acknowledges the need to right the ship after the storm of sequestration. the bill sets the priorities of our intelligence professionals and their agencies. and it allocates resources to critical national security programs, including those that detect, prevent, and disrupt potential terrorist attacks. let me also mention some specifics. continue to emphasize the value of our lights. scales back the intelligence community's use of contractors. pushes for further improvements in the continuous evaluation of insider threats. provides critical forward funding for navy board and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance to maintain military intelligence capabilities during the transition to newer, more capable aircraft. and invest in both recruitment and retention of the best and brightest for our cyberwork force, particularly within the f.b.i. our younger generation we must educate them and have them work in this area. we have spent months pouring

over this bill. and the committee spaces at the agencies and in the remotest corners of the earth where our intelligence professionals operate and then i can say this is a very good bill and i am proud to support it. many of the amendments on the floor today also promise to make a great bill even better. for the sake of keeping the country and its allies safe, for the sake of rigorously overseeing even the most classified intelligence programs, i urge my colleagues to pass this bill today. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. r. pittinger: thank you. mr. speaker, thank you, chairman rogers, for this opportunity to speak. i want to commend you for your exceptional leadership, for your service on behalf of the security of our nation.

over the past year, it's really been a privilege to get to know you and work with you on several initiatives and i'm just grateful for the way you handle the people's business and look forward to working with you more and also congratulate you on your future endeavors. the legislation before us today provides intelligence community the authorization needed to protect and defend the united states and supports critical national security programs such as those protecting americans against terrorism and cyberattacks. as members of congress, we took an oath to the constitution which sets forth our duty to provide for the defense of the united states. passing the yearly intelligence authorization act is a critical component of living up to our constitutional obligations, ensuring america's intelligence agencies have the resources necessary to keep americans safe. passing the intelligence authorization is also vital to our important responsibility

providing oversight to the current administration. this legislation ensures congress, and not the executive branch, is controlling how taxpayer money is being spent on intelligence activities and doing so in the most efficient and effective way possible. we must remember that we have not defeated the threat of terrorism. the terrorists we face today are not a back yard gang. they are sophisticated and have access to the most modern of technologies. over the last two years, we have seen the number of worldwide deaths from terrorism attacks double from 10,000 in 2012 to 20,000 in 2013. the fact that we in america are able to sleep soundly at night is a credit to the men and women who serve our country selflessly. we must continue to provide these brave men and women every tool possible as they continue to provide for our safety. that is why i encourage all my

colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to my good friend and a member of our committee, jan schakowsky, who has been very thoughtful and has allowed us to do the things that we need to do, jan. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the ranking member for yielding to me. i want to begin by saying that i really appreciate the way in which our committee operates and has come to present this authorization bill to the floor , but i do want to raise some concerns. one of the most controversial issues surrounding our national security is the use of the drone program, and a number of us tried to introduce some amendments that would be considered on the floor of the house so that we, along with the american people, could have

a conversation about that. these amendments were not made in order, and i want to express what they -- what my amendment would have done. it would have prohibited elements of the intelligence community from engaging in so-called signature strikes. that is lethal strikes in which the target is not specifically identified but whose so-called pattern of life fits the profile or signature of a terrorist. in these situations, we don't know the identity of the target. instead, we draw conclusions from surveillance about whether someone is affiliated with the terrorist organization or engaged in terrorist conduct. the stakes are high, and inevitably mistakes will be made. there are reports from human rights organizations in past years that we've already made several grave errors and innocent lives have been lost as a result.

we need to recognize that each mistake we make in these situations, killing innocent people, spawns more numerous and more determined adversaries, undermining our mission there in the first place. how we are perceived abroad matters. even as some of the strikes reported as mistakes are not mistaken, the fact is that the rest of the world perceives our activities as killing innocent civilians and painting all adult male muslims in these regions as our enemies. i understand the target -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. schakowsky: we cannot kill our way out of this problem and our way to victory. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i use as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is yielded as much

time as he may consume. mr. rogers: i want to thank the gentlelady for some of the counterterrorism strategies that are well discussed and well overseen in the spaces where appropriate and under the appropriate forum and function to do that because they are significant. there is no aspect of that counterterrorism strategy that isn't reviewed, both in policy leading up to the daily, monthly counterstrategy meetings that happen in the appropriate agencies and departments that is a part of regular oversight of these particular programs. but i do think it's important to understand something. that all of the focus seems to be on the type of a weapon system that we have used or decided to use or may be using to fight what is a large and growing threat to the united states of america.

i think it was interesting that in the boko haram case of the 300 girls it caught the world's attention that you could have a group that would be so diabolical that they would kidnap 300 girls and sell them into slavery or force them into marriage. they do unspeakable things. yes, that's right. that's who these groups are. this is the same group that's threatened the united states of america with terrorist attacks. it's an al qaeda affiliate. we have watched them cut off the heads of other human beings for the purposes of intimidation. we've watched them cut off hands. we've watch them shoot little girls who get on buses to try to go and get an education. we need to understand what threat faces the united states of america, and because our intelligence services have been so good and so aggressive, we haven't had an attack here in the same 9/11 fashion and some

of that, by the way, was just sheer luck with the -- preparing for the opportunity to catch them. we need to step back and make sure we're understanding what we're trying to accomplish here and how we try to accomplish it. and i think disparaging the very men and women who i know spend hours and months and years in preparation for any counterterrorism strategy that we engage and do it in a way that is so responsible. i think americans would be so proud if they had the opportunity to sit down and talk with these people about how they get to where they are. but i will tell you, aspects of that counterterrorism strategy, some that has been referenced, is the most impactful, disruptful activity we've been able to do to stop attacks against the united states and our allies overseas. so i just, again, caution in this vacuum of safety and relative security that so many have given us, we should be cautious about what we are

asking changes to do and what that would mean for exposure of, say, u.s. pilots or u.s. special forces, that we have not had to do for some length of time and still accomplish the mission. and by the way, i can clearly say that any reference to some massivelyian casualties or -- mass civilian casualties or collateral damage is false. it's a false narrative for those who seek to stop an effort that we know in fact is degrading the ability for attacks against the united states. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: yes. mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to mr. adam schiff, a value member of our intelligence committee, who has worked very closely with me and our committee on very important issues. the chair: the gentleman is recognized from california for three minutes. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i

rise in support of the intelligence authorization act for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. this bill provides the resources and support the intelligence community needs to accomplish their mission while enhancing oversight in several important respects. i want to commend the bipartisan leadership by chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger on this bill. i congratulate them on again advancing an intelligence authorization act, and i also want to acknowledge my colleague from nevada, dr. heck, for his work with me on the technical and tactical subcommittee. chairman heck did a fabulous job supporting investments in technology and capacity that will pay dividends in years to come. in addition to funding our intelligence priority, the bill includes important new provisions to improve greater oversight of the n.s.a. and other i.c. elements. it creates an independent inspector general within the n.s.a. who will be fully empowered to investigate abuse,

waste or fraud. the bill also requires an annual report to the intelligence committees on violations of law and executive order, including executive order 12333. the provision fixing the blind spot under current law and improves the intelligence committee's capacity for oversight. while i support the bill, i was disappointed that an amendment i proposed with my colleague, walter jones, was not made in order. this amendment would have required an annual public report on the total number of civilian and combatant casualties caused by drone strikes. by publicly reporting on the use of drones, we would provide additional accountability and transparency, helping to ensure the legitimacy of the actions we take overseas. the report would also provide a counterpoint to the inflated estimates of civilian casualties frequently seen in the news in part due to active efforts of our enemies to mislead. i plan to continue working with my colleagues on the committee to provide greater

transparency, but this is a very simple method of doing so. in some it would simply -- in sum, it would simply require an annual accounting of how many combatants were killed and noncombatants were killed. it would require the administration or d.n.i. to define those terms so we understand who is defined as a combatant or noncombatant. the president has set a high standard for the use of drones, that they not be used until there is a near certainty there will not be casualties. this is a way to hold us accountable to meet that very high standard. it is also, i think, all the more important when we consider while we may be the first nation to use drones in this capacity, we will not be the last, and the standard we set or fail to set will be one that may be immolated by others around the world. and so i support this bill. i wish it had -- we had the opportunity on the floor to vote on this amendment, but i look forward to working with the committee in the years that follow to incorporate this

provision and others to improve transparency and accountability and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time, and the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the chair: continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to a great member of congress, ms. kelly from illinois. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member for area hard work on this important legislation. every day america faces threats to our national security. some threats are evolving like cyberattacks on our infrastructure, some are emerging like the radicals of boko haram and some are right in front of us demanding direct action. because we face a diverse array of threats, our security depends on an intelligence community that is equally diverse. moorehouse dress to college, leon panetta said we needed an intelligence community with a work force

that reflects the world it engages. my amendment helps the intelligence community meet its strategic diversity goals by providing grants to predominantly black colleges that helps future generations of tgs experts through advance language training, study abroad and cultural emerging programs. to remain globally secure, we must have people on the ground who can blend easily abroad, especially in africa and the middle east. overcoming cultural, language and educational barriers is critical to achieving this goal. i ask that my colleagues support this commonsense amendment. and i yield back. . the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: reserves. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the chair: both sides reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to a great member of congress, sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes.

ms. jackson lee: let me thank the ranking member for yielding and as well the chairperson and to collectively add my appreciation for the two leaders of this committee. they have committed themselves with -- without question to the security of this nation. i thank them for their collaboration. mr. rogers, i thank you for the work that you have done for the nation and certainly the commitment you have made to a very important business of this committee. mr. ruppersberger, let me thank you for the friendship as well and the continued collaboration on an issue of great concern to me, but i will speak generally about this legislation. again acknowledge some of the looked at you have and considered and even included in this legislation as it comes forward.

i agree with you that detect and disrupting and preventing a national security crisis is paramount responsibility for this committee and many others, including the committee that i serve on, the committee on homeland security. for that reason i have interfaced with this committee on a number of issues and am very glad to note in particular that the issue dealing with the expansive use of which i'll talk about on the en bloc amendment that has been used is clearly something that we should have considered. and in this bill it did. it got its hand around the enormous use of outside contractors in the intelligence business. and it emphasized recruitment and training. that's positive. there are young, bright persons who i know are willing to serve their country. and this legislation has committed itself to doing that. now, particularly in this legislation i also want to appreciate the collaboration between the judiciary committee and this committee on the u.s.a. freedom act and say to america

that we have corralled the megadata collection and done it in a bipartisan manner and we will do more and better. so it is with appreciation for this legislation and thanking the committee for working with my staff on my amendment. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: can i ask how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 17 minutes remaining. mr. ruppersberger: thank you. i reserve. the chair: he reserves. the gentleman -- the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to my good friend, great ember of congress, mr. peter welsh from vermont. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. welsh: i thank you for your good work and we'll miss you. your leadership on the intel committee has been a great benefit to this institution. mr. speaker, i have been working with a number of my major

leagues, particularly miss lummis of wyoming, on a question we think is quite important to the security status of our country and that is more transparency in the budget. this is debated. because by definition if it's intelligence activity it's "secret." on the other hand, the whole point of having transparency in budgets is so that the rules of accountability apply across the board. we have 16 different intelligence gathering agencies. and in many cases -- in all cases the top line budget is absolutely secret. the 9/11 commission that was a bipartisan commission of respected national security credentialed people, lee hamilton, the governor of new jersey, recommended that this number, the top line number in the intelligence agency budget, be transparent. why? so that there's a basis for taxpayers and all of us to start

to evaluate whether we are getting our money's worth. whether there's duplication in efforts. whether one agency is stumbling into another. whether there's coordination. whether there's cooperation. the same reasons that we would have the food stamp budget subject to rigid review and accountability, applies as well to our security. and in fact it's enormously important that this country be getting its money's worth. the principle of transparency would not in any way compromise, in the view of many respected intelligence leaders like lee hamilton, the intelligence gathering and the effort and responsibility to keep us secure. so i was disappointed we were not allowed to have an amendment on that bill, but i do appreciate the willingness of the ranking member to work with me and also the chairman to listen to many of us in this body who'd like that opportunity

to make the case lee hamilton made for transparency. thank you. mr. ruppersberger: thank you for your comments. i would like -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i thank the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for his work in the area of transparency on the behalf of the american people. as we have seen in this last year, trust and the intelligence community by the citizens it serves is incredibly important. as the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, we take seriously the responsibility to provide to the public as much information as possible while protecting sensitive sources and methods. when classification permits the budget of the intelligence community has been released. in other cases the american people rely on our committee and all of their representatives like representative welch to review the budget of the intelligence committee on their behalf. i look forward to working with representative welch to increase trust in the intelligence community by the american people as relates to transparency. i roaf -- i reserve. mr. rogers: i reserve for the purposes of closing.

the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. so the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve. mr. rogers: reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. and will close. so the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the additional time. mr. ruppersberger: for the sake of vigorous oversight and accountability over all u.s. intelligence agencies and all u.s. intelligence activities, i urge my colleagues to vote for this important bipartisan bill. i also urge my colleagues to support this bill for the sake of our brave intelligence professionals who, like our military, workday and night often in the most worst places to keep us safe and allies safe. and for the sake of all of us who benefit from the work of our intelligence agencies. i urge my colleagues to vote for

this bill. it's a solid bill that we should be proud to support. finally, once again, mr. chairman, let me again thank you for your leadership, our relationship, and your commitment to the people of the united states of america. you served in the military, you served in the f.b.i., and we are going to miss you. thank you also to every member on the intelligence committee. we have had many debates, many hard negotiations, and many tough struggles, but at all times whether or not one member or another agreed or disagreed, we respect the fact that another member had another point of view, and then we resolved those issues. each of us have worked hardtory find common ground on behalf of the american people to protect us from terrorist attacks and other issues out there that relate to national security. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank the ranking member for your work. let the american public, i

think, understand what happens. there's so many aspersions thrown at the members who serve on the intelligence and other committees that must do their work in secret. certainly the staff that fights through and works through all these difficult issues. there's plenty of oversight happening. might not be on the front page of the newspaper. we call that disaster day in our -- in the business of trying to protect americans' secrets. when the ranking member and i first took over the committee, we reinstituted all the regular oversight patterns. counterintelligence matters, covert action matters, regular counterterrorism strategy updates and reviews. again every piece of that strategy that is implemented is reviewed by the committee. certainly is read and reviewed by me personally. i know others on the committee as well. there is a tremendous amount of effort and energy applied to trying to get this right. to making sure that two things

happen. one, that they are comprorting with the law. they want to -- comporting with the law. they want to do that despite what you might read in the newspaper. they want to do that. they, too, have taken an oath to the constitution of the united states of america. they believe following the law is the right way to do t they want congress' support of what they are doing, and they want the american people's support for what they are doing because it is so difficult and so hard to come to the right conclusions in a very murky and dangerous world. so that oversight does happen. it happens regularly. i want to thank all the members of both parties for rigorous debate behind those closed doors. there is no love fest when those doors close and just do what we have to do to get to tomorrow. the debates are real and vigorous. we have different philosophies on how we move forward on some of these intelligence matters and collection matters and how we balance privacy and civil liberties and security. all of that happens.

sometimes we find members just don't agree. but what we do in that space is understand that trying to get and make sure that all the resources and all the policies and all the authorities our intelligence services need to be impactful, to save the united states, and, yes, maybe even save 300 girls, or, yes, maybe even allow that girls in a place like afghanistan can get an education. that part needs to be right, too. nuclear proliferation. we have a cyberworld that is the single largest national security threat to this country that we are not prepared to handle. and there are a lot of sidebar discussions that have nothing to do with the fact that nation states are stealing our intellectual property. nation states like china. that you have, according to public reports, countries like iran who are probing financial institutions right here in the united states trying to do destructive attacks. north korea even attacked a bank in the south, korea, some months

ago, according to public reports. you see china rising up in its influence in the south and east china seas. you see potential conflict between vietnam, japan, and china. these are serious, serious matters. and because they are so far away, i think sometimes we forget. we come to talk about things that are important, how we move forward, and the intelligence business and how we empower them to do the work of the united states. but at the same time this recent year of i think aspersion to the men and women who serve in these capacities is disheartening. this isn't a new thing. george washington used the intelligence business to try to win the war against the british. ben franklin is credited with the first covert action programs by trying to influence british and torry opinion during the first years of the war. john jay created the first

counterintelligence unit to try to fight back what the british were doing in spying against the americans. jefferson and madison had secret funds that they took, by the way, which we would no longer approve nor support today, secret funds in order to do covert action-type activities in the earliest days of the founding of our nation. so we need to stop for a minute and think about what is at stake. i think the future and safety and security of the united states is at stake. and we have somehow over the last year decided that our intelligence services are the problem. no, i have bad news. actually i have good news, they are part of the solution. if you don't want troops engaged in many countries, then you want to support your intelligence services. and you want them to be the bess in the world. if you don't want to have to engage in the withdrawal of certain diplomatic and economic and trade arrangements around the world, then you want the

best intelligence services that you can possibly get. here's the good news. we have them. we just need to stand behind them. when they come home from doing hard things, when they lose their colleagues, and they do, they are not looking for a ticker tape parade down in new york city. they know that's not going to happen. but what they do want to understand is when they turn around the american population and american citizens are standing with them. even though americans can't give them the attaboy, we can. those of us who do this work, we can. i'll tell them on this floor today on behalf of a grateful nation, thank you for your service. stop reading the newspaper. keep doing your job. it will mean the difference of lives saved around the world. we have so many challenges. this is the wrong time. i only say this, wasn't planning to say this, mr. chairman, but someone came on this floor and

said, i don't mind that the intelligence people, but i don't like their culture. i don't like their culture. these are people who are willing to risk their lives for that flag that stands in the well of this house. they were willing to give their lives for the constitution of which they stuck up their hand to support. . is that the culture we don't like and support in america? there may be bumps in the road but we ought to praise these ople, we ought to sing their praises. we are risking their lives to collect that one piece of information that maybe saves the girls of boko haram or maybe saves the girls that get on the bus today in the united states of america. i hope we shake ourselves out of this notion na we can just continue to beat them and disparage them and call them everything but great patriots and expect them to get up every

day and do the job that they need to do to protect this country. this bill, i think, actually does that. we give them clear guidance. we invest in technology that we need to make sure that we keep up with our adversaries around the world, by the way, that are trying to beat us and take advantage of us. places like space, places like cyber, places like human intelligence, and what they believe is a perceived weakness to deal with a rising tide of terrorists who want to kill americans here at home. this is an important bill because it's bipartisan. a lot of these issues that are talked about have been fought in the bowels of this house, basically, and we worked through it and we've come to an agreement that this is the right direction in a bipartisan way that will serve to protect the united states. so mr. chair, i would urge all members to support and strongly support this bill, give them the tools, give congress the oversight, give america the ability to sleep well at night

knowing that very brave men and women will do the work that so many would not be interested in had doing. and with that, mr. chairman, i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. all time for general debate has expired. pruett to the rule, the -- pursuant to the rule, the amendment shall be considered under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment recommended by the permanent select committee on intelligence, printed in the bill, it shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-45. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as an original text shall ble in order except those print -- be in order except those printed in 113-465 and amendments en bloc described in section 2-f of house resolution 604. each amendment shall be

considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. chairman, pursuant to house resolution 604, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 1 offered by mr. rogers of michigan consisting of amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11, printed in house report 113-465. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 604, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger, mr. each

control 10 minutes. -- will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i'd grant myself as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i urge the support the amendments en bloc. the manager's amendment is intended to make minor technical modifications to clarify two provisions that were add in markup. i have an amendment that would require employees at senior level in the intelligence community to endure a cooling off period before being employed by a company that is owned or controlled by a foreign government that poses a high counterintelligence threat. it would also make them subject to certain reporting procedures. this amendment stems from my concern that some senior level employees in the intelligence community retire or otherwise separate from the u.s. government and take employment with foreign companies or

foreign-controlled companies after holding positioning where they likely learned very sensitive information that would be of value to those particular companies or governments. it's not intended to be punitive prohibition on postintelligence community employment but rather establish a procedure to make sure that a sufficient time has lapse to avoid conflicts of interest. mr. carney has an amendment that would procongress with a useful report on ways to improve the declassification process across the intelligence community. they have declassified a massive amount of documents over the past year, increased transparency through a declassification process will help rebuild the confidence of the american people in their intelligence agencies. mr. connolly has an amendment that would add several best practices to assessment of our bills -- bill requires for intelligence community software licenses. this amendment is more important in light of the current efforts to improve information technology systems. wise management of software

licenses can help save the taxpayers dollars while making sure our intelligence officers have the tools they need to do their jobs. ms. jackson lee has an amendment that will help us identify ways to improve the support contractors offer to the intelligence community. it may help us find ways to make the most of scarcest resources all the while ensuring that contractors do not perform inherently governmental functions. mr. keatings a an amendment concerning intelligence sharing between federal, state and local entities which has been a critical tool to prevent terrorist attacks on american soil. joint terrorism task force pools into a single entity that can respond with the flexibility and speed to stop impending threats. even so, we must always look for ways to improve intelligence sharing relationships. the amendment requires a study on the efficacy of the memoranda of understanding signed between federal, state, local, tribal and territorial agencies. the study will help identify any obstacles to intelligence sharing between agencies and find improvements to existing intelligence sharing

relationships. ms. kelly an an amendment to expand the grant -- has an amendment to expant the grant program to include predominantly black institutions. succeed, our nation needs our nation's top talent and that is making sure we have full use of our minorities. and it will include language education. foreign language skills are critical for intelligence officers, as we all know. mr. kilmer has an amendment that will require the intelligence community chief information operations director required by section 307 of the bill and require d.n.i. to have guidelines to implement these recommendations. these recommendations and guideline will help the i.c. implement the results of the important assessment this bill will require regarding software licensing. i will therefore support the

amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i ask members to support the en bloc amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes. mr. ruppersberger: i support all of these amendments. i agree with chairman rogers that it is very troubling when senior u.s. officials who know our most sensitive secrets leave the federal government and immediately go to work for a company that is owned by a foreign country that poses a significant counterintelligence threat to us. i do have some concerns that this restriction might be seen as singling out our intelligence professionals since it does not apply to every senior official in the government with a top secret clearance. and i would be in favor of a waiver procedure for when the risks are low, for example, for someone who wants to teach english at a state-funded university in his or her retirement. in the whole, i agree with mr. rogers and i support this

provision. i also agree with mr. connolly and mr. kilmer that we need to find efficiencies in the intelligence community's use of software. in fact, we just don't need to find them, we need to fix them. finding and fixing inefficiencies translates into saving taxpayer dollars which is something we must always strive to do. i agree with ms. robin kelly that we need to increase the diversity of our intelligence work force by adding predominantly black institutions to ongoing intelligence community programs currently designed for historically black colleges. it's in our own right and it will create even greater opportunities for intelligence collection. i agree with mr. carney that we must reduce our declassification backlog. as "the new york times" reported just this week, even material that should be automatically declassified isn't. so we need the director of national intelligence to look across the intelligence community and figure out how to improve the declassification process so that more national security information can be made available to the american

people now. i also agree with ms. sheila jackson lee that we need to get a handle on how we are employing our contractors. we need to know whether they're doing the type of work that should be done by u.s. government employees. let me be clear, however, contractors perform a very valuable service and our companies are among the very best in the world. but there needs to be a clear line between what we expect from our employees who owe 100% of their loyalty to the government and what we expect from our contractors whose patriotism is without question but whose loyalty loyalty is also to the company who employees -- whose loyalty is also to the company who employees them. we need to look at the close memoranda of agreement between the state, local, tribal and territorial government to make sure they're written clearly enough to make sure to protect sources of methods. intelligence is critical, particularly in the midst of domestic crisis. and for it to be useful it must get to those who need it. so in addition to the manager's amendment, which makes technical and clarifying

changes to the reported bill, i support all these amendments. thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i'm at this point would reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to ms. sheila jackson lee from texas on her amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the ranking member, again, and the chairman as well and let me also acknowledge the very fine men and women that work in our intelligence community in the united states and around the world. i'd like to thank the house permanent select committee on intelligence for their efforts to include the jackson lee amendment in the en bloc amendments and to thank them for working with my staff in a very cooperative manner. the jackson lee amendment seeks greater transparency to congress on the people the nation relies upon to perform certain types of work for the intelligence community.

the jackson lee amendment requires the director of the office of national intelligence to conduct an assessment of the reliance of intelligence activities on contractors who support government objectives, including an assessment of contractors performing intelligence activities which would include intelligence analysis. this complements the underlying bill because the underlying bill has determined to assess the utilization and reduce the number of private contractors. in a time article dated monday, july 20, -- july 19, 2010, a comment says, explosion of contractors in the intelligence community. and that has been the case. it is important that we recognize that contractors can be useful, but like the president said, and stated publicly on august 6, 2013, that it is important that we have so many extraordinarily capable folks in our military and our government who can do this and probably do it cheaper. well, i agree with the president and this committee, and i also take note of an

article that cites n.s.a. contractors using linkdin profiles to cash in on national security. i believe that with the work na we're doing here in this -- that we're doing here in this legislation and my amendment we will get our hands around the idea of outsourcing our intelligence work and we will develop a pathway of excellence as we have in the past, we'll utilize our veterans, we'll utilize military personnel, we'll utilize young persons who is interested in this as a career and we have the finest intelligence staffing that we ever had as we had in the past. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank the, again, chairman and ranking member for including it en bloc and i think we're on a pathway of greater success in securing this nation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from michigan.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-465. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. franks: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-465 offered by mr. franks of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 604, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: well, thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you goes to chairman rogers. mr. speaker, i believe chairman rogers has exhibited the best of the house of representatives and has rendered this country magnificent service, both to our national security and to the stability of this nation. i thank him deeply for it and also for the time to speak on this amendment.

mr. speaker, the intelligence authorization act of 2015 is a critical milestone toward protecting americans at home and those who serve our interests and nation overseas. however, it does not currently address one of the critical concerns and that is the threat a man-made nuclear or electromagnetic pulse or e.m.p. weapon. my amendment would task the director of national intelligence to report to the congress on the threat posed by man-made electromagnetic pulse weapons to the united states interests through 2025, including those threats from foreign countries and foreign nonstate actors. mr. speaker, it's important to note that my amendment does not task another federal agency with the responsibility of determining our vulnerabilities to e.m.p. and g.m.d. and the potential dangers they represent to our civilization. these studies have already been

finalized and their conclusions provide our nation's leaders and industry officials with the clarity they need to move forward toward protecting our grid. in fact, mr. speaker, there have now been nearly a dozen federal government reports and studies on the dangers, threats and vulnerabilities the u.s. electric grid faces from e.m.p. and g.m.d., including reports from the e.m.p. commission, department of homeland security, department of defense, department of energy, the federal energy and regulatory commission, the national academy of sciences and the u.s. national laboratories, all of them come to similar conclusions. . the u.s. electric grid is dangerously vulnerable to g.m.d. and e.m.p. a nuclear or natural e.m.p. event is potentially a cataclysmic threat that would be a top national priority for our national security and homeland security.

in 2008, the congressionally authorized e.m.p. commission stated that russian scientists had knowledge of a specifically designed e.m.p. weapon to north korea. there may also exist a form of mobile e.m.p. devices that can take out our electric substations. as the wall street jufrpble reported recently, taking out a few of these substations simultaneously could potentially cause a nationwide blackout. our military understands this threat very well, mr. speaker and has protected many of our critical defense assets. we as a nation have spent billions of dollars over the years heartening our nuclear triade, our missile defense capabilities, and other critical elements of our national security apparatus against the effects of electromagnetic pulse, particularly the pulse that might be generated against us by an enemy. however our civilian grid, which the defense department relies

upon for nearly 99% of its electric it needs is vulnerable to the same kind of danger. this constitutes in my opinion, mr. speaker, and an invitation on the part of certain of our enemies to use the asymmetric capability of an e.m.p. weapon against us. there is now evidence that such strategy is being considered by those enemies. the time is right for this action. and our efforts today may gain us no note in the annals of history. my hope is they will ultimately lead to a time when this country mitigates this threat and disinvites our enmes to try to exploit it against us. i thank again, the chairman, and thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i rise in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: mr. franks, a leader in the bipartisan house,

electromagnetic pulse caucus, has brought attention to the serious threats posed by electro magnetic pulses. given what we know about our nation's critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, i support this amendment's purpose to gain even more information that can bert protect our utilities, medical facilities, networks and other infrastructure. therefore i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. and i also yield now two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, one of the key members of our committee and experts in the area of cybersecurity. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4681, the intelligence authorization act of fiscal year 2014 and 2015. and i'm going to keep my remarks

brief, but i first want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan way. the bill before us really is indicative of how the committee is run in a bipartisan way under chairman rogers' leadership. in particular i do want to commend chairman rogers for his years of service on the intelligence committee and wish him the best in his retirement at the end of this year. mr. speaker p. this is a balanced measure and really critical to protecting our nation's security. i have been pleased to work with chairman and ranking member on some of the amendments included in this bill. it makes critical investments in tactical intelligence as well as our human capabilities. in particular i wanted to support and develop the long-term health of our most important intelligence resource, human talent, this bill requires the director of national intelligence to create a plan to promote cybersecurity and

computer literacy among high school and university students. as cyberthreats grow in gaunt and sophistication, we must do more to retrain and recruit people into government service. young people with interest and aptitude for cybersecurity. the bill authors provisions to reduce the risk of information leaks as well, unauthorized disclosures of classified information by insiders, while maintaining appropriate levels of trust in our personnel. we cannot afford a repeat of last year's breach of classified information. mr. speaker, continued focus is needed to ensure that we are supporting the ferts of those patriotic americans who proudly serve our nation, the intelligence community, while properly safeguarding the privacy and civil liberties that our citizens hold dear. to that end we must fully absorb the lessons earned over the past decade after passage of the act -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. langevin: to that end we must fully absorb the lessons

learned over the past decade after passage of the landmark intelligence reform act and the changes it brought to the i.c. i look forward to work with my colleague to continue this tradition of rigorous, responsible, and bipartisan oversight. the work that we do is critical to our national security. again i thank chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger, as well as my colleagues on the committee and particular i want to thank the staff and the work they have done in bringing this bill to the floor on both side of the aisle. their work is critical as well. i thank my colleagues and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 11-465. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the

desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 113-465, offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 604, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i want to thank the chairman and also would like to thank chairman rogers for supporting this amendment, but more importantly for his work on the intelligence committee for so many years. and prior to that your work with the f.b.i. as a former judge i got to see a lot of f.b.i. agents come and testify in texas. they have a wonderful reputation. you also have that reputation. thank you for dwrur certificate -- your service in law enforcement in the house. i also want to thank the ranking member for his support generally for this debate -- this amendment. this amendment requires the director of the national intelligence and coordination with relevant agencies to produce a strategy to defeat al

qaeda and its affiliates. the amendment requires that the president clearly define groups like core al qaeda and al qaeda affiliates and other terms the administration uses to define this enemy of america. al quidea continues to threaten the -- al qaeda continues to threaten the security of the united states both here at home and abroad. our intelligence services and military have scobbed some real gains against al qaeda. al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan are still able to provide technical, tactical, and strategic direction to its affiliates throughout the world. al qaeda has gone from on the verge of strategic de-- defeat to a serious and growing threat depending on who you ask in our intelligence services or the administration. today al qaeda controls more territory than it ever has. and the fight against al qaeda is far from over and it will continue to go.

as chairman of the house foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, i have held over a dozen bipartisan hearings focusing on this very topic. once again i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including this t.n.t. subcommittee in some of the work we have been doing together on the very issue of intelligence. during these 12 hearings in our subcommittee, we have yet to find a witness who can articulate or even agree with the administration's counter terrorism strategy or what it is or describe how the administration really views al qaeda and its threat. this seems to be a problem. this needs to be clarified so that all of us know exactly what our strategy is nationwide and worldwide. so this amendment is necessary so we can all get on the same page in the hymnal with a clear strategy to defeat al qaeda. so we understand what al qaeda is really doing today in 2014. this is a constantly changing

movement and al qaeda today isn't the same as the al qaeda in 2001. we have a clear understanding of who we are fighting and how we are going to defeat the al qaeda terrorists. drone strikes and target raids are not a strategy. they are tactics. therefore i support the -- this amendment and i urge support by the committee and the whole house. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i rise in opposition although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i support this amendment because the time is right to step back and take stock of where we are and how we are doing in our fight against terrorism. the threat is not going away, but it is rapidly changing. the director of the f.b.i. recently said that terrorism threat is very much alive and growing in the new and more dangerous places around the world. it even surprised him when he

started just how virulent and dispersed the terrorist threat had become. from pakistan to yemen, north africa to iraq, the threat from al qaeda is waiting in some areas but growing in others. unless we approach this dangerous problem holiesic-i and - holistically, we risk just tapping the balloon. i think we should look at the problem today and make sure we are confronting it in precisely the right way to make sure we are measuring our effectiveness correctly and make sure we have the right and most current legal authorities. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9, printed in house report number 113-465. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printed in house report number 113-465, offered by mr. gay yageo of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 604, the gentleman from texas, mr. gallon lego -- mr. gallego. mr. gallego: i begin by thanking chairman rogers and the ranking member for an opportunity to work with them on this issue and i wish chairman rogers as well. mr. chairman, this amendment helps us find ways to ensure our veterans other former public servants can continue service to their country on cybersecurity. critical national security need that will only grow in importance over the next several years. while congress is well aware of the challenges that we face in cybersecurity, it's important to understand that cyberattacks are not only named at the government where they challenge our national security and endanger our troops, but these attacks also target our nation's economic advantages, our core advantages when they steal

proprietary information and intellectual property from american firms that lead the nation and lead the world in innovation. in fact, for the private sector it's important to know that an i.p. theft in the u.s. cost companies $250 billion a year, and global cybercram costs $338 billion. when you factor in down time, either way that's a lot of money. we spend up to, no kidding, $1 trillion fixing these problems. these highlight an important point if these attacks on american companies are so bad, just use your imagination to figure the threat of the speaker pro tempore: cyberattacks on the department of defense or other critical intelligence agencies. there is no better group of people than our veterans and retired members of our intelligence community who could be reded ready to assist in cybersecurity. this amendment allows us to do everything we can to support our veterans looking for jobs, as well as the retired members of the intelligence community who already demonstrated their commitment to public service. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition. the chair: without objection. mr. rogers: i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: a nation knows its gratitude to veterans and retired members of the intelligence community. we should look for as many ways as possible to help them succeed in the job market, and i want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, for promoting this, and it does, again, highlight the sheer level of threat we face from cybercrime, cyberterrorists, cyberespionage. . when you look at china, russia, iran, and now organized crime groups who are approaching nation state capability, it is as bad as i have ever seen it. and again, 85% of the networks across america are not protected by the government because they're private sector networks. the government itself is about

15% of those net, with -- networks. we need to find a pathway, a, to attract the talent mr. gallegos is talking about, and, b, we need to allow these private sector folks to protect themselves by gaining information, sharing the information the government has that could protect those networks from cyber catastrophe. it is happening each and every day. the next generation of cyberwarriors are there and i think this amendment will go a long way to recruit the right talent in the right place to help us meet this growing threat to the future prosperity, safety and security of the united states. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield a minute and a half to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 90 seconds. the gentleman is recognized.

>> as i said, education is the keystone of security and prosperity in the 21st century. the cyberthreats we face are grave and we need to train the best, the brightest and the most dedicated. like our veterans and our retired intelligence professions to be our next generation of -- professionals to be our next generation of cyberdefenders. mr. ruppersberger: early last year our finance sector suffered a wide scale network denial service attack that proved difficult and very costly to mitigate. the retail giant target is another example of our vulnerability to cyberattacks. today "the washington post" stated that iranian hackers are targeting u.s.a. officials through social networks. we need to pass cybersecurity legislation and we need to do r more to expand our cyberprofessionals and innovators. we need to invest and we equally need to leverage the experience and wisdom of our veterans and former intelligence professionals. our adversaries are making

heavy investments in cybereducation. we must do the same. for this reason i support this amendment and i thank my colleague, mr. gallego, for his amendment and also he understands the threat he, he represents the area of texas close to the border, he understands the threats and why we need intelligence to deal with national security. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. many of our service members have made the ultimate sacrifice. 4,400 died in operation iraqi freedom. thousands upon thousands of our troops who did make it home to see their supposes -- spouses and mothers and fathers and kids and many of those alive today are alive because actionable intelligence helped them achieve their mission safely. while there's been a lot of criticism about intelligence collection and we've had a very robust debate on these issues, i think it's important that we concentrate on the fact that

intelligence is so critical to the lives of our men and women in uniform. and it really does help them come back home today safe with their families because of the work of our numerous intelligence agencies who provided the information they need to stay alive. mr. chairman, i also want to do a shotout to the air force i.s.r. agency in the 24th in san antonio, in bear county. i know they do critical work to protect and defend our liberty each and every day. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4681, pursuant to house resolution, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4681 and pursuant to house resolution 604 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as

amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government, the community management account and the central intelligence agency retirement and disabilities system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of new york moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4681, to the department of select committee on intelligence with instructions to report the same back to the house -- mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading?

>> mr. speaker, i obt. the speaker pro tempore: the objection is heard. the clerk will continue. the clerk: to the permanent select committee on tense with instructions to the report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. at the end of subtitle a of title 3, add the following new section. section, protecting the united states military technology and industrial competitiveness from chinese and other state-sponsored computer theft. the head of each element of the intelligence community shall, one, prioritize efforts to uncover and foil attempts to steal united states military technology and the intellectual property of the united states corporations by state sponsors computer hackers from china and other foreign countries. two, consistent with existing law, immediately inform corporations and internet providers of any computer breaches and the steps necessary to combat further intrusions. three, coordinate with other federal agencies to protect critical united states

infrastructure including the electrical grid, nuclear power plants, oil and gas pipelines, financial services and air traffic safety from repeated computer hacking attacks and, four, assist the department of justice and other law enforcement agencies including by supporting the international efforts of united states allies and efforts to punish and sanction individuals and governments that perpetrate economic espionage and identity theft. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, my amendment responds to the increasing threat of chinese and other state-sponsored computer hacking of our national infrastructure of computer networks. these cyberattacks have severely undermined our national security and continue to threaten our economy. not only are the chinese hacking into our state secrets,

but they are stealing our trade secrets, which costs us jobs and especially jobs of the future. china's conduct is reprehensible and unacceptable for a major trading partner. in response, my amendment requires the heads of the tense agencies to prioritize efforts to uncover, stop and prevent future attempts to steal u.s. military technology and intellectual property. the intelligence agencies are also required to notify businesses and internet providers when network breaches occur, collaborate with federal agencies to protect critical infrastructure and assist law enforcement as well as our international partners in apprehending, halting and punishing those who infiltrate our systems. the need for this amendment is clear. growing evidence reveals extensive activity on the part of the people's liberation army to conduct cyber, economic and industrial espionage. their hacking knows no bounds and their pursuit of -- in their pursuit of trade secrets.

we have uncovered the traces of hacking into federal systems and u.s. corporations like alcoa, u.s. steel, energy companies like solar power, a.g. and even nuclear power providers like westinghouse electrical company. this month the justice department indicted five members of the chinese military for stealing trade secrets in order to proffer from american ingenuity and innovation, to undercut our global competitiveness. these are not isolated incidents. the frequency of these attacks has increased over time, costing our economy thousands of jobs and up to $100 billion annually. not only are the chinese and their partners in cybercrime refusing to acknowledge evidence we have discovered, but they refuse to negotiate steps both of our nations could pursue to end this threat. no one single action will stop the chinese from trying to infiltrate american computer networks but collaboration between our intelligence agencies, law enforcement and the private sector can strengthen our defenses, deter

cyberespionage from being launched on foreign shores and protect our jobs. my amendment is not the only step we can take, but it is an important addition to this bill. the united states deserves better for supporting the rights of nations like china to trade in the global marketplace, to be treated with respect and to participate in the community of nations. we must send the message to china and our rivals that this stands ready to defend our national security and our economy. and we must send a message assuring future generations of americans that protecting jobs here at home will always be our priority and that our economic might is more important than our military might. our national security and position of the global leader in innovation and competitiveness depends on it. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for his interest.

this is exciting news. mr. rogers: the bill is not crafted correctly. and it opens us up to exposing classified information to corporations that may be foreign-owned and operated by the very counterintelligence threat we seek to push back on. but thank you for this effort. we should reject this, we should include the resounding support for the bill that carefully drafted language to ake sure that there is a cyber sharing relationship both between the government when it comes to malicious code and the private sector, who, remember, is all by itself out there getting attacked by nation states and large organized criminal groups trying to steal their information. if you think about even the last month or so that general alexander was the director of the national security agency, just in that last bit of time he was there, the department -- the military sites, the government sites were hit 41 million times by people trying to cause destruction or break

in and steal something. again, this is a serious problem -- this is as serious a problem as you can imagine, mr. speaker, that we are not prepared to handle. so that bill that i think you tried to get here, i mean, part of this bill is the redundancy, department of redundancy. the second part is just not drafted correctly and we'd love to help you get to the right place. this bill causes more harm than i think you realize, without carefully considering how you construct a cybersharing malicious code relationship between the government and the private sector. needs to happen, this way just exposes again that counterintelligence -- the information to counterintelligence groups we don't want to happen. i would strongly urge rejection of the motion to recommit. but i thank the gentleman and i look forward to working with the -- working in the next few months with the the gentleman to make sure we put in place a fighting chance, a fighting chance for the 85% of those private sector networks that are getting absolutely ravaged every single day by

cyberattackers, by people who are trying to disrupt activities. you know, there's public reports that iran is probing our financial institutions. think about the idea if they were able or successful to go in and take down a financial institution that has trillions of dollars every single day in global transactions, destroys data, manipulates data, you don't know who owes who what. imagine the economic catastrophe that happens. well, guess what? this isn't orwellian, it's not next year, it's not six months from now, it's not 10 years from now, it's happening today. and every nation on the face of the earth is trying to get this capability, including al qaeda. they're advertising to try to find the right people to develop a capability for a cyberattack, to disrupt, to destroy, to cause chaos. this is as important an issue as i can think of, mr. speaker,

that i hope we find some resolution on. again, i'll have to strongly oppose this motion to recommit for the drafting errors i find in the bill, but i look forward to working with the gentleman on the bill that's in the senate, passed by this house in a huge bipartisan way, so that we can bring relief and security to the future prosperity of the united states of america and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . . the noes have itment for what purpose does the gentleman from new york reek nation? mr. bishop: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. prsuent to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit which will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and

agreeing to the spomplee of the journal, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 220. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from maryland. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a record -- the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 345. the nays are 59. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is on the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill h.r. 4681, the clerk is authorized to make changes and technical corrections as necessary. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday, june 2, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. clyburn of south carolina for today. mr. fattah of pennsylvania for today. and mr. lewis of georgia for may 29 and 30.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the house will come to order. please remove your conversation rom the house floor. he house will come to order. the house will come to order. please remove your conversations rom the floor.

the house will come to order. please remove your conversations rom the house floor. the chair will now entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman seeks unanimous consent. >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. he gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order.

the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are in the midst of a dental health crisis in this country. in 2010, 181 million americans didn't see a dentist. more than 50% of americans over the age of 30 suffer from some form of peridontal disease, and estimates 25% of the children under the age of 5 have calfities. it's time to take action. this is why the american dental association last year launched action for dental health, dentists making a difference. a nationwide community based movement focused on delivering care now to people already suffering from dental disease. strengthening and growing the public-private safety net to provide more care for more americans and bringing dental health education and disease prevention into underserved communities. i urge all of my colleagues to read the action for dental health one year report to congress to learn more about this movement and its progress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is ecognized. mr. bar row: thank you, mr. speaker. educators are the unsung heroes in the fight for a better life for all of us. ms. martin started her teaching career in 1981 and taught 18 years in the school system. since becoming a principal in 199, she's overseen a school system that's taught thousands of students as a direct result of her leadership and dedication to the children. while i know the students and teachers will miss ms. martin's spirit and dedication, and she'll miss seeing them, she can be sure her teaching and leadership have had a profound impact on her students and teachers. i congratulate her on her retirement and i wish her, her husband, their two children, their six grandchildren all the

good things to come in the next step of their journey together. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it was 70 years ago the sky was gray, the rain dealt pelted the teenage americans as they were part of the greatest amphibious attack in world history. it was june 6, 1944. d-day. the rough seas of the english channel tossed the g.i.'s about in the landing craft as they came under intense brutal fire from the enemy on the french shore. in spite of high casualties on the beaches they moved forward. they climbed the unbelievable cliffs, and the troops were successful in driving the enemy from the french coast. my dad, sergeant virgil poe, was one of them who came later. the g.i.'s came, they liberated

and some went home. the others lie in braves atop the cliffs of normandy, france. their crosses and stars of david glisten in the sun where 9,000 americans are buried. we appreciate and remember all of them for giving up their youth so we could have a future. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts eek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise today to introduce the bipartisan atomic veterans service medal act. between 1945 and 1962 about 225,000 members of our armed forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. these g.i.'s became known as the atomic veterans. they were placed in extremely dangerous areas and constantly exposed to radiation.

sworn to secrecy they could not even speak of their service. thankfully presidents bill clinton and george w. bush recognized their valiant service and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for the duty. an f my constituents is atomic veteran and very proud of his service to our country. like me, he believes it is past time for the defense department to honor with a medal the unique service carried out by the atomic veterans. more than 75% of atomic veterans have passed away, never having received this recognition. i call on this house to act swiftly on the passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognizes -- the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i want to thank generic shinseki for his nation to -- general eric shinseki for

his service to the nation. i thank him for accepting his responsibility for these problems we've seen throughout the v.a. that the inspector general has confirmed extend throughout the entire system of veterans being forced to wait for health care. it's an absolutely unacceptable situation and general shinseki has done the right thing by accepting responsibility as the man in charge. i urge him and these midlevel and upper level leadership at the v.a. to do the right thing as well and accept responsibility. mr. culberson: we need to see these veterans given access to health care immediately. every one of them that's on a waiting list that has been kept from access to doctors need to be immediately put into a private hospital. the v.a. system -- hospital as quickly as humanly possible. the congress has given the v.a. all the money and authority they need to do our job and make sure our people get access to the best medical care in the world. i want the v.a. to understand that congress is going to continue to do everything that needs to be done to ensure those veterans are taken care of. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. frankel: once again americans are heart broken by gun violence tragedy. since the mass shooting last friday in santa barbara, more than 160 others have lost their lives at the hands of a gun, including an 18-month-old baby who was shot in front of his mother in my hometown of west pauch beam. this mother will never -- palm beach. this mother will never see her child go to school, graduate from college, walk down the aisle or hear him say, i love you, mom. too many lives have been taken, too many communities torn apart . so, i applaud the house vote yesterday to invest funds to help the states improve submissions to the national background check system.

but with that said, we must do much more to expand background checks and strengthen mental health intervention and research from california to florida. american families are counting on us, the congress, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep our children safe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. with the resignation of mr. shinseki from the v.a. administration, he did the honorable thing. as a great veteran, but not a great administrator. a general has know what his lieutenants are up to and if he's not getting results, he has to demand and get action. now, as we move forward, we can't let this story today, the resignation or the speculation about who will be the next

director, be the story. it still needs to be focused on what is happening at the regional office, what is happening with veterans' health being delivered to them? what's happening with the veterans' of benefit administration getting through the backlog of cases and having them seen, having their claims finished, for a change. we have much to do, so do not get, mr. speaker, diverted by today's news or upcoming speculation on that. there are still many people at the midlevel management, regional directors and the regional centers that need to be held accountable and get immediate results now and not way into the future after much more backlogs. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. defazio: if it's necessary, certainly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: for years i've struggled with the v.a. bureaucracy in my region.

their attempts to downgrade the roseberg hospital, we're still fighting over adequate status and staffing. it took six years after i got funding for a critical new v.a. clinic in eugene for them to break ground so we can get expanded services in staffing and day in and day out, my staff and i have to push the v.a. to get our veterans the benefits they've earned and the services they deserve. now we find that these problems were systemic and nationwide. it's right that general shinseki has resigned. but that's just the beginning of the house cleaning and the reform we need in the veterans administration, to see that they become an organization who is totally oriented toward serving our veterans and getting them the services they have earned and they deserve. veterans shouldn't have to fight, they shouldn't have to wait in line. we can do better and we must. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you so very much. today i rise to congratulate the service of retiring admiral robert pat jr., the commandant of the coast guard. nd to acknowledge the coming onboard, if you will, of commandant paul f. zuk, nik. to thank them -- zukunik. to thank them for their collective service and to acknowledge admiral robert pat jr. for his commitment to a rising and exceling united states coast guard. in every hearing as a member of the homeland security committee and the ranking member on border security and maritime security that the coast guard appears before us, i acknowledge that sight of coast

guard helicopters rescuing thousands during hurricane katrina, plucking them out of the raging waters and saving lives. many people don't remember 1,000 died. so today that ceremony is occurring. i pay tribute to them and i hope that many of us will have the opportunity to congratulate both of them. thank you for your service to this nation. you are remembered. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, you can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land. they always want more. but this nation's national debt has now reached an astounding $17.6 trillion. the only reason more people are not upset about that figure is nobody can humanly comprehend a figure like $17.5 trillion. mr. duncan: basically what it means is that this nation is in

the shape of detroit, the only difference is detroit can't print money. this nation keeps printing more money and more money, more money and that's going to speed up in the years ahead if we don't get much more fiscal conservatism at the federal level. anyone who wants to draw social security or federal pension or a military pension, that won't buy -- that will buy very much in the future years should demand much more fiscal responsibility from our federal government and what we mainly need to do, mr. speaker, we need to stop trying to take care of the whole world and start taking care of our own country and putting the american people first once again. i yield back the balance of my . me the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor tyler fizari. he's 10 years old. he lives inport washington. and he has -- in port washington and he is giving back to our community in a major way. last week i vasted nasa

services for autism and i ran into tyler in a corridor and learned that he gave that school $800 donated by his friends for his own birthday. he has a friend with autism and he wants to do something about it. tyler told me that he formed an organization called birthday back. it inspires other kids to raise money for their birthdays in lieu of gifts and give to charity. tiler is an entrepreneur but he is also a philanthropist. mr. israel: and at age 10 he gives me great hope for the future of our country and great hope that if enough of us are inspired by tyler, we will find a cure for autism. thank you, tyler, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? does the gentlewoman seek unanimous consent? ms. brown: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to thank secretary shinseki for his service.

you know, when you're born you get a birth certificate and when you die you are going to get a death certificate. and that dash in between is what you've done to make this a better place. i've served on the veterans' affairs committee for 22 years and i know that my colleagues in the house and in the senate talk a good talk. you know, we talk about what we want to do for veterans, but, you know, talking and walking and rolling, i know for a fact that until we had a democratic house, a democratic senate and a democratic president we got the largest funding in the history of the united states or the veterans. and this secretary opened up the system so that all the vietnam veterans could come in without proving one by one.

so it's a lot of work that we've got to do -- not we got to do, not just the v.a., but what we have to do to make sure that we have the kind of .ervice that veterans deserve the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. brown: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the people of ukraine on conducting free and fair elections that the world watched closely. as a beloved friend of mine from ukraine wrote me, these elections were amazing. people were standing in long lines with the purpose to vote and we did it. we do hope that we will start to live in a new way. ukrainians deserve much better in life and in leaders. thank you, america. with a nearly 60% turnout and despite the fearful invasion of

russia, of ukraine's eastern provinces, the election proceeded on schedule and without major disruption. this is a living testament to the future and the hopes the ukrainian people invested in their new government. the people of our region send heartfelt congratulations to the incoming ukrainian president, a successful businessman in his own nation, he now holds an historic opportunity to lead ukraine to write a new era of stability, prosperity and democratic reform. it will be a major undertaking. may the hopes of the ukrainian people for a better life be realized in our time. ukraine can rise to be one of the greatest nations on the european continent. her time is now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss a new bill that has just been introduced, the veterans timely

care to access act. our veterans have waited too long. if you've served our country and you've gone to the v.a. center, we need to make sure you've got access to timely care. if it's primary care or you are jebt care, if -- urgent care, if it's beyond seven days you can go see a new doctor. if it's beyond 14 days for specialty care, you can go see a new doctor. at v.a.'s expense. we owe our veterans nothing less than to make sure that they've got world class health care and they have it immediately. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the

minority leader. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor this afternoon to say a few words of tribute to the great maya angelou who has this week just died at 86 years of age. mine will be one of truly that have tributes begun. esident obama said of maya that she helped generations of americans find their rainbow amidst the clouds and inspired the rest of us to be our best selves. i think many would agree with that. attorney general holder named ne of his daughters maya after

maya angelou. we have a school here in the district of columbia, charter school, named for her. she visited with that school. that's the kind of woman she was. is almost impossible to describe this life. all 86 years of it. that you rom it all can draw from life. yes, we know her perhaps best as a poet and as a writer. some would say autobiographer because most of her writing in from her own life ccessive memoirs, successive autobiographers. but most of her fame came when she was past middle age.

until that time she was embarked on a far fond career, wherever it would take her. dancer. yeah, dancer. singer. composer. actress. she was hollywood's first but she ck director, was most endeered to the printed -- endeared to the printed word, as an essayist, as a playwrite, as a poet and that comes out of her own love of books of words. maya angelou was active until .he end of those 86 years when she died, the studies at wake forest university in north carolina -- i will have some

words later in these remarks to ay about that home since i visited her there and it is a . st memorable time for me neugebauer and southern women writers writes intelligently of maya saying she has been recognized not only as a spokesperson for blacks and for women but also for all people who are committed to raising the moral standards of living in the united states. that's just how broad was maya's mission. i am very grateful that she was recognized, as i believe she should have been, well before she died. president clinton gave maya angelou the national medal of honor -- sorry -- medal of

arts, and then president obama gave her the presidential medal of freedom, and some of us in the house tried to give her posthumously the congressional gold medal. it seems as if there are not enough honors that one can come forward with for a woman of so many talents and so great of love for humanity who kept pouring it out so that we could partake as well. but i think we learned most from her life by understanding how hard was her early life and how she rose. it's interesting that president clinton's inauguration those lines, and still i rise, are from the poem she wrote for his inauguration, best remembered,

perhaps more remembered than president clinton's words themselves. at his own inauguration. yes, she rose. she rose from the bottom of a society. she has worked in places many of us couldn't conceive of. she has been a shake dancer in nightclubs. she was a fry cook. she worked in hamburger joints. she worked as a dinner cook in a creole restaurant. and let me say as someone who has tasted maya angelou's . oking, she was a master cook she once worked in a mechanic's shop, taking the paint off of cars with her hands, not with an instrument. she was married.

she had a son. and through all of the traditional phases of a woman's life she managed to do all of these things. in san francisco she sang at the purple onion cabaret. she toured with porgie and best. in the 1950's, maya angelou was in the harlem writers guild. that's where she first made acquaintans with jimmy baldwin. that was important for the inspiration it gave her to write her own first auto biography and don't think -- autobiography and don't think there was a civil rights struggle. she worked directly with dr. king, was northern coordinator for the southern christian leadership conference. and this woman who wrote about

black people, even as she wrote about all people, would, of course, find her way to africa, to cairo with her son, to ghana and indeed to working in africa .s a freelance writer but it all began perhaps out of the experience at that time in her life na she had a life to write about. it took her a long time to decide to put all these first memories into an autobiography but when she did it became the most memorable of her books, "i know why the caged bird sings." it's one of six memoirs. it was very controversial, even though it's read till this very day and taught in schools. it was controversial because she told the truth about her

early life when she was raped by her mother's boyfriend about 7 years of age, the trauma that that induced, the five years when she was mute, couldn't speak, wouldn't speak. perhaps could speak, wouldn't speak. during that time she immersed herself in books of every variety in the great classics, in black authors. she read. she did not speak. she took words in from great authors. she did not give her own words . til she was ready to speak and a teacher brought words out of her. then did she speak. i know why the caged bird sings, that's the one that is most remembered and most praised. ather together in my name,

that memoir begins when she is 17 and at 17 a new mother. singing and swinging and getting married like christmas, another of her memoirs, tells of her tour in europe and africa with porgy and bess. then it was "the heart of a woman," that was the description of maya's acting and writing career in new york, and of her work in civil rights. then there was her book "all god's children needs traveling shoes," which told of her travels in west africa and her decision to return, this time without the son who had gone with her to africa. do you know the theme in these

every bit aterial, of it is taken from maya's own life and personal experiences. it's been said a writer writes best when she writes what she knows, and maya angelou knew she knew best about her own rich life. she -- this woman who at a child spent years mute, unable to speak, became prolific and widely read. her poetry, much of it was substantive and about social justice. there were poems about love. there were poems about black people. there were poems about rebellions and about the 1960's, the modern civil rights

rebellion. she was nominated for a pulitzer prize for a book of poems just titled "just give me a cool drink of water before i die." she was the first black woman to have a screen play. it was called "georgia, georgia," it was produced in 1970. and she was honored for an emmy because of her, as it was said, search of clear messages was easily -- with easily digested meanings. she even adapted that first biography, "i know why the caged bird sings," for a television movie that had the same name. she wrote poetry for film called "poetic justice," and film. yed a role in that

she played a role in another television film. what a life. as you read this life, much of which we do not know about, you see that it is not her life as a famous woman but her life as a woman that maya is able to want bout and get us to to read. i had an unusual experience. oh, about 15 years ago. "essence" magazine took me to winston-salem, north carolina and me home for maya to have what they called a fly on the wall conversation. they wanted us to talk about

black women embracing their own power. now, how do you talk about that with a great woman like maya angelou? you find a way to talk about that. let me quote from some of what maya angelou said during that fly on the wall conversation. remember, this is about finding power from within and that was the theme throughout this conversation. maya angelou said, a powerful sense of self involves humility, but never modesty. thing but learned humility comes from within. hear the power of those words. she goes on to say, it says, someone -- it says, someone went before me and i am here to y to make a path for someone

who is yet to come. somehow good attracts good and in turn you do get some external power. if you start with the power inside you, you won't abuse external power when you get it. . be prayerful that your use of it will be constructive instead destructive, be careful and diligent and watchful that you don't abuse power to the detriment of others who have less. this is off of top of maya angelou's head, understand. these pearls of wisdom for which she became so well known. because she was a deep woman, deeply wise.

at one point in the conversation i said, you know, the difference between maya and me is that though she may not peak for people in some formal sense, my god, she speaks to hem and they listen. i believe that profoundly and her life proved it profoundly. later on in the conversation laughter, when we were talking about how people relate to one another, in some cases people say they want change. what they really want is exchange. that is not necessarily progress. maya believed in giving without asking in return. she said, real power is like electricity.

you can't see it, you can plug it into an electrical outlet, those two little holes in the wall, and light up this room, ou can light up a surgery or electrocute a person strapped in a chair. power makes no demands. if says, if you're intelligent you will use me intelligently. if you're not, you will use me with deception. t's up to you. maya said, you use power according to how you acknowledge it inside of yourself. he is telling us that your execution of power is a tatement about yourself. that ought to make all of us

, would i want what i am saying or doing in he name of what power i have to be taken as meaning who i am? she hinted really as to how she got the power within herself to rise and to make something of herself. she said she was in san francisco with her mother and he wanted to be a conductor on a street car, one of those wonderful street cars in san francisco. and here i'm quoting maya. so i went down to the street car offices and people just laughed at me. they wouldn't even give me an

application. i came back home crying. my mother asked me, why do you think they didn't give you an application? i said, because i'm a negro. she asked, do you want the job? i said, yes. she said, go get it. i will give you the money. every morning you get down there before the secretaries are there. take yourself a good book. now when lunch time comes, don't leave until they leave. but when they leave, you go and give yourself a good lunch. but be back before the secretaries if you really want the job. three days later, said maya ngelou, i was so sorry i had

made that commitment. but i couldn't take it back. those people did everything but spit on me. tolstoy, the heavy russian writers. i sat there. the secretaries would bump up against my legs as they were leaving. they stood over me. they called me every name you could imagine. finally i got an application. within a month i had a job. i was the first black conductor on the street cars of san francisco. it cost me the earth but i got the job. that's maya angelou. not reading, just recalling.

i tell you, if you could tell that story to every kid in this country who has no mother or no in poverty is left and hears the television talk about the income gap and how miserable things are in the ongress and the world, if that story could be told to that kid , i know of no story that could that such a child as story. because it's a real story. it was real life. it was the life of maya angelou.

my friend maya needed every single one of her 86 years to , to come rich life from utter poverty and abuse, to become the nation's renaissance woman, writer, poet, actor, dancer, screen writer, professor, civil rights activist and hime here to document on top of -- and i am here to document on top of all that talent a master, magnificent cook extraordinary air. aya found err -- extroardinaire. maya found her voice early in life and then she kept singing, kept speak, kept telling. she found it, to be sure, after eing molested as a child and immersing herself in books, as

if to find words, as if to find , r voice, as if if she read by fertilizing her own mind, she would find her own voice and she did. when she found that voice it was one of those voices that carried. was there ever a performance like hearing maya angelou read her own poetry, for example? that voice carried across lines that typically divide people, using her poetry, using her iting, and it was poetry and writing and essays that spoke to presidents and to poor people alike. this woman had range.

maya's life experience was so ull that it kept feeding memoirs. it took six of them to tell it all. prolific until the very end, ya angelou lived to become a seer, the nation's wise woman and i would imagine never to be forgotten. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce, for 30 minutes. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of my neighbor

and friend, rabbi asa, who passed away at the age of 83 on may 28, 2014. his presence in the jewish community of orange county and beyond will be greatly missed. rabbi asa's contributions as a spiritual leader since the mid 1960's, and as rabbi emeasure us if fullerton -- emeritus if fullerton, have had a strong and positive impact on the community. his life story is full of remarkable accomplishments. as a holocaust refugee from bulgaria, he fought in israel's war of independence. rabbi asa was also known for -founding the congregation emmanuel in buenos aires, rescuing a romanian refugee from turkish authorities and saving a jewish university

student from the argentine giunta, from the argentine authorities. his involvement in every local, regional and national cause concerning the welfare of the state of israel and its people is well known. he was instrumental in the development of many of the jewish organizations including jewish federation and family services that served the jewish community today -- that serve the jewish community today. additionally the rabbi contributed to building the holocaust memorial called garden of the righteous. it stands to educate people on the holocaust in order to prevent a historic tragedy from repeating itself. i know that rabbi asa has touched thousands of lives over the years. many in the community share my appreciation for his work to bring people together, always done with humor and insight. we feel a sense of deep loss. his achievements have left a

permanent mark on the community and will inspire the lives of countless others for years to come. my thoughts go out to the friends and family of this remarkable community leader, rabbi asa. i join the jewish community and everyone who had the pleasure of knowing rabbi asa, in honoring and remembering him. micon dolences go out to -- my condolences go out to his family. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. royce: so moved. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands

the fcc is hamstrung by the rules and the way it is interpreted. result is these parties eventually have these deals at raise prices and give consumers what they don't want. to say the interconnection happens in a private way is great, and there should be room for private deals. if we get to that point for interconnection, it would be a real tragic outfit. >> this weekend on c-span, the

impact of an open internet from the progressive policy institute. live three-hour program, "in-depth." c-span three, american history tv. u.s. government films made during world war ii. sunday afternoon at 4:00. over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. he c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by her local cable or satellite provider. looking live at the u.s.

capitol, the u.s. house gaveling out for the week after passing the intelligence authorization bill. we are waiting to take you live to the capital. is set to make comments about the resignation of eric shinseki. the secretary this morning publicly apologized for systemic problems that have plagued the v.a. system. we will take you to speaker boehner's comments in a few minutes. after that, we will show you the president's comments this morning. we will look for your comments at facebook and on twitter. earlierident saying today he excepted the retired four-star general's resignation with considerable regret. here is speaker john boehner now .

>> the senate should immediately take up the house-passed provision. today's announcement really changes nothing. one personnel change cannot be used as an excuse to taper over a systemic problem. our veterans deserve better, and we will hold the president accountable until he makes things right. >> [inaudible] >> the president referred to congress and the media as being part of the political distraction that he felt forced the hand of the secretary to offer his resignation. was politics a factor in this decision? >> there was broad bipartisan concern. these veterans put their lives

on the line for our country, and they deserve much better than they are getting today. >> in her new book, hillary clinton writes this about republicans and benghazi -- those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimizes the sacrifices of those who served our country. our republicans politicizing the benghazi attack? issue, is about one getting the truth for the american people and the truth about what happened in benghazi for the four families who lost their loved ones there. we have been asking for documents for 18 months. why does the administration refused to turn over the documents? why do they refuse to tell the american people the truth about what happened? >> other than urging the senate to pass your bill, what steps do you want the president to take on the v.a. he has not taken

already? >> the president could order the v.a. to cooperate with congressional investigation that is underway. passing the v.a. management accountability act will be another step. the president needs to outline his vision of how we get to the bottom of the problems at the v.a., and how do we make sure those veterans who are waiting for care get access to care sooner rather than later. if the waiting times at the v.a. continue as they are, we have to find a way to get veterans the care they need now. are there still questions about hillary clinton's response to the attack in benghazi, and could this book answer any of those questions? should hillary clinton appear before the select committee? >> i will let the select committee deal with who they

will call as witnesses. it has been clear to me that the american people have not been told the truth about benghazi. to getting it.d brief comments from house speaker john boehner regarding the announcement of the resignation of eric shinseki. the speaker also commenting on the v.a. accountability act, the bill passed in the house last week. president obama this morning announcing the resignation of the v.a. secretary after his meeting at the white house. the president makes the announcement and takes a couple of questions from reporters. minutes.bout 25 good morning, everybody. a few minutes ago, secretary eric shinseki and rob neighbors

presented me with the department's initial review of the v.a. facilities nationwide. what they found is that the misconduct has not been limited to a few v.a. facilities. it is totally unacceptable. our veterans deserve the best. they have earned it. last week i said if we found misconduct, it would be punished, and i meant it. secretary eric shinseki has begun the process of firing many of the people responsible, including senior leaders at the phoenix v.a.. he canceled any possible vhaormance bonuses for senior executives, and ordered the v.a. to personally contact every veteran in phoenix waiting for appointments. this morning, some of you heard rick take a remarkable action.

and public remarks, he took responsibility for the conduct of those facilities and apologize to his fellow veterans and the american people. a few minutes ago, secretary shinseki offered me his own resignation. --h considerable rick got considerable regret, i accept it. did two toursseki of combat in vietnam. he's a veteran who left a part of himself on the battlefield. he served as army chief of staff, and has never been afraid to speak truth to power. the v.a., heof presided over record investments in our veterans, enrolling 2 million new veterans in health care, delivering disability pay tomore veterans of vietnam,

get treatment, improving care for our winter -- women ve terans. he helped reduce a veteran homelessness and help more than one million veterans service pursue of their families their education under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. his service to our country is exemplary. his service, as are many veterans across the country. worked hard to investigate and identify the problems with access to care, but he told me this morning that the v.a. needs new leadership to address it. he does not want to be a distraction, because his priority is to fix the problem and make sure our vets are getting the care they need. judgment on behalf

of his fellow veterans. i agree. we don't have time for distractions. for now, the leader who will help us move forward is sloan gibson. atan became deputy secretary the v.a. three months ago, but he too has devoted his life to serving our country and veterans. his grandfather fought on the front lines of world war i. his father was a tailgunner in world war ii. pointgraduated from west and earned his airborne and ranger qualifications and served in the infantry. most recently, he was president and ceo of the usl. -- uso. sloan has 20 years of private sector and nonprofit experience that he brings to bear on our ongoing work to build a

21st-century v.a. i met with sloan after i met with rick this morning and made it clear the reforms should not wait, and need to proceed immediately. i have also asked rob neighbors to stay at the v.a. temporarily to help sloan and the department through this transition and complete his own review of the vha. in the meantime, we will look for a new permanent v.a. secretary and hope to confirm that successor as soon as possible. we will do right for our veterans across the board, as long as it takes. i said we would not tolerate misconduct, and we will not. i said we have to do better, and we will. there are too many veterans care right now who deserve all of our best efforts.

this week i visited men and women in different stages of their service. our newest officers who graduated from west point, our veterans and military families arlington. what i saw is what i have seen in every single servicemember, veteran, and military spouse i've had the privilege to meet. a selfless, clear eyed commitment to serving their country the best way they know how. they are the best our country has to offer. they do their duty. they expect us to do ours. today i want every man and woman who served under our flag to that we will never stop working to do right by you and your families. let me take a couple of questions. >> mr. president, what changed

your opinion of secretary shinseki in the last few days? you said you had confidence in him. what made the difference in your mind? >> rick's judgment. his believe that he would be a distraction from the task at hand, which is to make sure the what is broken gets fixed so his fellow veterans are getting the service that they need. he is a very good man. i don't just mean he's an accomplished man. he's a good person. work onone exemplary our behalf. , we have leadership seen more progress on more

fronts at the v.a. and bigger than just in the v.a. about any other v.a. secretary. he cut veteran homelessness by 24%. brought in folks who had been exposed to agent orange who had been waiting for decades to get the services and benefits they had earned. traumatice that ptsd, brain injury was dealt with in a serious way. making sure we had facilities for our women vets, who often also were not receiving the kind of specialized services that they needed. he has been a champion of our veterans, and where there is problems he has been ready and willing to get in there and fix them. thata disability backlog shot up as a consequence of the

admission of the agent orange veterans as well as making it easier to apply for pstd disability claims, when it spiked, he went at it in a systematic way and we have cut it i 50% -- by 50% over the last year or so. he's not adverse to admitting where there is a problem and going after it. occupy not just an environment that calls for management fixes. we also have to deal with congress and you guys. his judgment that he could not carry out the next stages of reform without being a distraction himself. my assessment was that he was right.

i regret that he has to resign under the circumstances. i also have confidence in sloan, and i share secretary shinseki's assignment is making sure that pablo's get fixed so if there is a veteran out there problems getp, -- fixed, so if there is a veteran , thatere who needs help information immediately gets in the hands of decision makers all the way up to me and up to congress so we can get more resources to help folks. that seems to be the biggest problem. that is what offended secretary shinseki the most during the course of this process. he described to me the fact that when he was in theater, he might have to order an attack based on a phone call from some 20 something-year-old corporal.

he has to trust he's getting good information and it's life or death. he's deeply disappointed in the fact that bad news did not get structures that the were not in place for him to identify this problem quickly and fix it. his priority now is to make sure that that happens, and he felt that new leadership would serve our veterans best, and i agree with him. phil mattingly. early-stagethe audit the secretary presented to you, is there a sense that there was criminal wrongdoing? how much responsibility do you personally bear with this being an issue? i will leave it up to the justice department to make determinations in terms of whether there has been criminal wrongdoing. , thisms of responsibility

is my administration. i always take responsibility for whatever happens. i have an area particular concern with. this predates my presidency. when i was in the senate, i was on the veterans affairs committee. i heard firsthand from veterans who are not getting services and benefits they had earned. have the that if i privilege of serving as commander in chief, that we would fix it. organization big that has had problems for a very long time, in some cases management problems. but we tried to do is systematically go after the problems we were aware of, and fix them. we have seen our veterans not being properly served, whether it was too many homeless veterans or a disability claims process that was taking too long, we would go at it and chip

away at it and fix it. when it came to funding, we increased funding for v.a. services in an unprecedented fashion because we understood that it's not enough to give lip service to our veterans, but not being willing to put our money where our mouth is. what i can say confidently is that this has been a priority. it has been a priority reflected in my budget. v.a.,ms of managing the where we have been aware of a problem, we have gone after it and fixed it and have been able to make significant progress. what is clear is that this issue is one that the reporting systems inside the vha did not surface to the level where rick was aware of it, or we were able to see it.

this was not something we were hearing. hearing when i was traveling around the country, this particular issue of scheduling. i just was talking to rob neighbors, and he described to specific detail how in some of these facilities, you have computer systems for dateuling that date -- back to the 90's. one scheduler might have to look at four or five different screens to figure out where there is a slot where there might be a doctor available, situations in which there manually passing requests for an appointment over to somebody else who then inputs it great you have old systems, broken down systems.

the big concern i have, and what i will be interested in finding is how is it that in a number of these facilities, if in fact we have veterans who are waiting too long for an appointment, that that information did not surface sooner so we can go ahead and fix it trade -- it. when veterans have gotten access to the system, the health care itself they are receiving has gotten high marks from our veteran service organizations and the veterans themselves. mindimportant to keep in that what the review indicates so far is that there have been great strides made in the actual care provided to veterans. the challenge is getting veterans into the door,

particularly for their first appointment, in some cases, where they don't have an established relationship with a doctor and are not in the system. part of that will be technology, part of that is management. as secretary shinseki himself indicated, there is a need for a change in culture within the vha, and perhaps the vha as a whole that makes sure that bad news gets surfaced quickly so that things can be fixed. i know that was the attitude of secretary shinseki, and that's what he communicated to folks under him, but they did not execute. chrissy parsons, last question. >> you said it was a general judgment that made the decision for you. if i remember correctly, secretary sibelius offered her resignation after healthcare.gov

failed, and you refused to take it. i wonder if there is scapegoating taking place here -- >> meaning. >> the dysfunction in the department seems to have been very widespread. is lopping off the head of it really the best step to take going forward here? is there a political reason for removing him other than going straight to the problem? >> the distractions that rick refers to in part our political. at this stage, what i want is somebody at the v.a. who is not spending time outside of solving problems for the veterans. i want somebody spending every minute of every day figuring out , have we called every single veteran that is waiting, have they got in their schedules, are we fixing the system, what kind of new technology do we need,

heavily made a realistic assessment of how long wait times are right now, and how are we going to bring those wait times down in certain facilities where the wait times are too long? if we need more money, how much more money do we need to ask from congress, and how my going to make sure that congress delivers on that additional -- amhow am i going to make sure tt congress delivers on that additional funding? not on how they are getting second-guessed, speculation about their futures, and so forth and so on. that is what rick agreed to as well. to secretary sibelius, at the time i thought it would be a distraction to replace somebody at hhs at a time when we were trying to fix that system. if i knew that we bear down on it and get folks enrolled, i

knew it would work. in each instance, my primary decision is based on, how can i deliver service to the american people, and how can i deliver for our veterans? because there are people in integrity, in both cases of secretary sibelius and rick shinseki, their view is, what is it that will best deliver on behalf of folks who have been let down. >> at the time you felt she had so many knowledge -- so much knowledge on what went wrong, you could not afford to lose that. as someone with three months of experience at the department have the capacity to attack the problem quickly now? v.a. will need a new secretary. sloan is acting. sloan would be the first to acknowledge that he has a learning curve to deal with.

the nature of the problem that has surfaced and has been the attention is one that we can start tackling right , and without completely transforming the system, we can make some progress. we will have longer-term issues we have to take care of. is, everybody out there waiting, get them an appointment. if we need more doctors, let's figure out how we can get doctors in there to make sure they're getting the help they need. i wanted to make sure that even if it is still patchwork, how do we make sure there is no slippage between somebody making a phone call and i'm getting an , and letnt scheduled there be realistic time for how soon they will get an appointment. those are things that don't

require rocket science, they require execution and discipline and focus. those are things that sloan has. there will then be broader systems would have to tackle. the information systems in the v.a. there are going to have to be some changes in the culture within the vha. as i said, they're providing very good service, medical treatment to our veterans when they get in the system. but they don't have apparently the state-of-the-art operations that you would want to see in a major medical center or hospital . keep in mind, those of us who are outside of the v.a. system and try to get an appointment with dr. in the private sector and try to get an appointment for a hospital visit, there are

probably wait times as well. what are realistic benchmarks -- my suspicion is not only with all the veterans from iraq and afghanistan coming back, but the aging of our vietnam vets who may have more chronic illnesses and may need more visits, we may need to get more doctors. we may need to get more nurses. that is going to cost some money, which means that will in the be reflected veterans affairs budget, which i have consistently increased, even during fiscally tight times, there has been no area where i have put more priority that we aresure delivering the kind of budget necessary to make sure our veterans are being served. it may not be enough. before we start spending more money, our first job is, let's take care of basic management

issues. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] aboutsident obama from two hours ago announcing he has accepted the resignation of eric shinseki with, quote, considerable regret. the secretary meeting with the president this morning and handing him his letter of resignation. we are opening up our phone lines to hear what you think about the resignation of secretary shinseki. the #on twitter is -- hashtag on twitter is c-span chat. thistary shinseki spoke morning at the annual gathering of the coalition of homeless veterans, and we will show you

all of his comments in just a bit here on c-span. he spoke this morning at 8:30 eastern. also getting your reaction on twitter, the hashtag is c-span chat. a couple of tweets here. you can join the conversation on twitter. we will check facebook as well. let's hear from greeley, colorado, on our republican line. [no audio] i am delighted that someone is finally taking responsibility for the things that have happened to us veterans read -- vegterterans. i have suffered for 10 years dealing with the v.a. in

cheyenne, wyoming. i'm glad something will be done about it. host: how long have you been a veteran? toler: i served from 1973 1977. i was exposed to numerous chemicals and suffered for 40 years with cancer, ptsd, numerous allergies. issue you are having is with your regional office? caller: yes. host: thanks for your call. here is the headline on "military times." they said the audit shows finds more than 60% of the a medical centers have manipulated appointment dates. let's go to durham, north carolina. george's on our independent line. i'm a disabled veteran.

this morning, at the hospital. it is a regional office itself. you have guys who have been waiting for 20 years to get their benefits. know why everybody is focused on the hospital. it should also be the regional office. i'm a disabled veteran. 1993 i get out of the service. outve friends who got in -- in 1994 and still did not get their benefits. host: your experience has been pretty good? caller: i spent 15 years fighting for my benefits. host: a caller on our democratic line. what do you think? caller: the problem is mostly at the regional office. [indiscernible] drive.bout a two-hour

host: a two-hour drive from texarkana? caller: yes, sir. host: mute your coalition. -- television. there are people sitting on their butts, getting bloated checks. 2009 tome from 2004 to get paid for ptsd. that is ridiculous. host: bob in texas. i'm calling because i've been in this v.a. system probably all my life. was a retired soldier, then i joined don at 17 -- on at 17. host: how long have you been using the v.a. for your primary health care? i went in my early 20's

into the v.a. after i got out of the military, because i was really sick. i might've used it for a couple of years. contracted aife, i virus. they gave me a gamma goblin shot and save my liver. i went back into the v.a. to get and it took a lot disability -- host: how do you think the resignation of the top guy affects guys like you? it's not going to do any good unless they filter out all the bad. where the doctors -- they really seem to care, for the most part.

they seem to really care. 80% of the nurses, they care. then it becomes the administrative side. host: let's check reaction on twitter. jw tweets -- michigan, on our independent line. my husband is a vietnam veteran. feel so bad for all of these veterans who have to drive four hours to a v.a. hospital, spend

all day long there, and drive another four hours back home. home when you are my husbands age. if i was to go to an oncologist 20 minutes from my house in a town, i would have to pay less money than what they give us in trouble pay. -- travel pay. the v.a. system needs to overhaul everything that you have their. -- there. host: marty in hershey, pennsylvania. hi. caller: i applaud the president and general shinseki for making the right move, and moving out of the way. he knows this will become another political football to be used against him. not think his resignation will necessarily change anything. this is a problem that has been

with the military for decades. i'm glad they're finally getting on top of things. my grandfather was a wounded world war ii veteran. my son spent six years in the army as a combat medic in afghanistan, the last two years at the pentagon he has been suffering from a few things and has been holding off, even trying to get help from the v.a. because of the backlogs. until they go through and start solving this, they can chop off the head, but it won't change anything until we spent billions sending these kids into war, but we have to treat them right when they come home. you cannot keep slashing budgets, and sequesters. they slashed all the money coming to these embassies and want to cry when something goes wrong. the president is doing the right thing, and i think we need to

give him support. some reaction from capitol hill. jeff miller is the chairman of the veterans committee in the house. nancy pelosi also issued a statement that says -- this is senator harry reid -- the president announcing that will be taking over

in the interim to serve as the interim v.a. secretary until a new nominee is announced. a caller on our republican line. a vet. my husband is we actually moved from idaho to hear to work at this clinic. he is really realizing and seeing the brokenness in the v.a., and he was pretty surprised. we are both surprised about how broken this is. he is really fighting to get the care, period. ohioplied for a job in that he was completely equipped for, but they have this didation program where he

not have that one thing, but he was completely qualified. the ptsd, he specializes in that. he got the job, but then they found that out and declined the job. he actually wrote letters to all our politicians and said, the system is broken, and you are denying jobs to actual veterans to work with veterans to help with their ptsd because of this system that you don't understand , this little tiny education thing where it is an apple or an orange and he has an apple. host: have you spoken to your husband since the announcement? what is his take on it? what is his take on the resignation of secretary shinseki? he is a supporter of veterans.

happy that attention is being called to the v.a. thanks for calling a dental. -- calling in. on facebook, lots of reaction. some reaction on facebook. com/cspan. mrs. otis on our democrat's line -- this is otis on our

democrats' line. caller: i'm a vietnam vet. 1971 to 1973. i applied for benefits in november of 2011. it is still running. i applied for a letter of reconsideration. they told me it would be another 17 months. they are not taking care of the veterans benefits, and they want to fight you on it. i been exposed to chemicals at the military base and agent , and i'm nottnam getting the response or the care -- they say everything has to be proven. it's proven i was in vietnam. it's proven i was at the

military base. they don't want to assist veterans with any kind of compensation for their injuries. host: what kind of hoops do you have to go to to prove your claim? sectionthey have one that is doing the groundwater at the military base. then they have another group that does the agent orange at another v.a. regional facility. some of us vets that were in the marine corps and the navy and civilians who were at the marine corps base and were subject to that contaminated groundwater and stuff, they act like they --they don't know what the health effects are. a caller on our republican

line. i'm a retired veteran, and i served in vietnam. 1968.vice began in i was exposed to agent orange. i have to say that with certainty, part of the problem is, we are not really getting adequate attention and needs met toward benefits. has turned uption one thing, but that area of benefits is nationwide. host: is the v.a. in your area fighting you on this claim? caller: the fight is coming out of indianapolis. i go to the v.a. hospital in marion for care, which is fantastic.

when you have put in for benefits, it's like you are insulting these people. your experience, the system works against you making a claim? they really don't want you to do that? caller: it's like they don't want to award you anything. i have been fighting these people for benefits since 1982. host: thank you for your call. on twitter -- last call is joe in pennsylvania. what do you think about the resignation? caller: i think it was way overdue. clean house on quite a few, especially the one in pittsburgh.

there are so many problems. it is so hard to get an appointment there. i have an urgent appointment and it is 77 days out. the whole system is terrible. one big complaint i have that nobody has talked about is whenever we go down, we get treated by doctors from the university of pittsburgh. they are fellows. we should have our choice. if we want a real doctor who has been there and has the experience, or if we have to take these guys. sometimes i'm told we don't have a choice. i have a cardiologist who is only in their one week every two months, and i can't get a hold of him unless i catch him one week out of every two months. host: does that explain the 77 day weight? caller: that's with my general

care doctor. host: thank you for all of your calls and thoughts and more. one more tweet. the blue figures here in discretionary spending, the bulk of care for discretionary spending is medical care. the bulk of mandatory spending in v.a. is for disability compensation. thanks for your calls. more of them later on. we will show you the president's comments this evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will take you to secretary shinseki's speech this morning, before the resignation, before the coalition of homeless veterans. [applause]

>> thank you. kind, very generous, especially this early in the morning. [laughter] that kind introduction. thanks for your leadership on the board, and thanks for your years of advocacy on behalf of veterans. let me also acknowledge john driscoll. thanks for having me here today. thanks for your leadership on the national coalition of homeless veterans. from the home depot foundation, from city community development, gentlemen, my thanks to all of you for your commitment to helping and veterans homelessness in this country.

[indiscernible] [applause] a good friend to many here in my former v.a. colleague. he retired from v.a., but he's not retired from the fight against veterans homelessness. pete, glad to have you here today. usich,cutive director of and the person with whom i do pit counts for the last several years -- other v.a. colleagues, especially our dedicated homeless team, other distinguished guests, fellow veterans, ladies and gentlemen. the past few weeks have been challenging for everyone at the v.a. we take caring for veterans so very seriously.

we have done tremendous work together these past five years, and i want to knowledge the hard work and real accomplishments of you here inll of this room. you give veterans hope, dignity, homes, and real chances of a future. that is the never-ending story here. buteeds to be told, retold, told well. since 2009, v.a. has proven it can fix problems, even big ones, with the support of our public and private partners. we learned to better focus our talents and resources. , i did not really know how many veterans were homeless. there are a number of estimates. or, what really caused homelessness. since then, we settled on an annual point in time count to

peg our estimates. today we better understand what factors contribute to homelessness, depression, insomnia, pain, substance use relationships,d and usually the last is a product of the first four. we can now begin to focus specific treatments to address each of those factors. they are treatable. they are medical conditions. we are a large health care system. and in the process, create a researchfor predictive so we understand what causes homelessness and what we can do to prevent it. and the rescue phase of getting people off streets by preventing them from ending up there. we established the national registry for homeless veterans that captured facts and

information on individual homeless veterans. ,t reduced a trove of data which we will use to support research well into the future. the registry now includes 750,000 veterans who are, have been homeless, or are at risk of being homeless. in 2010, we launched the homeless veterans call center, which has referred nearly 200,000 veterans for help. in 2012, we begin screening veterans seeking health care, or if if they have a home they are at risk of losing it. last year we screened 4.3 million veterans, and identified 36,000 is homeless -- as 42,000 at risk of homelessness. with this kind of information, you can do summing about it or it in 2012 we established our first community resource and

referral center -- it. in 2012 we established our first community resource and referral .enter not putting up the center where it was convenient for us, but fighting to get downtown for where homeless vets congregated. today we have 27 in operation. a number of course dedicated to handling veterans cases has increased her medically. five years ago, we probably had four or five veterans courts in the nation. 260 inhere are operation, and everyone of them has a v.a. medical center in

direct support of the judge, .iving him an option homelessness and involvement in the justice system seem to go hand-in-hand. in 2009, we launched the outrage that works directly with veterans courts and the judges to see the veterans get the care they need and keep them out of trouble as well as off the streets. we recently created the veterans reentry search service to help to helpons officials our 1200 federal and state penitentiaries. andploading their lists

running the comparison against our veteran database, they can identify veteran inmates for us. with this information, 44 full-time specialists can connect with soon to be released veterans, connecting them with the services they need to help prevent homelessness and re-incarceration. those are all examples of effective outreach, wrapping her arms around the problem by getting in touch with veterans, getting in touch with veterans, whether issues such as finding out who needs help and who receives it. it is not primarily a mental health problem as we thought five years ago. substance abuse issues are a major factor, nv a treatment for substance abuse can make a big difference a homeless veterans treatment fora.

substance abuse can make a big difference in a homeless veteran's life. three years ago in this forum, i questioned whether we had the courage to ask ourselves if we were contributing to substance use issues by over medicating our patients. you gave me a towering response then. i kept asking the question. i have gone to other audiences, asking the same question, including with d.o.d. we have developed and painmented a joint management guideline that encourages the use of other medications, alternative therapies. [applause]

they have cut the use of high-dose meds by 50% and all but eliminated oxycodone. [applause] oxycodone down by 99%, without putting people on the street. what else are we doing? in the past five years we shifted to a housing first approach.

some results, emergency room visits down 27%. downient hospitalizations 33%. inpatient costs down 54%. total v.a. health care costs down 32%. [applause] v.a.'s grant per diem program, are supportive program for veteran's families, are the engines for housing first. we cannot and homelessness without these programs. over 45,000 veterans and their families have homes to live in. my thanks to the secretary and all the good folks for their generous partnership in that program. keep that coming. [applause]

last year, community partners afforded by a grant provided temporary housing to over 45,000 veterans, and nearly 14,000 of them were spared further homelessness by moving straight to permanent housing elsewhere, some with the assistance of vouchers. 60,000sisted over veterans and family members last fiscal year, including more than 20,000 individuals under 18. 79% of homeless veterans' families found permanent housing. v.a.'s benefits administration has a similar program to help veterans who have defaulted on their v.a. insured mortgage loans. last year, 74,000 veterans defaulted and were kept from foreclosure and eviction because

the v.a. worked things out with their lenders, extending payment periods. that is another 74,000 veterans who did not end up on the streets. [applause] prevention is a long-term commitment. we are not just rescuing veterans already homeless. that is important too. that is what we targeted to be complete in 2015. we are actively preventing veterans and their families from becoming homeless. this is the way forward for this ourition, melding operations with the efficient community-based system of services so that more cities can say that salt lake city and phoenix can say they have ended

chronic veteran homelessness. [applause] we have turned the tide. we found a strategy that works. we have reduced veterans' homelessness by 24% between 2010 of 2013, during a period tough economy, when historically homelessness surges. [applause] my point here is, now is not the time to let up or get complacent, any of us, any of us in this room. , we havegoals insight targeted 2015 for reaching a major goal. work harderto towards achieving what we said we would in 2015.

coalition can and veterans' homelessness next year. let's get on with it. [applause] again, thanks for your hard work. it is the lord's work. i am honored to have been in this fight for justice with all of you. god bless all of you. [applause] thank you all very much. i'm going to make a short closing comment.

i wanted to get my thank you's early. before i close, let me address the room today. you all have been very generous and polite. after wednesday's release of an interim inspector general report , we now know that v.a. has a systemic, totally unacceptable lack of integrity within some of facilities.' health that breach of trust involved the tracking of patient wait times for appointments. our initial findings of our ongoing internal review, other large v.a. facilities also show that to be true. that breach of integrity is indefensible and unacceptable to me. i said when the situation began weeks to months ago, that i thought the problem was limited and isolated because i believe that.

i no longer believe it. it is systemic. some, andtrusting of i accepted as accurate reports that i now know to have been misleading with regard to patient wait times. i cannot explain the lack of integrity among some of the leaders of our health care facilities. this is something i rarely encounter during 30 years in uniform. i will not defend it, because it's indefensible. i can take responsibility for it. and i do. given the facts i now know, i as the senior leader of veterans' affairs. i extend apologies to the people i care most about, and that is the veterans of this great country, to their families and loved ones whom i have been honored to serve for over five

years now. i also offer that apology to members of congress who have supported me, to veteran service organizations who have been my partners for five years, and to the american people. all of them deserve better from there v.a. leadership andt integrity problems can and must be fixed. [applause] i'm just announcing and taking the following actions. i've initiated the process for the removal of the senior leaders at the phoenix v.a. medical center. [applause]

we will use all authority at our disposal to enforce accountability among senior leaders found to have instigated, tolerated irresponsible scheduling practices at v.a. health care facilities. vhave directed that no senior executive will receive any type of performance award for 2014. i have directed the patient wait times be deleted from vha employees' evaluation reports as a measure of their success. [applause] we are contacting each of the 1700 veterans in phoenix waiting to bring themts the care they need and deserve, and we will continue to accelerate access to care veterans -- care for veterans nationwide, both in and outside

of v.a. [applause] [laughter] we will announce the results of results in the coming days. bernie sanders proposed bill giving the v.a. secretary greater authority to remove senior leaders. [applause] and i asked the support of congress to fill existing v.a. leadership positions that are still vacant. [applause] this situation can be fixed, with v.a., congress, and all of our stakeholders working together with the best interest of the veterans that hard, we

can do this in the days ahead, just as we have done in the past . we can do this. we need all of your help. god bless our veterans, those especially in greatest needs of our prayers. may god continue to bless this wonderful country of ours. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> eric shinseki from before his resignation announcement this morning. some reaction from capitol hill. jeff miller issued a statement saying, quote -- also from nancy pelosi, in the u.s. house -- we will show you the president's announcement of the resignation of secretary shinseki coming up

tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span, over on c-span2 it is booktv, and prime time tonight, an interview with mark levin. on c-span3, american history tv with a visit to the new york transit museum. >> what has been the result, when you have this classic economic holdout problem with retransmission for video, you have companies doing this game of chicken where they cut off service to customers. they are starting to block traffic on their internet services for customers. the ultimate result is programming costs spiral up. you wonder why your cable bill keeps going up. one big reason is that the resolution of these disputes over retransmission, where the fcc is really hamstrung by the rules and the way it is interpreted the congressional mandate to get involved here. easy result is these parties eventually agree to deals the

raise prices and give consumers lots of channels i don't actually want. that's what i'm afraid of. to say that interconnection happens in a private way is great, and there definitely should be room for private deals. when we get to that point of interconnection, it would be a real tragic outcome. >> this weekend, the impact of an open internet from the progressive policy institute, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span2's book tv, "in depth." , real america features u.s. government films made during world war ii. sunday afternoon at 4:00. a house judiciary committee task force today considered whether to eliminate or reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes. the judiciary committee's over

criminalization task force was formed last year to recommend ways to simplify criminal law. their meeting today, two hours. >> the over criminalization task force hearing will come to order. chair is authorized to declare recesses of the task force at any time. we welcome our witnesses today. an adjunct professor at held aown law, he has number of positions in the federal government, chief of the appellate division. counselor to the administrator of drug enforcement administration, and special counsel to the president george h.w. bush. he has written several op-ed pieces for "usa today," "washington post." he has been interviewed by the

"wall street journal," has testified as an expert witness before congress, has appeared on various network programs, and is a contributor to blogs. mr. otis obtained his undergraduate degree at the university of north carolina, and his jurist dr. -- juris doctor at stanford law school. the chair will recognize the general mud from north carolina to introduce -- general from north carolina to introduce our second witness. >> is my pleasure today to introduce a leader in this battle fighting against drug crimes. eric evensen is here today. he retired december of last year after more than two decades as a federal prosecutor and after significant experience as a prosecutor in the state courts of north carolina. he served as assistant district attorney for a number of years

in greensboro and durham. his perspective as a front-line federal prosecutor will be invaluable. eric while first assisting the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of north carolina. when i joined office in 2002. eric was already leading our enforcement task force. prosecutions of high-level interstate drug trafficking. throughout his tenure, eric believed that tough, cooperative, and sustained pressure on drug trafficking organizations could reduce the flow of drugs, could remove the worst offenders, and drive down the crime rate and make our communities safer. under eric's leadership, our unit pursued large numbers of serious drug traffickers, and

gained cooperation of defendants whose information was critical to our ability to infiltrate, disrupt, and dismantle these organizations. receiveds tenure, eric two director's awards for outstanding prosecutions, and one from jenna reno, one from -- janet reno, one from attorney general eric holder. ic's expertise will aid this committee as it considers the issues currently facing our country in the area of drug control and sentencing policy. i am pleased to welcome my friend and colleague, and i hope all members of the task force will benefit from his perspective. thank you. levin,next witness ,mark is director of the center for effective justice at the texas public policy foundation, and policy director of its rights on crime initiative, which he led

the effort to develop in 2010. onhelped develop the right crime initiative, which was launched by the texas public policy foundation at the end of 2010. it has become the leading outlet. has testified on solitary confinement at separate hearings before the senate judiciary committee and has testified before state legislatures. mr. levin served as a law clerk on the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit and staff attorney at the texas supreme court. next witness, mr. bryan stevenson, represents the equal justice initiative. he is a faculty member at the

new york university school of law. he has represented capital defendants and death row prisoners since 1985 when he was a staff attorney with the center -- southern center for human rights in atlanta. since 1989 he has been executive director of the equal justice nonprofit, a private law organization he founded that focuses on social justice and human rights in the context of criminal justice reform in the united states. eji litigates on behalf of of condemned prisoners, juvenile defenders, people wrongly convicted or charged, poor people denied effective representation, and others whose trials are marked by racial bias or prosecutorial misconduct. as the vinson has served visiting professor of law at the

university of michigan school of law. he has published several widely disseminated manuals on capital litigation and written extensively on criminal justice, capital punishment, and civil rights issues. mr. stephenson is a graduate from harvard, with a masters from the kennedy school of government and a jd from the school of law. the witnesses' written statements will be entered into the record in their entirety. i will ask them to summarize each testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time, there is a light in front of you. the light will switch from green to yellow indicating you have one minute to complete your testimony. when the light turns red, it indicates the witness's five minutes have expired. at this time unless there is objection, i want to offer a statement of our chairman, james

for theenner, over-criminalization task force. know that our thoughts and prayers are for jim and his wife with the health issues that she has had for a week or so. our hearts and prayers go out for both of them. that ia statement here have entered into the record. hearing no objection, that will be so ordered. with that -- did you want to -- we will turn to the ranking member, mr. scott, for his statement. you, mr. chairman. even though the united states represents only 5% of the world plus published, we account for over 25% of the prisoners. since 1980 our prison population

has increased 1000%. the average federal sentence has doubled and drug convictions have tripled. the so-called war on drugs has been waged on mistakes lucidly in poor communities of color even though data shows minorities are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs. the sentences are driven up by mandatory minimums. 2012 60% ofar convicted federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carrying a mandato ry minimum penalty. they are not the king things, leaders, and they are not ganizers. riersast majority of coru have the lowest real history

category, and as a result many are nonviolent offenders. sentence -- they sentence people before they are charger convict. solely on the name or code section on the crimes. no consideration is given to the seriousness of the crime or how may have role one played in the crime. section that prohibits sex between a 40-year-old and a 13-year-old also prohibits sex between a 19-year-old and a 15-year-old high school student. they should not be given the but mandatory minimums often require judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. the united states already locked up a higher portion of its population than any country. the pew research estimated that

350 pero of over 100,000 in jail today, anything about that, the crime reduction value of increased incarceration begins to diminish. they tell us any ratio above 500 becomes counterproductive, that you have so many people locked up that you're adding to crime ther then diminishing crime. adding to crime. the data shows in the united states our ratio is not only about 500, but above 700, leading the world. some minority communities locked up -- have incarceration rates per 100,000, creating what is called the cradle to prison pipeline. since 1992 the average prison costs have gone to over 65

billion dollars a year, and the rate of increase for prison costs was six times readers and the increase in higher education. the rates of incarceration we have in this country, looking at crime and simply suggesting the main crime is we are not lucky enough people does not accord with science, gattaca more common sense. all research shows that when compared to traditional proportional sentencing, mandatory minimums waste money, disrupt rational sentencing considerations, discriminate against minorities, and require thats to impose sentences violate common sense. even when a prosecutor or judge all agree that after hearing all the mandatory minimum is too severe for particular case, there is no choice. e e judge's hands ar tied. congress is still trying to pass

more mandatory minimums, even though there are more than 195 on the books. i believe what they call the hole, when youh find yourself in a hole, unitas stop digging. -- you need to stop di gging. we just passed a new mandatory minimum last week and has. the grant of federal sentencing is the right thing to do. they're closer to the facts in each case. we also have to confront the fact that over the past 40 years congress has been playing politics rather than working to reduce crime in a smart way. seen alternative strategies that could be used, takes a youth act that proactive approach. it puts cost-effective approaches in crime reduction into play at the community level

with full community involvement. this strategy will not only savee crime, but also money. it will essentially dismantle the cradle to prison pipeline and create a cradle to college and career pipeline. in terms of justice reform, we need to focus efforts on distinctly federal interests and ensure that the sentences of a -- are being legislated. we need to make sure that federal collateral consequences of convictions are not served as a continuing punishment and burden on individuals who have already served their time, but most of all we have to oppose mandatory minimums so we can eliminate the over incarceration that violate come in sense and increases rather than decreases crime. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. scott. i would ask mr. conyers, do you wish to make an opening statement? chairman, i would,

please, if it meets with your approval. thank you. you. , and i so important welcome the witnesses and look forward to their testimony. but the over criminalization todayorce finally focuses on what is the most critical failing of our nation's criminal justice system, the continuing prevalence of racism as charging by federal and sentencing regimes that clearly discriminate against people of color. racism has permeated our

nation's history since the beginning. the constitution, of course, referred to slaves as 3/5 of a man. the civil war was fought to abolish slavery. and then the jim crow raised its and the segregation and tactics that follow are a matter of fact. we are now approaching the 60th anniversary of brown v. board of education, which struck down separate but equal as the law we land, and just last year, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and the passage of the civil rights act. as a nation, we have come so far. we would like now to think that our justice is colorblind, that butsystem is race neutral,

whether overt or subconscious, the vestiges of racism are still reflected in our federal criminal justice system, and it is all the more insidious for it. that is because criminal justice beingsd out by human with human failings, including bias. crow and does jim overt racism rule the day. but rather, coded phrases, such areas andg high-crime stop and frisk policies are the norm, and combined with mandatory minimums, so expertly referred to by our colleague mr. , and stacking enhancement

penalties and the so-called three strikes statutes, it is these concepts that disproportionately affect communities of color, drawing more and more people into an antagonistic and unforgiving criminal justice system. to provide some perspective regarding this problem, i just want to breeze through this. the last 40 years, in the last 40 years, the united states prison population has grown by 700%. it accounts for 25% of the world's prisoners. the number of federal prisoners alone grew by nearly 50% from 2001 to 2010.

of the federal crimes carry mandatory sentences, 34% of those in federal prison are serving mandatory sentences. ratio impact of the federal penalty system is wildly as proportionate. disproportionate. one in three black men and one will spend some part of their lives in prison compared to one in 23 white men. represent 12% of total drug users in the country, but account for nearly point percent

of drug-related arrests. now, these numbers are far worse impoverished and communities. in addition to the devastating societal costs of mass incarceration, it also results in a massive economic cost. the so-called war on drugs has $1 trillion since the beginning and the cost to run 9ur federal prisons costs $6. billion in fiscal year 2014. -- beforewe recognize we identify solutions, we must recognize how we institutionalize and normalize racism today. that is what makes this discussion this morning so important.

racism,o focus on how unconscious or not, has a disproportionate impact on criminal penalties on minority communities. bias can begin with the decision of where and what offenses are investigated. with enough time, and officers in a certain location, it is only a matter of time before they find reasonable suspicion etain, andm it di arrest someone or many people. thise prosecutorial phase, can be magnified by decisions about what charges to bring. what plea deal to offer, and whether mandatory minimums and enhancements apply. people from poor communities of color are more likely to receive harsher charges and mandatory

penalties. the mandatory minimums and statutory enhancements so ingrained in the code that were intended to target cam kingpins do no such thing. they are now focused on nonviolent offenders who are disproportionately people of color. the threat of these de facto life sentences coerces defendants into pleading guilty. penalty on a those who use their constitutional right to a jury trial. chairman,t there, mr. and i thank you for your indulgence.

finally, at sentencing, people of color receive harsher sentences than would whites for the same conduct through mandatory minimums and other sentencing enhancements. racism in america has for the most part ceased to be overt. but the prevalence of institutionalizing discrimination by writing it into law is assess present today as it was 100 years ago. the question is this -- what can we as a congress do about these pressing issues? finding solutions to unconscionably institutionalized racism in the criminal justice not an easy task, but there are steps we can take. we can begin by rolling back mandatory minimums and stacking

entitiesnt sentencing that result in cruel and unusual l punishments for what are too often low level offenses. we can use the judiciary with discretion in sentencing. we can reinvest the judiciary with discretion in sentencing. not all judges are immune to bias, but in doing so we allow the possibility of proportional ability toand overturn unduly harsh sentences due to abuse of discretion. i conclude on this point -- >> you are double your time, and if we do that, we are not going to get through because of the folks that are coming. >> all right, i would just omit

the rest of my statement. >> i have waived giving my statement and offered mr. sensenbrenner's for the record, but with this discussion about racism. i will make this point. i was a judge for 10 years. i tried three capital murder cases in tyler, texas. two were of anglos. one was an african-american. thae two anglos got the death penalty. the african-american got life. so i do not always have the appreciation for races and entering into every aspect. someone had raised an issue of, gee, since the judge appoints the grand jury foreman, who have the leadership role in the grand juries, so i was attacked before they check my record. i never ever and centered race in appointing foremen for my

grand juries. once they got affect and found i had a much higher percentage of african-americans as it turned out we were grand jury forem en, not just because of race, but because they were foreman on the grand jury, i do not find an all. in the courtroom at i would ask the chairman of the full committee, you wish to make your full statement? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to be here at the third hearing of the over-criminalization task force following its reauthorization earlier this year. this hearing will focus on the penalties imposed for violations of federal law. as others have noted, the subject of penalties is a very broad topic covering a wide array of complex legal and policy issues. many of these issues have artie been covered in detail by this

task force, including the need for adequate intent or carmen and the federal criminal law. the problems regulatory crime, the over federal is a criminal law, and the need for criminal code reform. rayassue of adequate mens is of particular interest to me, and is significant when considering penalties of violations of federal law. as i and other members of this task force have stated repeatedly, no american citizen should be subjected to a federal criminal penalty without the intent to do something the law forbids. today i spectator from our panel about these and many other issues associated with federal entities. editorial federal minimum sentences are a significant part of this. advocates for reform to minimums have argued that these reforms are necessary to ensure no-level nonviolent offenders, particularly in drug cases, are not serving long prison sentences. i have some concerns about many of the proposals to reform the

federal sentencing scheme in this way. i am open to hearing arguments on both sides of this issue. one ever present hurtle to reform in this and other areas is the repeated actions by this administration to circumvent congress' constitutional role in drafting, considering them and passing legislation important to the american people. active judiciary committee's do j oversight committee hearing last month, i questioned the attorney general at length about the holder justice department's persistent attempts to change the livaw. i do not believe any of us received satisfactory answers. it will be difficult to find support for reform to congress cannot trust the administration will abide by these reforms for it i can assure everyone that under my leadership house judiciary committee will continue to closely monitor and analyze this and other issues

associated with the imposition of federal criminal penalties, and i'm confident the task force will continue its outstanding work. i want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses, and i look forward to their testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with that, we are ready to proceed under the five-minute role with questions. at this time, mr. otis, you may proceed. >> mr. chairman and ranking member scott and members of the committee, i'm honored you have invited me here today to talk with you -- >> is the green light on your microphone? if you would know that closer so we could -- so everybody here could hear. we have spent too much time getting here for people not to hear what you have to say. thank you. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, it is an honor for you to have invited

me to talk today about this important subject. the task force is concerned andt over criminalization, is particular about the proliferation of statutes that impose criminal liability without the traditional requirement that the defendant harbor bad intent. the statute undermine legitimacy of criminal law, which is understood by ordinary people to forbid only behavior the average person would recognize as wrong. i'm happy to take questions on this subject and never in articles about it. i want to focus for the moment on a different topic, mandatory minimum penalties. serious mandatory minimums continued to be needed. under current law, sentencing judges have wide discretion, as they should. but judges and the judicial branch can make breathtaking mistakes. some of you viewed citizens

united as one of them. others view -- as another. plessy versus ferguson as a drastic mistake in american history. judges are not infallible. the framers recognized in adopting the separation of power that no one person and no one branch should have 100% discretion 100% of the time. congress is fully unwarranted for that in certain crimes, but strong rock bottom sentences must be imposed. criticism of mandatory minimum sentencing is often at the heart of the charge that the federal criminal justice system is broken or failing. it looks broken to a heroin fficker. but the health of the system is not measured by the incarceration rate but by the

crime rate. by that standard it is anything but broken. crime is down 50% over the last 20 years in the era of mandatory and longer sentencing. would that some of our other vastly more expensive domestic initiatives have had anything like that success. much of the debate now seems to be driven by two misconceptions. the first is that mandatory minimums required federal judges to imprison for years some high school kid who is been caught smoking a joint. false. simply mandatory minimums apply overwhelmingly antitrafficking in deadlyficking drugs. the second misconception that having a larger prison population is a bad thing. one might as well think that having more criminals in jail rather than in your neighborhood is a bad thing.

when criminals are not imprisoned, they do not just disappear. five-year recidivism shows that offenders3/4 of drug return to crime after their release. if we go back to the naïve failed policies of the and 770's wend 19 will get the result of that time. lighter sentencing at the federal level is already largely the new norm. the prudent thing for congress to do is to assess over the next few years whether those development and their promise of no increaseings and in crime turned out to be true. last summer the attorney general , for drugrected that defendants for whom some legislation would've applied, prosecutors are no longer to seek mandatory minimum sentences.

this new policy has effectively mooted a large body of mandatory minimums and has shifted discretion back to judges. the sentencing commission has adopted a two-level reduction in guidelines for almost all nonviolent drug offenders. this produces notably shorter sentences and an recently that for the first time ever or sentences are being given a low the guidelines' range than in it. perhaps most stunning is the announcement of impending clemency for hundreds and more likely thousands of offenders serving what it views as excessive sentences. in an unprecedented move some of the defense bar has been given a broad role in proposing clemency candidates. with these proposals already in training, congress has the opportunity to see for itself whether more discretion and lighter sentences keep their promise of frugality and low crime. maybe they will. maybe they will not.

it is only common sense for congress to find out before weakening a system we know has helped keep us safe. you, very much. we will hear from our next witness. you are recognized for five minutes. members of, raking the task force, i am honored to appear before you on behalf of the national association of assistant united states attorneys. i would like to thank congressman holding for his kind introduction. shares strong concerns over legislative proposals to reduce minimum mandatory sentences. in the 1980's, i was the state prosecutor. when we would do drug cases, in front of a court, we would often hear the complaint that you are only getting the little guy, you are not getting the big fish.

unfortunately, because of weak , diminished resources, there was a lot of truth to that complaint. state prosecutions are based on two things, you either have to catch the drug dealer in possession of drugs, or you have to catch them selling it. as a result, what ends up happening is you often times do not get the source of supply. the state laws are just too weak. the resources are to minimum. what happens is, the leader of the drug organization is largely untouchable for years. we all live in communities where people say, why don't they get that the drug dealer? all the neighbors know that, this is why. the state laws do not have the leverage that is needed. in 1990, i became an assistant united states attorney. i quickly realized that we focus on a different set of defendants, ones that were

selling significant quantities of drugs, enough to trigger what are called minimum mandatory sentences. congress mandated that we pursue these organizations, and provided us with the tools, including minimum mandatory sentences, that we needed. here's the key difference between state prosecution in federal prosecution -- sometimes the average man on the street this doesn't understand what we are doing. is this. it is called conspiracy, conspiracy law. if you're a member anything else, i hope you remember that. i will explain how it works on a day-to-day basis. charge ther us to leader of an organization, we generally do with conspiracy law. because they don't sell to undercover officers, they are too clever. they sell it to their conspirators, to sell it on the street at the retail level.

what do we need to charge conspiracy in federal court? simple, we need co-conspirator testimony. that is how we do it. to go after the big fish, we have to have the cooperation of the smaller fish. assistant attorney worth his salt knows this. you that securing their cooperation is no easy task o. they do not want to cooperate. this is hard, mean, business. if the sentence they face is too low, they will tell you they can do their time standing on their head. personallyiefed hundreds of arrested drug dealers, and explain to them in the presence of their attorney the need for them to assess and testify truthfully. congress provided their sentence could be reduced by the judge if

they substantially assisted. their attorney has already explained to them that they are facing a strong minimum mandatory sentence, and the only way they're going to get a sentence reduction is to substantially assist. they have to be willing to testify. the straightforward choice of options, designed by congress, and enforced by the department of justice has led to the dismantling of numerous drug organizations in every district, city, and town in america. cooperation ofe these co-conspirators, federal law enforcement will be unable to charge an arrest these leaders and sources of supply. minimum mandatory sentences, many if not most would simply refuse to testify. sentences andory the presumption of pretrial detention had given assistant u.s. attorneys the leverage they need to garner these witnesses,

and to stop driver innovations. if this leverage is removed, or weekend, then by all witnesses will become unavailable. it is really very simple. in essence, reducing the minimum mandatory is will substantially cut down on our witnesses. few drug dealers -- fewer of the big drug dealers will be arrested. back toill revert convicting only the lower-level dealers. from, whereirectly we find the direction -- where we find in possession of drugs. we will not be able to convict the source of supply. >> they do very much. >> may i have a few more minutes? i have some wartime. >> actually, your time is up. it did come on with a minute to go. >> thank you. >> you are recognized for five minutes.

>> we are very pleased that congress is examining various options for reining in unnecessary criminal law better than the property of state garments. re-examining mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses, implement an evidence-based practices in community supervision, improving federal prisons and strengthening reentry so we can reduce high recidivism. we are committed to the 10th amendment, and to making sure that criminal justice matters of the garden-variety street crimes are the province of state and local government. there has beenat a sixfold increase of incarceration rates from the early 70's to today, some of that was necessary. particular to incarcerate violent and dangerous offenders for long periods of time. pendulum swung too far, now we have too many nonviolent and low-risk offenders behind bars. through developments in technology and techniques,

whether they are electronic monitoring or risk assessments and we have better ability to supervise more nonviolent offenders in the community. conservatived with governors, and lawmakers across the country to announce the successful reforms. as an example, 29 states in the last decade have reduced mandatory minimums related to nonviolent offenses, and crime has continued to decline. one example is south carolina, they reduced mandatory minimums in 2010, crime has declined dramatically in south carolina. 14% since reducing those red mandatory minimums. need to argue that we re-examine mandatory minimums for several reasons, simply those relating to nonviolent offenses. number one of course, they can results in extended prison terms. the reality is the vast majority of those affected are not

supervisors, readers -- leaders, kingpins. that is only seven percent of cases. to look at thed fact that most individuals affected by drug mandatory minimums are in fact nonviolent. more than half had no prior criminal record, 84% no weapon involved. eveninly, we can also see outside of drug issue, another example is when someone has had an offense that they can have a gun. it was a gentleman in tennessee offense decades ago and ended up with a 15 year mandatory minimum for turkey hunting. the federal judge in that case beenaid the sentence i'm forced to hand out as excessive. mandatory minimums are supposed to produce uniformity, but they have not done that.

the enhancements that prosecutors to file. we have seen is across various district some the reader with those enhancements are filed very dramatically. was morestrict it likely to file enhancements that another. another question is really, we have to look at essentially -- the main reason mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses came into being was concerned that judges were exercising excessive discretion. interestingly, in fiscal year -- 17.8%y 1720% of the of the offenders were drugs related. actually adhering very closely to the sentencing guideline and more than 18% of the cases. toy germans are necessary encourage defendants to plead guilty, but 97% of federal cases

are guilty pleas. greater percentage withouty pleas come mandatory minimums. in texas we have sentencing ranges for various crimes, 18 states have sentencing guidelines. it does need to be some constraint on judges. i think it is a false dichotomy to say we have to go back to where judges can hand out any sense willy-nilly. let me just address a couple of issues. we're still talking about people going to prison for a long time, when the disparity was narrowed in 2010, those were subsequently convicted of crack cases receive 97 months. let me conclude by saying we would urge congress to rein in over criminalization by consolidating all of the federal criminal laws in one code, adopting a rule of construction that applies a rate of

protection when the underlying statute is unclear, codifying rules, that says when there are two objective interpretations, one favoring the defendant canld prevail, and agencies act without express provable of -- express approval of congress. >> thank you, i would like to especially gratitude. i would like to contextualize a little bit just how serious the problem of over criminalization and over incarceration is. are new reports, one by the national law enforcement project, and one by the brennan center, they now estimate that , 68 millionmericans have criminal records. it is, they have been arrested, fingerprinted and are subject to all of the restrictions that come with having a criminal record. most of this dramatic increase is a consequence of a policy

choice we made 30 years ago to three -- to treat drug addiction in possession is a crime problem other than the health care problem. our allies across the globe have made a different choice, and have seen dramatic reduction in drug addiction and abuse. we have seen the opposite. the consequence of that choice is what has put states in great crisis. i would like her just task force to look to the states for leadership on these issues. mentioned,ague has the state that has to deal with the consequences of over incarceration, the cost. $6 billion in jails and prisons in 1980, $80 million today. many state governments found themselves seeing the state budget bankrupt by the spending that is being directed at deals and prisons. they can spend on public safety or health and human services. they made the difficult assertion -- incision to retreat from mandatory minimum sentencing for over perspiration. -- over incarceration.

29 states have not limited of these laws were stripped of these laws, and seen their crime rates fall. seen their budgets improve. i think that lesson is an important lesson for this task force. there are a bunch of concerns that need to be addressed, haver one, when we mandatory minimum sentences, we do not illuminate discretion. there is this theory -- eliminate discretion. there's this theory that we will take discretion away from judges with mandatory minimum, we shifted from the judge and give it to the prosecutor. i have a great deal of respect for my friends who work as you as attorneys across this country. but all of the spring biases into this process. and you empower any agent, any agent to exercise the kind of power that now exist with no transparency, and accountability, i think creates the kind of disruption that we have seen. i want to emphasize that the

overwhelming majority of people in the federal system serving long sentences for mandatory minimums are not the kingpins. i agree with the colleagues are, we want to go after these kingpins. i don't have any concerns with that. but the u.s. sentencing commission estimates that two thirds of the people serving these sentences are low level or mid-level offenders. that we canequence address by reform. particular problems that i think are reflected by what we're doing beyond the cost, beyond the challenges that are being created. i do believe disturbed by the fact that i go into communities where i talk to 13 and 14-year-old kids who expect to go to jail or prison. we can have a kind of data that we have, for example, one in three black kids is going to expect to go to jail, you can have that without having very serious collateral consequences. data suggest we are actually pushing people into crime , antidrugstyles

lifestyles, because there is this hopelessness that comes from these excessive extreme misguided sentences. there are groups that i want to emphasize, the rate of women going to prison has increased 700%, children, we actually have the role statues that allow the prosecution of children as young as 13 years of age, to be subject to life sentences. some for behaviors that do not reflect a serious crime category. and veterans, we have a growing population of men and women who served abroad who come back with trauma, who come back with drug addiction, and come back with disabilities, and because of our military minimums, we are not authorized to account for their service. we don't have the discretion to account for that. that creates very disparate outcomes, unfair outcomes, unjust outcomes. i want to emphasize two things, one, there are 17 states that have reduced these mandatory minimum statutes that have seen their crime rates fall. i think we should look to the states for the kinds of reductions, and the kind of adjustments that need to be made.

the last thing i want to emphasize is that we are at a moment in american history where we have unparalleled widespread consensus that this is the thing that we need to do. it limited these mandatory minimums. when the american legislative exchange council is making this recommendation, as to the american civil liberties union. when people on the right and the left recognize that we are spending too much money, wasting too much money on incarcerating people who are not a threat to public safety, i think creates an opportunity for this task force to lead this congress. the voters of california, in a referendum, in every county, would eliminate three strikes laws and mandatory minimums. i think that signal is that signal that this task force needs to move forward on this issue. >> at this time we will begin the five-minute questioning, i will reserve -- since i'm going to be here till the end, i will go and recognize the chairman for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman.

of thesemmend all four witnesses, you have made great presentations and focused the discussion in the debate. me start. otis, let with you. in many communities, including my congressional to ship -- district in west virginia, there has been a spike in deaths associated with heroin, including with young people. do you think you could send it that message to young people to have the federal government to reduce the season altering categories? >> i can hardly imagine a worse message. days appalled the other when i saw the attorney general recommending some legislation currently pending in the senate that would substantially cut back on mandatory minimums without ever mentioning the specific drugs, including heroin, which mandatory minimums apply. the very next day i saw him

announced that there was a harrowing crisis going on in many communities in this country. the idea -- >> let me cut you short. i want to give equal opportunities. i want to let mr. stephenson responds the same question. >> i think we are not going to set the use of heroin, the use of some of these very serious drugs, i creating harsher penalties. when you have a disability, the last thing you are thinking about is what kind of sentence i'm going to serve. to disruptare going the heroin epidemics with interventions that recognize what works to get people off heroin. that is health care, we have a lot of successful models that will help us achieve that, we will not do it through sentencing. >> is rose, back to you. with thee not enamored proposal, do you have any suggestions, or you are you simply standing pat? >> i do. i would actually support stronger reform, as currently is

being reformed, but it would be reform to different direction. for example, i would retain the requirement currently pending in the senate legislation that the attorney general list all non-mens rea statutes. i would require in addition the attorney general to explain to each how criminal penalties could be squared with the traditional notion of blame and culpability. such explanations would have to include the discussion of why revelatory violations could not more effectively and fairly be processed as civil matters. i would eliminate incarceration of the potential punishment for non-mens rea crimes. i would inquire that enforcement be undertaken by free agencies that have experience with this -- >> let me cut you short. i am mainly interested in reforms -- i am interested in those reforms for an much. i would like you just a this to us. but i am mainly interested this hearing about mandatory minimums

, and alternatives of those. short, my time will run let me turn next to mr. levin. you state a primary focus of the right on crime initiatives is maximizing the public safety return on the dollars fence on criminal justice. noyou assert that there are costs, social or otherwise, involve the early release of rock offenders into communities where the mechanism is reduced penalties or executive clemency. i don't support or oppose any actual legislation, but i will tell you we have worked with many states on how you take some of the savings, if you are going to have people serve slightly less time for nonviolent offenses, how you take some of the savings and reinvest them in stronger parole supervision, reentry programs, were people when they come out of prison have to be drug tested and report to a parole officer,

can't see certain people including gang members, electronic monitoring -- a whole host of models. i think what we need to do is make sure when we have people coming out of prison a little earlier for certain nonviolent offenses, who are determined to be low risk, then in the supervision so that they don't go back to their old ways. >> thank you. your 23 years as a federal prosecutor, how often were drug trafficking cases brought within her district where the drug quantity was below the statutory mandatory minimum level? >> i can't think of a one. >> anyone else want to respond to that? >> the majority of the bands that were brought had a drug convictions in state court. >> is your opinion that these are serious drug offenders, not occasional users? >> absolutely.

lookingviduals we were at were heavily involved with distributing narcotics over extended periods of time. had prior state convictions that resulted in no time, or probation, suspended sentences. to obtaine were able necessary evidence against them, we were able to bring the men, convince them that they were looking at strong minimum mandatory sentences, it was at that point they realized that they wanted to cooperate, they assisted us, and were willing to testify. that is how we build our case, and went up the chain, and got the source of supply. drugcan just say this -- organizations set up strongholds in neighborhoods. and they affect everybody in that community. we represent the law-abiding citizens in the community, and as the congress been said here a moment ago, referring to poor communities of color -- we represent many of those poor

communities of color who are sick and tired of that drug trafficker abiding by that kind of behavior in a district. i will tell you one example, we arrested a significant -- >> your time is expired. john, if you want to submit something for the record, and expand on that. we would welcome that. >> thank you mr. chairman. at this time, the ranking member would be asking questions, but he has indicated to me that he would like to first yield to the raking member of the overall committee,. five minutes, you are recognize. >> thank you. with mark levin, policy director. i want to express my appreciation for this discussion going on here. it is quite balanced, and to me, quite revealing.

mr. levin, can you speak about states that eliminated or reduced and story penalties -- theatory penalties, and guilty plea rate, the cooperation rate? very much.nk you one of the examples as michigan, which you are probably familiar with. their0, the eliminated mandatory minimums, including retroactively. in the subsequent decade, crime fell 24%, violent crimes 13%. south carolina is another example, in 2010, rollback their drug mandatory minimums. they saw crime drop 14% since then. -- his brothery is it drug court judge, and they are one of the best solutions we have. ago,lback those a year they have seen crime continue to decline in georgia. is tough onasm

crime, we say we say we're tough and smart. , ifdrug possession cases you have one to four grams of drugs, your sentence could be two to four years permission or -- probation or imprisonment. there are new pharmacological interventions to block the receptors, so the heroin addict doesn't feel anything anymore. certainly those kingpins deal in large amounts of drugs, they are to continue to get have read -- heavy federal census. no one is talking about getting rid of any mandatory minimums, just recalibrating them to some degree, expanding the safety valve for example. i think we have to keep in focus that when you go back on the disparity, the average sentence is 97 months, that is seven or eight years, that is a lot of incentive to cooperate with the prosecutor. have a prosecutor be able to

tell the judge this guy fully cooperated. outn the 97% of cases plea i don't buy that we need penalties thereon just simply to convict a third-party. we ought to be focusing on what sentence fits the crime. >> thank you very much. no there has been in effect increasing crime rates when we ,ave reduced these penalties and that's the rates and cooperation have gone on. >> i think that is correct. i would also say the federal system is a very small percentage, there is over 2 million people locked up in the u.s., only 10% of them are in the federal prison system. i would argue that the best things we can do to reduce crime are policing, like on set in new york city. we can actually deter crime by having police in the right places. justice,department of

we're getting to a point where close to one third of the budget is the federal prison system, we could be using those funds for prosecutors or other strategies. yous this from the state are giving this experience? status of the federal? >> i think the crime rates are more tied to state policy, the vast majority of defendants are sentenced and incarcerated in state levels rather than the federal government. i think the federal government has a very limited effect on the crime rate. reductions, crack there was no increase in recidivism for those offenders either? weyes, in fact in texas, have close are -- close to three prisons, are recidivism rates have dropped. we took that money and drop it

into strengthening probation, more drug treatment programs. i think the federal government can learn from that. >> let me ask my final question to mr. otis. portraya chooses how to the face of crime, it can choose to paint the face of a criminal as one -- or someone of color. law enforcement decides which neighborhoods and crimes to focus on. that means, not only remotes are targeted. -- not all neighborhoods are targeted. you show me the man, i'll show you the crime it. officers decide which cases are presented for prosecutors. prosecutors frequently decide who is charged with mandatory penalties, and who is not. it isu saying that

impossible for bias or unconscious or not deceived into our system? system?ep into our >> of course is not impossible for bias to get into the system, anyone would say that would be out of his mind. nor is it impossible for ideology or naïveté to creep into judges on decisions, on what sentencing is when they are not constrained by a mandatory minimum. i would say for you a specific the corythat being reingold case, the child pornography case in new york. a federal district judge impose a sentence of 30 months on a defendants who did not admittedly presents, but had distributed child pornography. i'm not talking here about nude

pictures of teenagers, i'm talking about elementary school-aged children in contorted poses that i'm not going to describe. the district the district judge was so influenced by his personal theions that he sentenced defendant to 30 months. his decision was reversed, and the only reason that panel was unable to require the district judge to impose at least five years was that congress had had the wisdom's is safe for a crime like this you cannot go below that. otis, you sound more reasonable this morning than i could have had any right to expect, and i thank you for your -- >> i apologize. >> please do not. >>