and the only reason that panel was enabled to require the judge congress had had the wisdom to say for a crime like this you cannot go below that. >> professor otis, you sound more reasonable this morning than i could have had any right to expect, and i thank you for your -- >> i apologize. [laughter] >> 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 kingpin, the organizer, and i think we agree that to do that you have to get cooperation from someone down the line. with that in mind, i want to ask you about the attorney general

in august of last year directed the u.s. attorneys in the criminal division -- and he was talking about title 21, the safety valve, how you could not charge if certain elements were there -- and he said if these elements are not there, you do not have to charge. one element that had existed before that was cooperation. but he dropped that one. you can deviate even their unwillingness to cooperate. 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 felony conviction, 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 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 which triggered the minimum mandatory. >> it gives criteria when you do not put them in there.

you do not put them in unless these things are present. >> in effect the minimum awaytory is have been done to a large extent by that memo. >> and cooperation used to be what you could consider, and i guess you still can, but what i'm saying 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. if you have a dealer without a record and he tries to cooperate, but does not come to the level of substantial assistance, and there is no violence, the court can come under minimum mandatory. now it is not necessary that he cooperate. >> things like that, it goes against that philosophy -- >> on that point, typically the

charging decision is made before there is any opportunity to assess cooperation. in those cases even, more cooperation 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. i think the data would support most cases are going to plead. >> i find it strange that the cooperation was the one that was totally dropped. let me ask one that is not in here that i think ought to be considered. that is age of the offender. nowhere in these 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. but i can say my 18-year-old at 30, after four years in the marines, had much better judgment. anybody want to comment on whether we ought to take that into consideration? >> yes, i will. i absolutely 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 -- when you talk about drug conspiracies. these kingpins look for young little kids, as young as 13 or 14, where they have enormous influence over them.

they acculturate them into these behaviors. judges and prosecutors right now 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 congress and task force in taking steps to recognize the importance of age when it comes to culpability and sentencing. >> most of the offenders we chart our in their 20's. juvenile is under 18. one example, we had one drug dealer who was involved with an organization in our district, and we had to charge him with two murders. after the debriefing he told us he committed committed four others. he was 19 years old. >> i'm not talking about murder. a 21-year-old is different when he is 30 in most cases. almost two different people,

in many cases, particularly if he has not had some of the supervision that other children do. >> thank you very much. at this time, mr. scott indicates he will still yield, and, mr. jeffries from new york, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, and i thank the panel that has to -- has appeared before us. professor stevenson, it is great to see you. i want to start with professor otis. criminal justice is largely the province of the 50 states. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> that is consistent with constitutional landscapes and the fact that prevention of crime was not necessarily an enumerated power given to congress. it was left to the state, the 10th amendment. that factors into that. 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 experience is a relevant indicator of what would happen if criminal justice reform occurs? >> that is correct with a qualification. the qualification is one i would build on. the federal prisons population is unlike 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 prison population in the federal system actually are violent offenders. in fact, i think it is less than 10%. is that correct? >> that is correct. so -- >> so the premise that the federal system is different in nature somehow and filled 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. in the assessment of who is doing time in the federal system. >> i think 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. but mr. levin, does that seem fair? >> i think it is. there are obviously some differences in the composition, but frankly those have lessened over the years as more and more likely low-level streetcorner drug offenders ended up in the federal system. i would also say one of the provisions of the smarter 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. now if you have at least two points, you cannot use the safety valve anyway. >> my time is limited, but i appreciate the observation. 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 people of america in those 29 states. has that been the experience?

>> no, it has not, and some states have seen dramatic increases in their crime rates -- in crime reduction after the passage of these reforms. >> are you familiar with the rockefeller drug laws that were put in place in new york? >> generally, not in specifics. >> it is widely understood these were some of the most lawsictive, punitive drug anywhere in this country, correct? >> i would have to defer to you. >> mr. stevenson, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> these were some of the toughest, most are conan -- draconian mandatory minimums related to nonviolent drug offenders. in 2009 i was in the state legislature, and i was pleased to be part of the effort to reform those drug laws. are you familiar with that? >> no, i am not. >> it occurred.

are you familiar with that, mr. levin? what i am. >> based on the premise, i would assume that in new york state that a dramatic crime wave as some argued would have occurred as a result of reforms, would follow. is that what took place in new york, mr. otis, or did crime continue 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. i am a law professor. 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, while very significant, probably 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, better private security measures, better emt care, to reduce the murder 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 -- >> my time is expired, but let me make the observation. one of the reasons that states have been able to invest resources in those other areas that you enumerated is because when you reduce the prison population you reduce the state budgetary burden and you can actually invest in things that have been empirically proven to lower crime. i yield back. time we would move to the gentleman from north carolina. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. evenson, i would like you to give us some real-life frontline context, first, to establish in your 20-plus years as a prosecutor, most of that as a drug prosecutor, and how many drug defendants do you think you have prosecuted and have been prosecuted under your supervision? a general number. >> i had my own case load while i was supervising a drug unit. i would say i have done hundreds myself over that 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 -- >> is trafficking of drugs a violent crime? >> it is by its very nature. you show me a city with a violence problem, 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. so i do not accept the term nonviolent when it comes to drugs.

these organizations are by their nature -- and the higher they get. >> drug trafficking is a crime of violence? >> it is. i will say this 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 in these poor communities of color who are victimized 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 did not 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 four of them. he had built an addition on to his house. there was a photo of one of my agents driving one of these high-dollar vehicles out of his driveway, and he said, you see this picture, i said, yes, he said when i drove it down the street 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 they were lined up clapping. we represent some of the most vulnerable people, the poor, the elderly, the young, the addicted, and they have no voice, 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. quite frankly, i am personally offended when i hear charges of

racism. the laws are race neutral. we go where the battle is hottest. we represent people who are victimized by this activity. it doesn't make any difference what neighborhood it is. i've never prosecuted anybody on the basis of race. u.s.s.r has any a. -- a.u.s.a. we have to go where the evidence leads us, and that is where we go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> at this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> i appreciate the opportunity. i apologize for being late. a couple post-midnight sessions. i walked in 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. >> you said the laws are race

neutral. >> yes, sir, they are. >> nobody denies that. but the fact is that the implementation of the laws is neutral, and is racial profiling. all laws are race neutral, since 1865, except in the south, which went to 1963. but the implementation by people under color of law who arrest eight times more 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. >> like 99% of the people who believe in climate change and some people go with 1%. >> 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 dealers were black, white, indian.

we have prosecuted wherever the evidence led us. >> i don't deny you prosecute them. i am saying arrests, 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. it has to be investigators. they cannot do anything in uniform patrol. persons with up possession and it ends there. >> you believe marijuana is less dangerous to our society than meth and cocaine? >> the laws indicate that. meth is highly addictive. >> the laws do not indicate that. marijuana is a schedule one drug, the same as heroin and lsd. that law does not indicate that. in our courtroom -- >> in our courtroom it is treated differently. methamphetamine is instantly addictive. >> i agree with you. you might do your best in your courtroom. i hope you are. but you are right, 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, and they are violent when the police come in, the dea to bust them. they are not violent in se, they are violent because of the laws. >> i have been threatened by marijuana growers. >> if it was legal, do you think they would threaten you? they threaten you because it is illegal. >> that is a different question. i'm just telling you my experience. >> and when alcohol was illegal, al capone and all the guys on "the untouchables those quote they were bad guys. but now they are wholesalers, nice guys. it just matters how you flip it. do you think -- you support mandatory minimums. >> we need those. >> do you think mistakes were

made when a judge tells of a situation where they did not want to sentence the person to life, but the third offense triggered it. some minor thing or a nice woman involved with a man who let her a stray like miss smith, who got pardoned, commuted by president clinton. a wonderful woman, her son is at washington lee, 6 1/2 years? >> as long as we have human beings, there will be mistakes. but i can tell you 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 i can go to that. >> she 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 is not make your incarceration more just. >> there's a saying in law 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. >> mr. stevenson, anything you want to add? >> i want to emphasize that these exceptions, these extreme bad cases i think should not inform the committee task force, because we have a lot of data to tell us how to look at the system, and the truth of it is 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 suggest that individual officers go out with racist intent. but there are real differences ingenuity's where you have to do drug dealing on the street, as opposed to communities where you have resources to do it covertly. if we do not ignores that, we will contribute to this problem of racial disparity. you are right to emphasize the way in which our system identifies who is bad, who is violent, is shaped by the way we characterize these laws. even in aiding mandatory minimum -- eliminating mandatory minimums 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 dealers or 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. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. cohen, most bank robbers are nonviolent. unless you try to stop them.

>> the chair will recognize himself for five minutes. thank you. really 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 -- and a chief justice in a state court of appeals, we use different terminology. when i hear an immediate adverse reaction to mandatory minimums. in the state we call it a range , of punishment, and it seemed probably appropriate for the legislature to say for these crimes -- in felony court -- this was the minimum, 0 to 2 years, but you had that bottom

level. if you are in the first degree, five to nine, and if you enhanced it up with prior convictions, then you could -- a guy arrestedas 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. but it seems like we could deal with the areas in which there are great injustices without totally eliminating floors, although 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 seemed to be ready to proceed further. i have got time. anything you are wishing to 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 states attorneys, are -- i read the comment they had on this legislation, i read it again this morning.

if you could hear and see the statements, i think you would be amazed at how profound reducing the minimum mandatories 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 -- testified, 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. those that don't go to prison.

i had a lawyer who told me one , you know who is in federal prison, those who cooperated and those who wished they cooperated. we need the ability to negotiate. the sentences are fair. we are not prosecuting users. we are not prosecuting marijuana users. it is a myth. we are prosecuting people with prior convictions for the most part, dealing in significant quantities over a long time. that is why we have conspiracies that run one, two, three, and five years. that is what amazed me. you could charge somebody with an agreement that lasted that long time. but the jury gets to see the 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 on mr. evenson's reflection? >> thank you.

i have two comments. one is i apologize for interrupting. one of the things we need to do is go by our experience. mr. levine pointed out that there has been a group of 16 or 17 states over the last several years that have reduced or eliminated mandatory sentences and have not seen an upsurge in crime. i would point out two things. he omitted talking about california, which has had as many premature prison releases as the rest of the states combined. the reason is california is acting under the supreme court's decision that required early releases to reduce prison population and make prison conditions constitutional. what has happened in california, which has had many premature

releases, is crime has gone up. that is not accounted for. if we look beyond the experience of 17 states and look to the experience of the 50 states over 50 years, we know what works and we know what fails. fails. what fails is what we had in the 1960's when we had a belief in rehabilitation. not really a belief in incarceration. that failed. what works is what we have -- >> my time has expired. let me recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> let me respond. with regard to california, the reason they got in that situation is policymakers failed to act proactively. that is why we work with legislators to address chris and -- prison crowding in a prospective way so you do not invite of record supervision. i think california illustrates why we need to tackle this federal prison overcrowding issue upfront rather than

leaping into to unelected supreme court or other judges. one of the reasons we have seen the experience with the rockefeller drug laws, with drug reform in south carolina and other states not leading to an increase in crime, research has shown staying longer in prison does not reduce recidivism. prison does one thing well, incapacitates. with murderers and serial rapists, that is needed. but people who have a drug problem or who are dealing small amounts on street corners, they have a habit themselves. if we can correct the habit 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 penalties do not affect drug use. is there any evidence that the five-year mandatory minimum for small amounts of crack when we

disparity0-1 encouraged people to instead use have 100hen they could times more powder -- is this an indication that people would not use 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 could not even tell you what the penalties are. we will recognize that, be misdirecting a lot of 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 drug courts where they authorize treatment and supervision. i want to emphasize the point about supervision, it has proved to be very effective. if you spend $50,000 a year to keep somebody in prison, that money does not accomplish much.

if you take $10,000 and make -- take someone just released from prison and make sure they are complying with very strict guidelines, around 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 drug addiction and drug abuse. interventions that run health -- around health care models are the interventions that have the biggest impact on the health of those places. >> i understand your organization right on crime takes the position that the more cost effective ways of reducing crimes than waiting for people to get arrested and get into a bidding war as to how much time they are going to serve. have you seen research that incarceration rates over 500 per

100,000 are counterproductive? >> the case is you reach a point of diminishing returns when it comes to incarceration rates. number one, you are sweeping into many nonviolent and low-risk offenders. 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 are locking up african-americans at the rate of 4000 per 100,000, if a community without lock up rate you reduce it to 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, afterschool programs, keeping

young people on the right track, an they could locking up 3500 extra people? >> it is difficult to look at a setting of arbitrary rates. states have different crime rates. but i would say that once -- professor steve levin, who has written for economics, he looked at it. one of the biggest backers of increasing incarceration a few decades ago, they said they reached a point of diminishing returns and potentially in fact in some places negative returns. you could be using the money to put another police officer on the street doing some of the things 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 hot spots. 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 do not go to prison simply because we have not provided the alternatives. >> we have heard you need these bizarre 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 undoubtedly 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 kristen. -- prison. 97 months for crack cases, even after the disparity was narrowed. evenson sounds like he has no leverage over these people. these people are going to jail, just not on bizarre sentences. on fair sentences. >> that last year getting mileage relative to what we could be doing with those resources. >> thank you. let me just comment, and we had 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. rather unusual to see aclu, heritage foundation, liberal,

and conservative groups joining together, but we have a lot of agreement with regard to issue of mens rea for offenses. it was mentioned earlier, we really should have these codified into one code having -- instead of having 4500 or 5000 federal crimes 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 -- clerical 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 mandatory minimums, what i might 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. so if you wish to have -- we 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 testimony that you think of as you walk out, i wish i had said that, we would welcome that 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 judges are often required to impose sentences and violate common sense, the aclu,

the sentencing project, i'll be entered into the record. >> without objection, 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 -- like a youngster to me. more and more people do these days. >> it is all relative. you been doing this for a long time. you were at the dea. if i am wrong in my opinion, but tell me. 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. arrest people, mandatory minimums, flip them 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. so i don't think it is correct to say it has not worked. 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 enforced.

the great likelihood, because -- it has been misapprehended in something that has gone on, the drug business, unlike other crimes, is consensual. there is not a crime scene and a victim in the same sense there is in other kinds of crime. 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 states have released drug 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 he died as a result of a consensual drug transaction, as most all drug transactions are. he and the other 13,000 heroin addicts who die each year are

equally dead, whether it is consensual or whether there has been violence. we need to stop about the harm that comes from the drug trade, a harm that is one of the most destructive, particularly in minority communities today. >> would you mind if i added one thing? >> it is up to the chairman. >> go-ahead. >> with regard to heroine since , 1990, the purity has gone up 60%. the price has dropped 81%. it indicates what we're doing with regard to heroin is tragically not working. kingpins and others dealing hard drugs should go to prison. but we need to take a broader approach. there are pharmaceutical advances that are treating heroin addiction and, recognizing prescription drugs , prescription drug abuse is far more common than heroin abuse.

i hope we can also focus on that as well. >> thank you. what we need to do is huey lewis had an answer. we need to find a drug that is not addictive and harmful, but still pleasurable. get to work on it tomorrow. [laughter] >> i always thought that was what we call glazed doughnuts. [laughter] mr. bachus, you ask unanimous consent? >> thank you, unanimous consent, and i want to remind you of this, i had this, but this is a crime scene. and this is in alabama. 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.

and their friends. 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 and particularly highlight where the cooperation is no longer included. but, third, mr. stevenson said something that we need to at least have one panel of people, and that is health care approach and things that we can do and drug divergent 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 one group, because i have had

u.s. attorneys and d.a.'s that expressed to me that they wish more was done on addictions and rehabilitation, because they are the ones that see it every day. >> mr. chairman, 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. levin and mr. stevenson have pointed out that there is a better, more cost-effective way of actually reducing drug use 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 it. that is what the debate is all about. >> 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 had anticipated having to go to vote at around 10:00 a.m., and we started out under that, that is what we were told by the mortal gods from the house floor. while were proceeding, the vote that we were anticipate around 10:00 was voice-voted, thankfully, some cooperation 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]

>> next, president obama announcing the resignation of veterans affairs secretary eric shinseki. then this morning's speech by the secretary. after that, 2014 commencement speeches from around the country. this week on "newsmakers,"

california congressman buck mckeon, chair of the armed service committee. he talks about the department of veterans affairs and the defense authorization bill, and president obama poshard plan to cut the number -- president obama's land to cut the number of troops in afghanistan. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. new book "sundays at eight," including anne applebaum on the follow the soviet union. >> many of the problems we saw at the end begin at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. one of the problems, when you do that, when you try to control everything, you create opposition and potential

dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to keep the same way, and one artist once to paint another way, you have made him into a great dissident. someone who might otherwise have been a political. if you tell boy scout troops they do not -- cannot be boy scout troops anymore, now they have to be young pioneers, which happened in a number of countries, and one group forms a secret underground boy scout troop -- underground scats were very important in poland through the communist period -- you created another group of opponents from otherwise apolitical teenagers. >> that conversation and other featured interviews in c-span's "sundays at eight," from public affairs books. now available as a father's day gift at your favorite bookstore. >> next, president obama's announcement that veterans affairs secretary eric shinseki is resigning. the v.a. department and secretary shinseki came under

fire when he was reported veterans had died waiting for apartment at a phoenix veterans affairs health care system. secretary shinseki served as secretary of veterans affairs since 2009. debbie terry secretary sloan gibson will now serve as acting secretary until the administration finds a successor. this is about 20 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. a few minutes ago, secretary shinseki and rub neighbors, who neighbors,ly -- rob who i temperately assigned to work with the va, 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. but many across the country. 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 performance bonuses for vha senior executives, and ordered the v.a. to personally contact every veteran in phoenix waiting for appointments. to get than the care they need and deserve. this morning, some of you heard rick take a remarkable action. in public remarks, he took responsibility for the conduct of those facilities and apologized to his fellow veterans and the american people. a few minutes ago, secretary shinseki offered me his own resignation. with considerable regret, i accepted it. rick shinseki has served his

country honorably for nearly 50 years. he did two tours of combat in vietnam. he's a veteran who left a part of himself on the battlefield. he rose to command of the first cavalry division, served as army chief of staff, and has never been afraid to speak truth to power. as secretary of the v.a., he presided over record investments in our veterans, enrolling 2 million new veterans in health care, delivering disability pay to more veterans of vietnam, to -- more veterans exposed to agent orange, making it easier for veterans with posttraumatic stress and mental health issues to get treatment. improving care for our women veterans. at the same time, he helped reduce veteran homelessness and help more than one million veteran service members and their families pursue their education under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. his commitment to our veterans -- service to our

country is exemplary. i'm 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 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. that was his judgment on behalf of his fellow veterans. and i agree. we don't have time for distractions. we need to fix the problem. for now, the leader who will help us move forward is sloan gibson. he will take on the reins as acting secretary. sloan became deputy secretary at 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. sloan graduated from west point and earned his airborne and ranger 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 at war, their families on a wounded warriors, and families of the fallen. 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 am grateful he is willing to take on this task. 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. we are not going to stop working to make sure they get the benefits, care, and opportunities that they earned and deserve. 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. and an honest assessment if something is not working. this week i visited men and women in different stages of their service. our newest officers who graduated from west point, our troops currently serving in afghanistan, and our veterans and military families at 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 belief that he would be a distraction from the task at hand, which is to make sure the -- that what is broken gets

fixed so his fellow veterans are getting the service that they need. i want to reiterate. he is a very good man. i don't just mean he's an accomplished man. i don't just mean that he has been an outstanding soldier. he's a good person. he has done exemplary work on our behalf. and under his leadership, we have seen more progress on more fronts at the v.a. and bigger investment in the v.a. than just 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 the 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, have we 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 then 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 the doctor 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. >> house speaker john boehner also issued a statement on the resignation of veteran affairs secretary eric shinseki. he said the resignation does not absorb the president at his responsibilities and that he should outline his vision for solving the problems. during a brief question and folks --ction, these

and he took questions about the house benghazi situation. good afternoon everyone. general shinseki has dedicated his life to his country everything him for his service. his resignation does not absolve the president for his responsibility to step in and make things right for our veterans. business 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. >> shortly before secretary shinseki's resignation was announced, he spoke at the national coalition for homeless veterans annual conference.

he apologize for the systemic problems that v.a. medical facilities around the country and he said the findings in the inspector general's interim report was a breach of trust. the removal ofed senior executives at the phoenix v.a. center. this is 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.

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]

>> president obama made a surprise appearance of the white house briefing to announce that press secretary jay carney is resigning. he worked as a time magazine reporter before becoming press secretary. deputy press secretary josh earnest will succeed mr. carney when he leaves in mid-june. came to me inay the oval office and said he was thinking about moving on and i was not thrilled to say the least.

he had to wrestle with this decision for quite some time. he is been on my team since day one. for two years with the vice president, for the past 3.5 years as my press secretary. on clare,ced a strain his wife, and his two wonderful kids. i had little league team, a chance to see the other team and she is a fine butcher -- pitcher. he was not seeing enough of the games. jay was a reporter before coming to the white house, including a stint as bureau chief for time magazine. he comes to this place with a reporters perspective. think he will miss hanging out with all of you, including the guys in the front row. >> third row.

[laughter] has become one of my closest friends and is a great press secretary and a great advisor. he has good judgment and good temperament. and, he has a good heart. and, i will miss him a lot. i will continue to rely on him as a friend and advisor after he leaves to spend as much as the summer as he can with his kids before he decides what is next for him. i know he is going to be outstanding at it. that meant i had to make a decision which is who succeeds jay. we have enormous talent around are, but i have decided we going to put in the slot somebody who is also a friend and advisor. today, the jacket is officially

passed to a new generation. mr. josh earnest. [applause] a coach's son from card the city -- kansas city. he still roots for the royals, i guess. [laughter] his name describes his demeanor. josh is an earnest guy. you cannot find just a nicer individual even outside of washington. the country knows him for his golden voice on west wing week, the biggest viral internet hit since between two ferns. an incrediblee history going all the way back to the iowa caucuses. he was my iowa communications director.

even when he was in that role, he would find an extra hour helping young staffers to make phone calls or knock on doors. there was no task that was too small, no detail too unimportant for josh to attend to. he has been a mentor to many of the young people here who i know are thrilled for him today. ands of sound judgment great temperament. he is honest and full of integrity. i am sure you will at some point get frustrated with him as well. it is going to be hard because he is a straight shooter and a great guy. so, my request is that be nice anday on his farewell tour be nice to josh during his initiation which i'm sure will last maybe two days. or perhaps, two questions.

we are going to let him hang around a little bit to mope. thank you guys. [applause] >> any questions? >> some of this year's commencement speeches from around the country. benioff,ear from marc susan would just be, and mike rowling's. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you putting in the room a correctional hearings, white house events, and briefings. offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are created by the tape -- cable tv industry 35 years ago

and brought to you as a public service by your local provider. watch us in hd, follow us on twitter. >> the university of southern california honored is this man marc benioff at their commencement ceremony on may 16. the ceo is also a ratchet. he talked about working with early cloud computing technology by creating new models for charitable giving and life lessons taught to him by a spiritual guru in india. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you. good morning, trojans. thank you for having me here. it is great to be with you today. what a gorgeous day this is. thank you for addressing me as

the world's largest commencement penguin. that is fantastic to be here. congratulations to this great class of 2014. congratulations to all of you. i really do not remember my graduation. i kind of remember sitting out there but it might have been a late night at the 9-0. it might have been a late night at my fraternity house. it probably was. it might have been many things but i do not remember my graduation. people asked me, have this great opportunity to speak all over the world. i get to talk to folks about technology. i will tell you they asked me because i tell them i went to usc create how did you choose usc? and i tell them it was simple. my mom went here.

my mom went to usc. she started here in 1957. mom knows best. congratulations to the parents of the class of 2014. congratulations to my mother. i loved it here. i always loved being here. i always loved being here on this beautiful campus and i loved the incredible student body and going out to the athletic games. i loved the fraternity lifestyle. i loved my marshall school of business and my entrepreneur program. i loved all the great musical programs and dance programs and

all the great things we have at usc that make us special and unique. i will tell you i love the student body here. i love the diversity of it. i love the meritocracy of it. i love the spirituality of it. i love that at usc we have more catholics than at notre dame. which i think is a college in the midwest. is that right? we have more jews here than brandeis. more hindus here and there's a lot of people like me who are grateful to god for this glorious day. i will tell you i was sitting out here not so long ago but life does go fast and i made an unusual decision. i was graduating on a friday just like you are here and monday i started work. i was ready to hit it.

i was ready to get going. ready to make it happen. i was motivated, i was inspired by my commencement speaker and i was ready to go. monday i started at the software company called oracle corporation. this little software company. i got up there and they were excited and they were inspired. i worked and i worked and as you heard i had some great success there. i was the youngest vp and i went on and created some great products create a decade went by after my graduation. life goes fast. 10 years went by. people are always overestimating what you can do in a year and underestimate what happens in a decade.

a decade went by and all of a sudden i felt of little bit weird. i felt kind of unmotivated, unenergized, not very excited. not very inspired. i was kind of in a bad mood. kind of grumpy. a little bit pissed off. i went in and talked to my boss. i am not feeling that great. i need to take some time off. he said go for it. good idea. very supportive. there i was a lost thirtysomething and i did what all lost thirtysomethings do. i went to india. and i went to india and i took with me one of my really good friends and we were touring india. he was born in new delhi but he had never been through india and i wanted to go to india. i was going to make good use of it. we had all these great cities from the north to the south to the east and the west.

something amazing happened. we ended up in a little hut in a little area of india and we were sitting in a little hut with a guru. an incredible female saint. all the saints in the south are female. we were confessing our lives and worries and concerns and our anxieties and fierce and talking about life and what we had accomplished and we wanted to change and we were on our quest. we're sitting there in that hut and it was kind of fun and amazing at the same time. candles were flickering, monks were chanting. and he was getting ready to start this new venture capital company.

he took out his business plan and started reading it and there were going to be social networks and everything would get connected together. she sat there so patiently for an hour. it was great. i was inspired. she turned to him and said this -- while you were working hard to change the world, i am sure that will all come to pass. do not forget to do something for others and he was kind of taken aback a little bit and i felt like she was talking to me. i kind of felt like i found what i was looking for.

she said do not forget about other people. well we are doing this hard work. while we are changing the world. do not forget about others who are a little less well taken care of than we are here. we left and the next day was our time to go home and that night we were on a rice boat on the back waters of the arabian sea and were eating our vegetarian meal going down this incredible river talking about that. we had this incredible business and technology life and we have these amazing degrees and we're putting it into action. on the other life we have this rebirth desire to do something for others. i think our challenge is how we're going to put this together. how are we going to put this together and we really had no idea.

we went back to san francisco. i went back to my post at oracle and he went off to start his company. just as i arrived back i got a phone call. it was a call to attend something called the american summit for the future. it was in philadelphia. it was incredible. i arrived in this huge conference room and it was being chaired by general colin powell. nancy reagan was representing ronald reagan. the general came up and he came up on stage and stood at the podium and everyone in the audience were the ceo's and leaders of these major

corporations. i looked around and i thought i am in some incredible company. i recognize these faces. and general powell stood up and he said, ladies and gentlemen, i brought you here today to bring you something important. milton friedman was wrong. business of business is not business that your companies, your organizations are some of the richest, most powerful resources we have in our great countries. what we need to do and he went on is we need to tap into your employees and we need to tap

into your products. and everything that is going on in your organizations and you need to get out there and help our boys and girls clubs and ymcas and build safe places and do mentoring and tutoring for you to integrate your corporations with the community that they exist in. you do not have walls around to hear that separate you from those that you are living next to. it was inspiring. he ended it and he said, just remember this -- get out there and do something for the people. and i said, wow, i have a second guru. hearing this and now i am in

philadelphia hearing the same message and i said to myself, i think i am getting it here. i am understanding what is coming through me. i'll tell you what. i went back to oracle and i talked to my boss and said we have to create the foundation and do everything that general powell said that he said you are right and we're going to do it. i found myself in the day, morning time putting computers in schools and wiring them and training teachers and working with kids. in the afternoon i was building products and markets and technology and it was awesome. i think this is what i want to do. i kind of have both things going on. this is exciting. then i got a call from general

powell. he said, i just adopted mcfarland middle school in washington, d.c. you need to go put those computers in there and i said yes, sir, general. i will get it done. and took my three top engineers and 100 computers and we set them all out there and they were ready and it was a hot day out there when they arrived. hot like this. maybe hotter. about 110 degrees out. they had to bring those computers up three flights of stairs and we had called our local office to make sure there were employees there to help them. in bethesda, maryland and then i got a call from jim. he said i got a problem. i said what is it? he said we got the computers. i am here. the guys are here. the employees are not here. i do not know how we will get these up three flights of stairs and installed.

i was worried and dejected i said i had better call general powell and tell him this will not happen. i got on the phone and called and i said general, we got the computers there and we got our engineers but the last day in the quarter and our employees could not get there and we will have to reschedule. i was asking for his forgiveness and the phone hung up on me. i said hello, general? he was not there. it was over and i felt so bad. it was over and i felt so bad. powell, onegeneral of the great americans. i sat there at my desk and i said maybe i got this all wrong. trying to do this and put it all together and here i am and i just upset general powell. and then the phone rang again