doors. i think it is a very good step.

it could go further, but it goes quite far. i'm very glad we have done this. i hope the senate will follow through. and i introduce -- oh, i thought i was introducing bobby. bobby scott. >> thank you. i'm pleased to join my colleagues in the judiciary committee. proposing the amended version of usa freedom act. i commend my colleagues for working together to develop a bipartisan bill to address some of the shortcomings in the statute. as 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 these statutes, studied the issues, proposed solutions to work together to find a way forward. we have also worked with our

colleagues from the intelligence committee to find common ground and bring meaningful surveillance reform to the floor today. the bill is amended to enhance privacy protections and provides more rigorous review of legal interpretations, and increases transparencies are citizens will know what is eating done and decided in their name -- what is being decided and done in their name. and it is the first rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the original foreign surveillance intelligence act in 1978. while the administration has agreed to change some of the procedures, i believe the best course is to trust, but codify. it may not accomplish all that we want, but is a significant step in the right direction. now i call on my colleagues from virginia, a member of not only

be judiciary committee, but a subcommittee chair on the armed services committee, randy force. -- forbes. >> bobby, thank you. it is always difficult to get the pendulum of government just right. and sometimes, that is almost an impossible thing. i think this moves along way in trying to do that. jim sensenbrenner, we all thank you for grabbing this issue and staying with it so long. and as you know, these kinds of issues don't happen unless you have the right committee chairman who is doing the leadership for that. and chairman goodlatte has exemplified that kind of leadership in doing this, and also the support of a strong ranking member like congressman conyers. we thank both of them, and all of the staffs, majority and minority, for making sure they came together to get this just right. and today is an attempt to get that right, by enhancing our civil liberties protections, but at the same time preserving our

ability to protect national security. you have heard everyone fade is a new comprehensive review, extensive public disclosure, but the big word is more transparency. the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the intelligence committee has taken appropriate action to root out threats to the security of the american people within the boundaries of the united states constitution. i think the house of representatives took a huge step in making sure they got that balance right today with this piece of legislation. inc. you. -- thank you. >> i want to second that appreciation for all the members of this bipartisan team. now we will be happy to take any questions from the media. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] is there a last step in renewed ambiguities in the bill [inaudible]

>> civil authority issues and national security issues are never debates at the bottom of the stack. we are always looking for ways to both enhance our civil liberties and our national security. i think this bill accomplishes both of those in improved ways. particularly with regard to creating the kind of transparency that will allow american people to trust what if going on. -- what is going on. unfortunately, the biggest casualty for this whole past year has been the trust of the american people. in the organizations and -- in the organizations keeping our people safe, they want that to be accomplished, but they also want to know that their privacy and civil liberties are being respected at every turn of that process. at examination and discussion, i believe, will always go on. but we have a big problem to

solve here right now with the program that has been carried in a direction that in my opinion, and i think in the opinion of everyone up here, was not intended when it was passed. and the correction of that and the added transparency that goes along with it is a huge step in the right direction. >> could you better explain the language with regard to selected terms? what was it the administration would have been prevented with this new language that the original language would have allowed? is this hypothetical? >> i cannot share hypotheticals, and maybe someone else can. but what i can say is when we worked on this legislation, we had to make sure that it was not just stopping bolt data collection in section 215. it was not just stopping bulk data collection with regard to

telephone records. it had to encompass all types of data collection and all statutes used around the collection of that. that meant that the terms of this legislation has to cover not just one statute, but at least six different statutes, for related to national security letters, one related to pen register trap and trace, and it had to take into account what law enforcement has traditionally done when it has confronted the need to get pieces of information and for all those chains. under certain circumstances, the courts have been very clear. you have to have under the fourth amendment of the constitution, a warrant. but under other circumstances, having a phone number and morning to get phone numbers that have been called -- not the content of the calls, but just the numbers called, you can do that with a lesser standard. this bill is not about changing every aspect of how law

enforcement in the country goes about doing its work. and keeping people safe. that language was necessary to bridge all of those considerations. if you were to try to list every single circumstance in which a different selector would be used, you would have to try to come -- sit down and come up with every single word and phrase that could be used as a selector. this would be a better way to do it. but we were also concerned that if you did not list every single thing, something inappropriate could be used. that is why we added terms like "discrete close quote and terms like "such as" and "wanted to -- "pointed to." i think that coupled with the increased rent parents he at five to -- at fisa and at nsa being capped when they want to track phone calls or some other data they want to pursue, all of the american people can be

assured of the kind of abuse that took lace with the use of section 215 cannot take lace with section 215 or any of those statutes. that is what brought us together in the resolution in dealing with those or these agencies. after all, they're responsible these enormous in keeping the american people safe. they can sure -- making sure we know how they work and how this process works was critical in bringing it to the floor. >> i have a technical question. still on the definition of what the select criteria are, it was mentioned earlier that congress

needs to be informed if there was a policy change, one day, and then 45 days. let's say there was a broad definition of one of the select terms chosen by the nsa. is that a policy change? is that something they are required to tell you? what is the difference between a definition and a policy change and having to report about it? it? >> two things. first, they have to get a court order for the use of that. and that court order, if it is, indeed, a new selection, a new process -- it might be a word selector change or a change in technology that is used. because this bill will not only cover things that we have used for long -- a longtime i telephoned, but it covers a wide array of technologies being used right now. mostly for legitimate purposes, but also by people who would wish this country and its citizens harm.

our intent under the statute requires that at the appropriate time to be disclosed. i don't know if anyone wants to add anything to that. >> i was wondering if you or anyone else there believes edward snowden should be allowed into the country? >> no, i do not believe that. i think it is important to understand that what edward snowden took as a contract employee of the nsa was not just information about processes used, which was important for us to know and understand and address, as we have done, but he also took massive amounts of information regarding the security interest of the united states and the people who help to protect that security.

some have said he took the crown jewels of american intelligence. and i believe that is correct. i cannot share with you all of that information, but i have reviewed the reports regarding what was taken, and i can tell you this is a very serious matter. secondly, i believe that mr. snowden, if that were his only interest in here, made a tremendous mistake in going first to china, to hong kong, and then onto russia to seek the protection of vladimir putin rather than coming to the united states congress, or someone else, or some other entity in the united states and seek the protection under our whistleblower statute. i think he could have done this very differently than he did. the consequences of him having done it the way he did it our as yet untold and a big concern to me and many others.

>> could i just add to that? it is hard for me to imagine that snowden didn't realize he was breaking the law in several respects and that he was apparently willing to pay the price, or at least take the risk for that activity. i don't think there should be some committee seeking to give him a pass or lighten his responsibility. i have to assume that he realized that if he were detected that this thing would not work out too well. >> several of you have indicated that you hold the senate comes back with stronger language, but we also know this is a delicate compromise that has been reached over weeks and months. i think we know what the administration has said they could support.

what makes you think negotiation with senators will be able to reduce any stronger language? -- produce any stronger language? >> we always think operatively, -- positively first of all. even with the senate. [laughter] it is very critical that they understand what happened in this debate today, because there is room for improvement. i haven't met a member supporting that voted for the legislation that doesn't have some ideas about how we could make it better. i'm hopeful that some of those ideas can work their way into the debate and the law and the bill that they sent over. >> let me just add that no legislation is perfect, and in this case, there are people on both sides of the team -- some

would say that this is not the perfect way to protect our national security and others would say it's not the best -- the perfect way to protect our civil liberties. i think you can have a tremendous bill that provides for that. we are always interested in seeing what dissent might do, but you are correct. this has been very carefully can -- negotiated here within the house and also with the administration. it will be very important that if the senate does something different, that it is as ranking con your met -- ranking member conyers said, it is better and not just different. we will look forward to working with the senate to reach a final conclusion on what can be put on the president's desk to be signed into law. >> let me get somebody who hasn't asked a question, in the back. >> mr. sensenbrenner, and those who were around for the original patriot act, i'm wondering if you could explain a little bit of the evolution here in congress, from crafting a bill, what happened, and what ee