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. >> we recognize the gentleman

from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you. i noticed there was agreement that we ought to focus on the and in, the organizer, that to do that you have to get cooperation from someone down the line. mind, i want to ask you about the attorney general in august of last year directed the u.s. attorneys in the wasinal division -- and he talking about title 21, the safety valve, how you could not charge if certain elements were there -- and he said if these , younts are not there

do not have to charge. one element that had existed before that was quad oper cooperation. but he dropped that one. so that is not even taken into consideration. were you aware that there was a change made? he also elevated a number of points. congressman, i am aware of the august 2013 memo. prior to that time, prosecutors were authorized to file what is called an 851 enhancement in every drug case. if a drug dealer is arrested and he has a prior drug finally conviction,- felony the notice is filed with the court that doubles the mandatory. that tool has been a very effective in gaining cooperation.

that is one of the tools we have used. now that'll has been greatly modified for assistant united states attorneys, and only in certain cases are we authorized to file that. also, there was in the memo that we are not to put the drug quantities in the indictment imumh triggered the min mandatory. >> it triggers criteria. >> in effect the minimum mandatory to have been away to a large extent by that memo. >> and cooperation used to be what you could consider, and i guess he still can, but what i'm ,aying the safety valve according to this memo, even if they are not cooperating and they could, they could finger somebody, that is not --

that was the one thing that was dropped. >> you are correct. a you have a dealer with not record and he tries to cooperate, but does not come to the level of substantial assistance, the court can, underneath minimum mandatory. now that is necessary to cooperate. >> things like that, it goes against that philosophy -- >> on that point, typically the charging incision is made before there is any opportunity to assess cooperation. even, orcases operation can still be considered -- >> if you make a decision before you charge, the more effective the cooperation. the kingpin does not know sometimes what is going on. >> the point i would make is the range of sentencing is extremely broad. the data would support the most cases are going to plead. >> i find it strange that the

corporation was the one that was totally dropped out -- that cooperation was the one that was totally got. one that should be considered, age of the offender. guidelines does it talk about age of the offender. i think that is one of our biggest problems. an 18-year-old or a 19-year-old is quite different from a 23-year-old or -- a 30-year-old is tremendously different, his judgment. particularly, i have five children, and the boys mature a little later. in most cases. i hope i do not hear about that. i can say my 18-year-old at 30, after four years in the marines, had much better judgment. onbody want to comment

whether we ought to take that into consideration? i will. i agree, and i think most states are moving in that direction, where they are reintroducing age as an important factor in a particularly in you talk about drug conspiracies. what the campaigns do is look for young little -- what the pins do is they look for little kids. right now judges and prosecutors do not have the discretion to consider the fact that this kid was brought in at 13 and 14 and stayed in for five years. the supreme court has issued a couple of decisions that would support this congressman task force in taking the importance of age into account. >> most offenders we charge for in the 20's. under 18.s

we had one drug dealer who was involved with an organization in our district, and we had to charge him with two murders, and he told us he had committed for others. -- four others. murder.ot talking about a 21-year-old is different when he is 30 in most cases. almost two different people. in many cases. he has not had some of the supervision that other children -- >> thank you very much. at this time, mr. scott indicates he will still yield, and, mr. jeffries from new york, your recognize. >> thank you, mr. chair, and i thank the panel that has to appear before us. professorstart with otis. criminal justice is largely the province of the 50 states. is that correct?

>> yes, it is. is consistent with constitutional landscapes and the fact that prevention of crime was not necessarily an enumerated power given to us congress. the majority of individuals who are incarcerated in this country right now are in the state penal system. is that correct? >> that is correct. only 217,000 are in federal prisons. >> the state experienced is a relative indicator of what would happen if criminal justice occurs? >> that is correct with a qualification. the federal prisons population is alike the state prison population. the state turned over to the fed the really tough, broad-ranging

conspiracies. the kind of people that you find in federal prisons are the ones the state did not have the toughness or the resources or the sentencing system to deal with. >> that is interesting, because about 50% of the federal prison population actually constitute nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom did not have a prior criminal record or engaged in violent criminal activity prior to them being incarcerated in federal prison. is that correct? >> that is correct, yes. >> about 10% of the risen population in the federal system violent are offenders. it is less than 10%. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the premise that the federal system is different in nature still with kingpins and mafia lords and terrorists is just inconsistent with the facts. is that correct? >> yes, the sentencing

commission has made that point repeatedly. it is clear there is no real difference between the individuals in the state penal system and individuals in the federal penal system. so i would argue since the majority of individuals are actually in the state penal system that the state penal system experience in terms of criminal justice reform is instructive. to me it seems like a reasonable premise. mr. levin, does that seem fair? >> i think it is. there are obviously some differences in the composition, but over the years more low-level street offenders have ended up in the federal system. i would also say one of the provisions of this order sentencing act would say you have two criminal history points instead of one and still be able to get the benefit of the safety valve. in order to get that, you have

to cooperate. that would increase the incentive to cooperate. twoif you have at least points, you cannot use the safety valve anyway. >> i appreciate the operation. 29 states have limited or restricted mandatory minimums. i would think based on some of the testimony that we have heard today that that perhaps would have resulted in a crime wave being unleashed on the good in those 29erica states. has that been the experience ? >> no was not, and some state have seen it dramatic increases in their crime rates after the passage of these reforms. >> are you familiar with the rockefeller drug laws that were put in place in new york? in generally, not just th specifics. >> these were the most punitive drug laws anywhere in the country? >> i would have to defer to you.

>> is that correct? >> that is correct. >> these were some of the toughest mandatory minimums related to nonviolent drug offenders. in 20,009 i was in the state legislature -- in 2009 i was in the state legislature, part of the aperture reform those drug laws. are you from your with that? >> no, i am no. -- not. >> i would assume in new york state that a dramatic crime wave as some would have suggested would occur would follow. is that what took place in new or did the crime continued to decline and subsequent to the repeal of the rockefeller drug laws in new york as has been the experience in every other state that has

changed or reformed its mandatory minimums? >> my answer is going to be long, but you have to forgive me. the answer is, yes, in the states that have experimented this way, crime has continued to decline, but that is because the imprisonment and use of imprisonment, the most significant factor in the overall decrease in crime in this country in the last 20 years is only one factor. other factors are at work as well, and those factors have continued to be in play. other factors like hiring more police, federal police training, enter private security measure, better emt care, to reduce the murray rate, for example. while it is true that crime has continued to decrease, the decrease has been at a lower rate in the states in which they have tried this. the best example is california -- >> let me make the observation. one of the reasons that states

have been able to invest resources in those other areas that you and numerate it is because when you reduce the prison population you reduce the state budgetary burden and you can actually invest in things that have been and paraclete ically to lower -- empira proven to lower crime. >> the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. evenson, i would like you to give us some real-life frontline first, to establish in your 20-plus years as a prosecutor, most of that as a drugprosecutor, how many defendants do you think you have prosecuted and you have been prosecuted under your supervision?

a general number. >> i had my own caseload while i was supervising a drug unit. i would say i have done hundreds period of time, but over those years we have done thousands. and we specifically went after the biggest organizations by using the techniques i described earlier. >> in the thousands of drug defendants that you have personally dealt with, how many of those were low-level nonviolent drug offenders? >> that me just say this. i heard the term nonviolent thrown around -- drugstrafficking of violent? >> it is by nature. you show me a city with a violence program, and i will show you an underlying drug trafficking problem.

with drugs comes violence. it is the nature of the game. they do not take their problems to court. they enforce it at the end of a gun. any sheriff in my district would tell me, because i knew them all, i had 44 counties, their biggest problem was drugs and drug-related crime. that is what they would focus on, if they could get that problem solved. i do not accept the term mesviolent when it co to drug. >> drug trafficking is a crime of violence? >> it is, and i will say it right now, law enforcement does not have a war on drugs. we have a war on drug traffickers. we seize drugs and we arrest traffickers. that is our mission. and we represent many of these old in these poor communities of color who are victimozed by that -- >> i want you to focus on

another member of the task force pointed out that law enforcement prosecutors can choose the communities in which they go into and look for crime and prosecute crime. talk about some of those communities that you have been a part of going into and trying to eradicate drug trafficking. >> congressman bachus asked a question i get to finish. one example, we have a community where drug dealer had been selling for years. he had a fence around his yard. he had a high-dollar vehicle. he had built an addition onto his house. myre was a photo of one of agents driving one of these high-dollar vehicles out of his driveway, and he said, you see this picture, i said, yes, you said the neighborhood had come out on the street and they were clapping. this is a bad, violent drug dealer. that is the kind of people we represent. >> that is when the agent drove

down the street. >> he took the corvette out of the driveway and he said right as i turned and went down the street a were lined up clapping. some of the most vulnerable people, the poor, the elderly, the young, the attid voice, and they have no they have no way to sell their home and move away when a drug dealer sets up shop in the neighborhood and the property values drop. i am personally offended when i hear charges of racism. the laws are race neutral. we go over the battle is hottest. we go where people are victimized by this activity. anybody onprosecuted the basis of race. the department of justice does not prosecute anybody on the basis of race. we have to go where the evidence leads us, and that is where we go. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. chairthis time the

recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. appreciate the opportunity. i apologize for being late. to hear you say something that was incredulous. that there is not a war on drugs, that you say there is a war on drug dealers. is that what you said? >> yes i did. >> he said the laws are race neutral. >> yes, sir, they are. >> nobody denies that. the fact is that the implementation of the laws is not race neutral and it racial profiling. all walls are race neutral-- neutral,are race since 1865, except in the south, when it was 1963 the presentation under the color of law who arrest eight times were

african-americans for possession of marijuana than whites is not race neutral. is that not a reality? >> congressman, i understand there's a lot of statistics being thrown around. >> we will go back to the statistics. >> i cannot argue the statistics. all i can tell you on a daily basis i deal with drug dea lers who are black, white, indeed. we have prosecuted wherever the evidence led us. >> i am saying arrest, and a lot of it is street-level arrests. you are a federal prosecutor. >> yes, sir, and uniform patrol is unable to stop this problem. you have to be investigated. they just pick up with persons with possession. it ends there. >> you believe marijuana is less dangerous to our society than meth and cocaine? >> the laws indicate that. schedule oneis a

drugs the same as heroin and lsd. that law does not indicated. >> in our courtroom it is treated differently. methamphetamine is instantly addictive. >> you might be the best in your courtroom. you need to go after meth and heroin and crack and cocaine. >> we do that, sir. >> how about marijuana? >> some of the most violent dealers that i have experience were marijuana growers. >> because it is illegal, because the dea comes in to bust them. saying theyst like are nonviolent and say, they are violent because of the law. >> i have been threatened by marijuana growers. >> if it was legal, do you think they would threaten you? right, because it is legal. question. a different

i'm just telling you my experience. >> and went out call was were all bad guys, but now they are wholesalers, nice guys. it just matters how you flip it. -- you support minimum standards. >> we need those. >> do you think mistakes were made when a judge tells a situations where they did not want the sentences, maybe when the third offense that triggered something was something like a nice woman who led a man astray, like miss smith, who got pardoned, a wonderful woman, her son is at washington lee, 6 1/2 years? >> as long as we have human

beings, there will be mistakes. our system now is so regulated from the time they appear before a magistrate to a federal judge to the appeal process that every case is scrutinized. i would say those kinds of cases are rare here in every defendant is given a chance that in my experience, to provide assistance, so that i can get the bat and -- >> he was provided assistance and the guy that led her into it was in washington state and he was murdered, so she could not provide assistance anymore, so they put her in jail and in prison for a long time. if it were not for president clinton she might still be there. because you cannot provide assistance does not make it more just. in lawe's a saying school that hard cases make bad law. right now the law works. it has worked to remove a lot of drug organizations in america. >> how do you think the experiment in colorado and washington is going? >> i do not know, sir.

>> do you have anything else you want to add? >> i want to emphasize that these exceptions, these extreme bad cases i think should not inform the committee task force does read we have a lot of data to tell us how to look at the istem, and the truth of it communities of color are not celebrating mandatory minimums. i think we really need to be sober about the impact of these laws on vulnerable populations. i do not just that individual officers go out with racist intent. there are real differences in communities opposed to communities where you have resources to do it covertly. we do not acknowledge that. we can contribute to this problem of racial disparity. your right to emphasize that the way in which our system identifies who is bad, who is violent, as would be shaped by the way we characterize these laws.

it will not my judgment eliminate or even restrict our ability to go after bad kingpins. we can still do that. nobody talks about shielding drug traffickers from arrest. what we are talking about is protecting people who are sometimes caught in the web and end up with these very unjust sentences. >> i yield back. >> mr. cohen, most bank robbers are nonviolent list you try to stop them. >> the chair will recognize himself for five minutes. thank you. appreciate the level of commitment here. obviously we have people who are quite familiar with the system. i am also pleased that we have such an experienced group on this task force, people that have dealt with the law in so many respects. having been a state judge in the chief justice in a state court of appeals, we use different

terminology. here is an immediate adverse tion to mandatory minimums. we call it a range of punishment, and it seemed probably appropriate for the legislature to say for these crimes -- intel and the court -- in felony court -- this was the minimum, 0 to 2 years, but you had that bottom level. in the first degree, five to nine, and if you enhanced it up with prior convictions, then you arrestedt it was a guy for stealing a snickers at one point, and that runs into strange facts when you got a guy looking at maybe a mandatory 25 years, because of the

enhancements. withems like we could deal there arein which great injustices without totally althoughng floors, most judges i know would be fair and try to act fairly within a proper range. i am old enough to remember before the sentencing guidelines, back when federal judges actually got mad that they were having discretion taken away. i was shocked when i started having more federal judges say, no, we kind of like it. we do not have to make such tough decisions. the guidelines tell us what to do. mr. evenson, i cut you off twice when you seem to be ready to proceed further. i have got time.

wishing tou are illustrate that you did not have time to do earlier? >> thank you, your honor. i just want to emphasize on behalf of the over 5000 assistant knighted states -- assistant united are read theeys, comment they had on this legislation, i read it again this morning. see theould hear and statements, i think you would be profound reducing the minimum mandatory's would be on our ability to do our job. we will not be able to go after the biggest drug dealers unless we have witnesses. as i said, this is hard business we are in. we need the inducement to allow

conspirators to specify, and they do that. they have to make a decision. it is a go or no-go situation. and they're with their lawyer, they decide my drug days are over, we build a rapport with them, and they tell us everybody that they have been getting their drugs from and they're willing to testify. oftentimes they do not have to testify, but they are held we do not care what you tell us as long as you tell us the truth. most of them do. though she did not go off to prison. i had a lawyer who told me one time those who go to prison are those who did not cooperate and who did not wish to cooperation. the sentences are fair. we are not prosecuting users. we are not prosecutors in error want users. it is a myth. we are prosecuting for the most people who are dealing with significant quantities over a long time. that is why we have conspiracists that run one, tow,

five years.d to see they gets whole story then. it is not just a search on a drug house. that would be our statement, congressman. i appreciate the time. >> anybody else want to comment nson's reflection? >> thank you. i have two comments. one is i apologize for interrupting. to do the things we need is go by our experience. it has been pointed out that there has been a prince of 16 or 17 states over the last several years that have reduced or sentences mandatory and have not seen an upsurge in

crime. he omitted talking about california, which has had as many as we mature prison releases -- as many premature prison releases as the states combined. required early releases in order to reduce the prison population, to make prison conditions constitutional. what is happened in california, which has had as many , is crime has gone up. if we look beyond the experience of 17 states and look to the experience of the 50 states over 50 years great we know what works and we know what fails. what fails is what we had in the a60's when we had believe in rehabilitation. that failed. what works is what we have -- >> your time has expired.

let me recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> let me respond. with california, the reason they got into this tradition is policy makers failed to react proactively. that is why we open working to address prison crowding in a prospective way in a way that the democratic process, so you supervision. court i think california illustrates why we need to tackle this federal prison overcrowding issue upfront rather than it to other judges. one of the reasons we have seen the expense with the rockefeller drug laws, with drug reform in south carolina, other states, not leading to an increase in crime is the research has shown staying longer in prison does not reduce recidivism. prison incapacitates. is is exactly what needed. many people who have drug problems also have a habit themselves. if we can correct that happened

and get them into a productive law-abiding role as a citizen, through appropriate supervision after release, then we can continue to drive down the crime rates in this country. >> thank you. i recognize mr. scott. >> thank you, and i thank all of our witnesses. mr. stevenson, you indicated that cody does not affect drug use. is there any evidence that the mandatory minimum for small amounts of crack when we had the 100-1 to 30, to encourage people to use powder, when they could have 100 times more powder, his or indicate indication that people would not take a crack, they're going to say the powder? >> no. very sadly they are driven by an addiction, by a disorder that is actually shaping their choice. they're not worried about tomorrow or the next week. most cannot tell you what the penalties are. until we recognize we are going to be misdirecting a lot of our resources -- >> if your goal is to reduce

drug use, you mentioned a public health approach -- >> no question, a lot of countries have invested in interventions and many states have also used to drug courts where they authorize treatment and supervision. i want to emphasize the point about supervision, it is proved to be very effective. if you spend $50,000 a year to keep somebody in prison, that does not accomplish much. if you take $10,000 and make sure they're complying with very strict guidelines around vehement and services, allowing them to move forward to get a job, etc., not only are you spending less money on a person, you're dramatically increasing the chance that they are actually not going to recidivate or continue to be a drug user. we have got lots of data from lots of countries that talk about these public health approaches that have radically reduced drug addiction and improve the health of these communities. i am very sensitive to

communities that have been hijacked by rug addiction and drug abuse. interventions that are run health care models are interventions that have the biggest impact on the health of those places. >> i understand your organization takes the position that the more cost of effective ways of reducing crimes than waiting for people to get arrested and get into a bidding mer as to how much ti they're going to stir. have you seen research that incarceration rates over over 500 per 100,000 are counterproductive? >> you reach a point of diminishing returns. you are sweeping into many nonviolent, and people are serving longer than necessary. >> let me ask you a question on that point then. if anything over 500 is counterproductive, and 10 states african-ng up

americans, and you reduce the 500 at which you stop getting any kind of return, does that 3500 people fewer in prison, that is $70 million. are you suggesting that that community could actually reduce crime more by spending that $70 million productively in a public health model, education, ,fterschool programs keeping them on the right track then they could locking up 3500 extra people? >> it is difficult to look at a setting of arbitrary rates. states have different crime rates and so forth. once professort steve levin, who has looked at that, and one of the biggest backers of decreasing incarceration a few decades ago,

they said we reached a point of diminishing returns and potentially in some places negative returns by the sense that you could be putting that money to put another police officer on the street doing what they have done in new york city and other places where they are able to deter crime through a greater presence of officers in the right places, targeting hotspots. as you said, we've talked about problem-solving courts, a range of other approaches to electronic monitoring, so i think we, without getting into the arbitrary attacks, so much of the money of budgets is going to prisons, the resources are not there often for these alternatives. it is a matter of realigning our budgetary priorities and making sure the people did not get a prison because we have not provided the alternatives. >> we have heard you need these as our sentences to fight the war on drugs. how is imposing sentences that violate common sense helpful to the war on drugs?

>> as you said half of all high school students have tried illegal drugs. we have to have a broader approach that looks at prevention, substance abuse treatment where there are many advances being made. i think that certainly we know that undoubtably drug dealers replace one another, so the problem is too broad to solve just by taking what are a small number of the total people dealing drugs and putting them in prison for long sentences. as we've said these people are still going to be going to prisons. cases,hs on the crack even after the disparity was narrowed. we're talking about last year -- -- mr. evenson sounds like he has no leverage on these people. these people are going to judge ail on fair senses. thatst year, getting us

much mileage relative to what we could be doing with those resources. >> thank you. and we had comment, submitted chairman sensenbrenner's statement for the record. he does point out things in which i would hope we would all agree, that this task force has taken up. see aclu,sual to heritage foundation, liberal, and conservative groups joining together, but we have a lot of agreement with regard to issue of mens raya as the carmen for offenses. as was mentioned earlier, we really should have these codified into one code incident having 4500 or 5000 federal where a prison sentence was added simply to show congress was tough on some

issues, when maybe it was a clear error and it should not have gone that route. there are many things that we agree on that we really need to deal with. and we really appreciate all of your input on this issue of i mighty minimums, what call a range of punishment, and you may have other thoughts as you leave. i know i always do. gee, i wish i had said this or that or the other. -- weyou wish to have provide members five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record -- >> yes. >> let me just say, if you have additional permission that you think of as you walk out, i wish i had said that, we would welcome that eating submitted in writing for our review, and it

will certainly be reviewed. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent that letters and testimony from the u.s. sentencing commission, justice strategies, families against mandatory minimums, the leadership conference on civil rights, civil and human rights, the southern center for justice, the judicial conference that reminds us that just are often required to impose sentences and violate common sense, the project, andights others be entered into the record. >> that will be done. if you have additional materials , any of you, that you feel would be helpful to this task force, we would welcome those, and that will be open until friday. >> if i could ask one other question. would you mind? >> without objection. >> thank you. i'm just guessing.

mr. otis, it looks like you have the most experience here. you're may be the only person here older than me. 1968 is when you graduated? >> you look like you are younger than me. >> is relative. you been doing this for a long time, and you're at dea. if i am wrong in my opinion, but from what i see, the drug war over all those years has not changed at all as far as the american appetite for drugs, american appetite for marijuana, for crack, cocaine, meth, ecstasy, oxycontin, whatever. and our process has been the same can arrest people, mandatory minimums, put them in jail, for a long time. it has not worked. is the system basically the same place it is been? do you feel like a rat going along in a cylinder there? do you think we should come out of it and go this has not -- 40 years, don't we need a new theory or way to do this?

>> what the statistics show with the drug crimes are intimately related with other kinds of crimes, property crimes, crimes of violence, and we know from the statistic that those crimes have gone down substantially. it is not correct to say that it does not work. in addition to that, in order to know whether specifically drug laws have worked, we would need to know what the state of play would be if they had not been in forst. the great likelihood, because the drug -- it has been misapprehended in something that on, the drug business is consensual. it is not a victim in the same sense that there is another kind of crying. we've talked a lot today, and you've talked, and correctly so, about violence, and whether we have seen an increase or decrease in violence when some drugs have released

defendants early. but violence is not the only thing we need to care about when we are talking about drugs. we need to care also about harmfulness. because the drug business is consensual, for example, the actor philip seymour hoffman who recently died of an overdose can he died as a result of a consensual drug transaction, as most all drug transactions are. he and the other 13,000 or one attics who die each year are equally dead, whether is is consensual or whether there has been violence. >> would you mind if i added one thing? with regard to her one, there has been since 1990, the purity has gone up 60%. dropped 81%.

it indicates what we're doing with regard to care one is orgically not working -- with regard to heroin is tragically not working. kingpins dealing with drug should go to prison. we need to take a broader approach. there are pharmaceutical advances that are treating heroin addiction and recognizing prescription drugs, it is far more common than heroin abuse. i hope we can also focus on that as well. >> thank you. y lewis need to do is hue had an answer. we need to find a drug that is not harmful and still pleasurable. we need to get the nih to work on that tomorrow. [laughter] >> that was what i always felt was glazed doughnuts. [laughter] s, you ask unanimous consent?

>> thank you, unanimous consent, and professor of this, i want to remind you of this, i had this, but this is a crime scene, and this is in album. these are two young people who overdosed on a synthetic drug earlier this year. so it is a different crime scene. but it looks pretty violent, i am sure, to their parents. i would also like to introduce -- >> are you offering that? >> yes. >> without objection. >> i also would like to introduce a copy of the attorney general's memorandum to u.s. attorneys at particularly high light where the cooperation is no longer included. third, mr. stevenson said

something that we need to at ,east have one panel of people and that is health care approach and things that we can do and drug diversion treatment, addiction, addressing both as a criminal and a health care problem. i would think the u.s. attorneys would welcome that more than any because i have had d.a.'s thatys and wish there could be done more on addiction because they are the ones that see it every day. i want to make, it clear that i think we share the common goal of reducing drug use in america. the question is what the strategy will be. mr. leven and mr. stevenson have

pointed out that there is a better, more cost-effective way of actually reducing recuse in america. others have suggested the war on drugs is working. i think the war on drugs has been shown to be a complete failure, it has wasted money, it has not reduced drugs, and there are more cost-effective ways of doing today, and that is what the debate is all right. >> thank you, we all agree on that, that we want to reduce the usage of drugs, and there have been data provided that indicate in some ways it is working. to explain to each of you, we go toticipated having to vote at around 10:00 a.m., and that is what we were told by the mortal gods from the house floor. were proceeding, the vote that we were anticipate

around 10:00, was voice voted on the floor, and that allowed us to finish without interrupting you and taking more of your time than necessary. we do thank you, and with that, we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> looking at our programming tonight, at 8:00, we will show you the president's announcement on the resignation of veterans affairs secretary shinseki. on c-span2, mark levin. history tv,american a look at the new york city transit museum. a busy day in the nation's capital. a hearing on the drug task force. here's a preview. >> makes grants available to state and local government to improve and enhance those types of intervention programs. loopholes that are in our current gun laws, and does

this by the prohibiting of possession of farms by certain individuals. these are people who have been convicted by stalking, who are subject to involuntary outpatient commitment, and people who are previously -- there is one category regarding domestic abusers, and we expand on that. otherand to include mystic abusers. right now it is mostly spouses, and there are only spouses and people who cohabitate. but the truth is we have expanded it to include other folks who fall into that domestic abuser category. it also -- we also build on the partnership between the federal and the state government. we provide grants so states can create laws that allow law enforcement to get a war to remove firearms from the possession of any individuals

who are of danger to themselves or others. recently ind most this last tragedy in santa barbara where a parent informed law enforcement that they had concerns about their son. , killed a sadly number of people. and what we want to do is make sure when there is a concern expressed that law enforcement is educated, know what is available to them, what tools are available to them, and there is a legal process through the warrant process to be able to take guns away from those folks to ensure that they do not do any harm to themselves or others. and i want to point out there are two states that have already this. connecticut and indiana have a form of this. it is something that we can actually see some real on the

ground results from. also, we temporarily prohibit the purchase and possession of a gun after an involuntary hospitalization or emergency also, webasis due to serious mel illness. >> so what has been the result when you have this classic economic problem with retransmission for video? you have come pennies doing this game of chicken where they cut off service to customers. they are starting now to block traffic on their internet services for customers. in the ultimate result is programming costs spiral up and up. you wonder why your cable bill keeps going up? one reason is the resolution of these disputes over retransmission, or the fcc is hamstrung by the rules and the theit is interpreted, congressional mandate to get involved here, the easy result is these parties eventually raise prices and give consumers channels they do not want.

that is what i am afraid of. i think that to say that interconnection happens in a private way is great, and i think there should be room for private deals. if we get to that point, the internet connection will be a tragic outcome. >> saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on book tv, the live program in depth with author and columnist amity shlaes. and then real america, made during world war ii. cut.y afternoon at four for over 35 years c-span brings public affairs events to washington -- from washington d, putting you in the room at events and conferences. an offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public

service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service i your local cable or satellite provider. us to follow us on twitter. president obama announced the resignation of eric shinseki earlier today. lawmakers from both parties have been calling for the retired general to step down from the department. next, the president's announcement. this is about 20 minutes. good morning, everybody. a few minutes ago secretary rsinseki and rob nabo presented me with the department's initial review of v.a. facilities nationwide. and what they found is that the misconduct has not been limited facilities, but

many across the country. it is totally unacceptable. our veterans deserve the best. they have earned it. last week i said that if we found misconduct it would be punished, and i meant it. begunary shinseki has now the process of firing many of the people responsible, including senior leaders at the phoenix v.a. he is canceled any but a simpl -- cancel any possible bonuses for executives, and he has been ordered to contact every veteran in phoenix to get the care they need and deserve. this morning i think some of you also heard ric take a truly remarkable action in public remarks. he took responsibility for the conduct in those facilities and apologized to his fellow veterans and to the american people. in a few minutes ago, secretary shinseki offered me his resignation.

with considerable regret, i accept it. served hisi has country with honor for nearly 50 years. he did two tours of combat in vietnam. he left part of himself on the battlefield. he rose to command the first cavalry division, served as army chief of staff, and has never been afraid to speak. hesecretary of the v.a. presided over record investments in our veterans, an enrolling two million veterans to health care, making it easier for the post-traumatic stress, and hermetic ring injury to get treatment, improving care for women veterans, and at the same time he reduced veteran homelessness and help more than one million veterans, service

members, and families pursue their education under the post 9/11 g.i. bill. commitment to our veterans is unquestioned. his service to our country is exemplary. i am grateful for his service, as are many veterans across the country. he has worked hard to investigate and identify the problems with access to care, but as he told me this morning, the v.a. needs new leadership to address them. 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's behalf of his fellow veterans. and i agree. we do not have time for distractions. we need to fix the problem. leader that will help move us forward is mr.

gibson who will take on the reins of acting secretary. secretaryme deputy three months ago, but he is devoted to serving veterans. his grandfather fought on the frontlines lines of world war i. his father was a tail gunner in world war ii. he graduated from westport, earned his qualifications and served in the infantry. most recently he was president and ceo of the uso which does a remarkable job supporting our men and women in war, families, wounded warriors, and families of the fallen. experience0 years of that he brings to bear on our ongoing work to build a 21st century v.a., and i am grateful he is willing to take on this task rate i met with sloan after i met with ric. to staysked rob nabors at the v.a. temporarily help sloan to this transition and

complete his own review of the v .a. we will diligently for a new permanent be a secretary and we hope to confirm that successor and fill that post 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 receiving 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 know 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. he has done exemplary work on our behalf. under his leadership, we have seen more progress on more fronts at the v.a. and bigger investment in the v.a. than just 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. making sure that ptsd, traumatic 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. with a disability backlog that 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 by 50% over the last year or so.

he's not adverse to admitting where there is a problem and going after it. we 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 problems get fixed, so if there is a veteran out there who needs help, that 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 to him, and that the structures 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. >> based on the early-stage 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. in terms of responsibility, this is my administration. i always take responsibility for whatever happens. this is an area i have a 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.

i pledged that if i have the privilege of serving as commander in chief, that we would fix it. the v.a. is a big organization 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. where 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. in terms of managing the v.a., 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 of scheduling 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 when i was traveling around the country, this particular issue of scheduling. i just was talking to rob neighbors, and he described to

me in very specific detail how in some of these facilities, you have computer systems for scheduling that date back to the 1990'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 out, 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. 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. it's important to keep in mind 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

-- how am i going to make sure that 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. with respect 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? >> we will need a new v.a. 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 cause of this attention is one that we can start tackling right away, and without completely transforming the system, we can make some progress. we will have longer-term issues

we have to take care of. my first step 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 appointment scheduled, and let 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 for the system -- 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 have to be reflected in the veterans affairs budget, which i have consistently increased, even during fiscally tight times, there has been no area where i have put more priority than making sure that we are 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. reaction to the announcement on v.a. secretary eric shinseki was split on capital hill.

here's what the house speaker had to say. >> good afternoon everyone. shinseki has dedicated his life to his country everything him for his service. does not absolve the president for his responsibility to step in and make things right for our veterans. is this as usual cannot continue. 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.

>> 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. are republicans politicizing the benghazi attack? >> this is about one issue, 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 refuse 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. we are committed to getting it. >> other congressional reaction included this from the committee chairman.

nancy pelosi said -- before he headed to the white house to offer his letter of resignation, secretary shinseki spoke before a meeting focusing on homeless veterans. he made a point of accepting responsibility for the systemic problem's. his comments are about 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. very kind, very generous, especially this early in the morning. [laughter] thanks for 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. [applause] a good friend to many here in this room, and 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. the executive director of usich,

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 all you -- all of you here in this room. you give veterans hope, dignity, homes, and real chances of a future. that is the never-ending story here. it needs to be told, retold, but 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. five years ago, 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 disorder, failed relationships, 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 database for predictive research so we understand what causes homelessness and what we can do to prevent it. so we can and the rescue phase of getting people off streets by preventing them from ending up there. in 2010, we established the national registry for homeless veterans that captured facts and information on individual homeless veterans. it 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, asking if they have a home or if they are at risk of losing it. last year we screened 4.3 million veterans, and identified 36,000 is homeless -- as homeless, and 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 center. 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. today there are 260 in operation, and everyone of them has a v.a. medical center in direct support of the judge, giving him an option. homelessness and involvement in the justice system seem to go hand-in-hand. in 2009, we launched the outrage -- outreach 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 corrections officials to help our 1200 federal and state penitentiaries. by uploading their lists and 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

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 life -- and v.a. treatment for 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 implemented a joint pain 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%. inpatient hospitalizations down 33%. inpatient costs down 54%. total v.a. health care costs down 32%. [applause] v.a.'s grant per diem program,

our supportive program for veteran's families, are the engines for housing first. we cannot end 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. they assisted over 60,000 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 coalition, melding our 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 and 2013, during a period of 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. with our goals in sight, we have targeted 2015 for reaching a major goal. we all need to work harder towards achieving what we said we would in 2015. this coalition can and veteran'' 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 our veterans' health facilities.

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. i was too trusting of some, and 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 apologize 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 their v.a.

i also know that leadership and 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. i have directed that no vha 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 for appointments to bring them 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] we will announce the results of 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] >> looking at some of our

primetime programming tonight on the c-span networks. here on c-span, we will show you president obama's announcement on the resignation of veteran affairs secretary eric shinseki.

tonight onook tv in-depth with mark levin. un-american history tv it is american artifacts. it is graduation season, and we are bringing you commencements beaches. join us tomorrow for remarks, but here is a preview. learnedent online and i that i wasn't everyone's first choice to be appear. -- up here.

someone actually wrote, i hope they give out five hour energy to help savtay awake. be't worry, i promise not to one minute over four hours. someone else wrote, i have not screwed up badly as secretary of state, yet. all i can say is i'm a stay tuned. comment -- i am he as secretary of state, but he is that ugly. [laughter] so there go my dreams of eating winnable list.t >> you can see all of his remarks tomorrow at 8:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span. >> what has been the result when you have this classic economic holdout problem with retransmission for video? have companies doing this game of chicken where they cut off service to customers am a they are starting to block traffic on their internet services for customers, and the ultimate result is that programming cost going up. one big reason is the resolution of these disputes over retransmission where the fcc is -- hamstrungwrong by the way the wheels are interpreted and the congressional mandate to get involved. which raiseto deals prices and give consumers a lot of channels they do not want. that is what i am afraid of you i think -- for a doubt.

i think to have interactions and a private way is great, and i think they're deathly should be room for private deals, but if we get to that point for interconnection it would be a tragic outcome. >> the impact of an open internet from the progressive policy institute. the 25th anniversary of the 1989 kinnaman square protests and massacres is next week. we heard from chinese activists who were there.

this is two hours. >> the hearing will come to order, and good morning to everyone. 25 years ago the students from beijing's central academy of ane arts unveiled replica of the statue of liberty in tiananmen square. it was a sight to behold. it was a moment when we all dreamed that the tiananmen square demonstration to become a triumph of freedom and democracy. unfortunately the carving is leaders sought to hang onto

power through force. they sent tanks and soldiers into beijing to clear the square on the evening of june 3 and into june 4. the beating, the vanity, the ofture, turned the dream freedom into a bloody nightmare. fiveve with us today extraordinary witnesses to this tragic scene in world history. not just witnesses, but key players in the push for democracy in the people's republic of china. these individuals are reminding us today, as they have so tenacious week since their exile f that the events o tiananmen square will never fade from memory, and they remind us of the long struggle for freedom. struggleo honor the

for freedom by hundreds of thousands of peaceful chinese activists. trivializet or even the slaughter of innocents by chinese soldiers. the memory of those dead, arrested, tortured, and exiled requires us to honor them, respect their noble aspirations for fundamental freedoms, and recommit ourselves to the struggle for freedoms and human rights in china. the government of china continues to go to astounding lengths to erase the memory of the tiananmen square demonstrations and febrile suppression. the internet is censored, citizens holding a private discussions or public commemoration are harassed and detained. we still have no account i the government of those who died, those arrested, those disappeared, or those executed. it is my promise, and i'm joined by many of my dispute with colleagues in the house and

senate that we will always remember, always. as long as the chinese people cannot discuss insignificance openly without harassment or arrest. when the tanks rolled down the square on june 4, all of china suffered. mothers lost sons, fathers lost daughters, china lost and idealistic iteration of future leaders. china's loss from one point of view could be seen as america's game. today, exiled refugees from their native land have contributed mightily to the american fabric. they have contributed to make america stronger. they are entrepreneurs, pastors, businesspeople, and academics. callhinese government may them criminals and hooligans and horrible slander, but one day soon they will be called heroes.

they already are, but the people in china will recognize that they are truly remarkable heroes. the people testifying here today are also extraordinary people of conscience. not on tickets for freedom and , it is like the who's who of the best and courageous that the world has ever seen. there will always be those who want to downplay the relations with china, but the people today remind us that the people of china suffered for freedom. demanded for liberty, justice, democracy, and an end to widespread corruption. these demands were made 25 years ago, they were made with dignity, and respects them and they were treated with hearts miss and murder -- harshness and murder. they fire the imagination of chinese people.

it has been lacking, sorely lacking. when a policy that promotes human rights, internet freedom, and the rule of law. we must promote peaceful change, and liberty, and show our support for those seeking rights all of chinese citizens not just those patting the bottom line. china is in the mist of a severe crackdown. the worst yearas since the 1990's for the arrest and imprisonment of dissidents. on top of all of the others who languish in detention throughout the country. in the past month beijing has obtained two more dozen activist who are simply seeking to commemorate the tiananmen square anniversary in private. worstremains one of the

offenders of human rights overall. it remains of worst torture capital of the world. horrific am a you are rested -- if you are arrested, you will be tortured. religious freedom abuses continue with impunity, and ethnic minority groups face repression when they are trying celebrate their culture. it is the demographic and human rights disaster that has no parallel in human history. extermination of baby girls is not only a massive gender crime but a security problem as well.

china's gender imbalance will and already is leading to crime permit shall sort of stability, worker shortages, and there has been a huge spike in human trafficking. i am the prime sponsor of the trafficking victims section act -- protection act. last year, and it should have been done much sooner, china was put on tier three of egregious violator when it comes to human trafficking t. the fact of the missing daughters, systematically exterminated since 1979. there are tens of millions of killed because of sex selective abortion, and man cannot find wives and there is a huge imbalance so the traffickers have come in like never before to sell wives and

women as commodities. it could lead to war because of the instability that the policy had bread. beijing leaders still remain terrified of their own people. china's ruling communist party would rather stifle, imprison, or even kill it's own people than defer to its demands for freedom and rights. there is an inspiring drive in china to be whining for freedom under the very difficult and dangerous situations and conditions. as our witness today were surely attest to the united states must demonstrate clearly and robustly that these reforms are critical to their interests, joe the -- to the global national interests.

the future also should the in china's interest, because there is a growing evidence that the most rough is and -- prosperous and stable societies are those that protect really just read him, the freedom of speech, and the rule of law. i believe that one day china will be free. they will be allowed to enjoy their god-given rights. they will honor, applaud, and celebrate these heroes of tiananmen square and those who sacrifice so much over the years. and these true heroes will be on honored mightily and forever. >> thank you, chairman smith. thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing today.

i want to personally thank you for your 30 years of dedication that i have known you for those in the pursuit of reagan's of conscience throughout the world. thank theke to witnesses who are here to testify before us today. the 25th will mark anniversary of the massacre. it was june 4, 1989, when the chinese army rolled into the tiananmen square and began to fire indiscriminately on the protesters. they were there peacefully, seeking a more democratic china. china has not allowed for a sick human right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and to and government construction -- corruption. hundreds of thousands were massacred for seeking rights that should be afforded to every person around the world. is common toit citizens,he rights of

and i will continue to work with chairman smith and his committee to bring light to these issues. 20ave worked for the past five years with the underground christian church where i was able to see firsthand the impact of what it means to allow christians to live really, and what they can accomplish. the loyalty, and the faithfulness of christian believers demonstrates the powerful impact that their freedom can have on a culture and in an economy. said, we reagan has have a legacy of evil witch with it must deal. americans have dealt with gender, political affiliation, and we were able to eradicate slavery because of the free exchange of political points of view. through very robust debate of ideas we have become stronger, even for a civil war where we lost over 600,000 lives.

today arens i share in the spirit of humility as america faces their own problems. those of drugs, violence, tomography -- pornography. discrimination among others. my interest is not to be but to recognize how china and united states can and must in prove their cultures. my honesty about china is consistent with my honesty about my own country. i would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. i look forward to your testimony and i'm grateful to chairman smith for calling the searing. goodank you very much very like to yield to my distinguished friend from texas, mr. weber. >>.gov or calling the searing -- thank you for calling this hearing.