more needs to be done to make sure that equal protection under the law is truly a reality for everyone. >> you mentioned president obama -- two years left on his term. is talking about the second time in two weeks that he has addressed a racial issue in decision by a grand jury. what do you think the president's best role in this in these situations -- is it important for him to visit new role?where you see his > i don't think it necessarily needs to visit ferguson or new york or cleveland. the attorney general is the appropriate person in that regard. he has visited ferguson. he was in cleveland today, and we hope to see him in new york soon. the president has indicated that uses a problem that has persisted in america for far too

long, and there are a lot of people who believe it will never change. he has given us his promised that it will change and it will be different because he is invested, and we will have to translate those words into action. >> a couple more calls. let's hear from missouri. >> hello. what i want to ask this representative about government is what is going to be done about the things regarding michael brown and mr. garner? something has to be done about those existing conditions -- it is obvious that we have gotten to the tilt point. this federal government must take over the policing that is happening at the state level, which is nothing but a continuation of jim crow laws. that someoneved did be so afraid of an unarmed

-- that he was so t he has the right to murder people. >> is it appropriate for a federal takeover? >> you made a point about darren wilson and whether the use of horse -- the use of force was excessive or not. the point that i find interesting is that he was 6'4", a badge, an entire police force behind him, yet he chose to fire that weapon more than 10 times. believe we need the benefit of a trial. i do believe that there is an inherent conflict of interest between local prosecutors and the police department. prosecutors rely on the police each and every day in order to

move cases forward through the criminal justice system. there is a symbiotic relationship, and it is very hard to turn around and expect those prosecutors to aggressively go after law enforcement officials who engage in excessive displays of f orce. that is why six members of angress in august called for federal justice department investigation of the violation of eric garner's civil rights. at a need to look state-by-state level, whether we need independent prosecutors to step into the breach whenever officers are accused of excessive force. >> good morning. i have some quick questions. -- the democratic party, it has changed a lot.

a black man told to step down. [indiscernible] no matter how you represent black people, even the union [indiscernible] time, they circle around a part-time job, so what that means is that they are not working consistently. >> it is good to hear from someone from brooklyn. i appreciate the thoughts you've expressed. i think you address a broader frustration as it relates to the economy, which we experience. the worst economic collapse in this country, there were many financial institutions largely responsible for that collapse.

ceo compensation was way up, corporate payouts were way out. but those aspiring to be part of the middle class were. struggling this is where congress needs to come together in a bipartisan way to make sure all americans can benefit. >> you represent brooklyn and queens. we appreciate you being on. >> richard barry of the international association looks at white house efforts to reform police departments after ferguson. then author maja shen word discusses her new book. plus, we will be taking your phone calls. all on "washington journal," live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

the house wrapped up work for the week on a defense programs bill that gives the white house authority to expand u.s. authority in iraq and syria. we will show the floor debate next on c-span. the house also passed a measure to block president obama's immigration order. president obama is expected to veto the bill. a pentagon report on sexual assault in the military. and compton, who recently retired as abc news hospira white house correspondent, on over her 40 years covering the white house. >> we watched him listen to a onep of second graders, and whispered to him. nobody interrupts a president in front of second graders. the president stood and said he

had to go. he went into a side room, and then he heard that it was two crashes. two plane i came out to the parking lot and said, stay right here. cameras in the cafeteria, the president has to speak their. scare thewant to children and he said, it is an apparent president -- an apparent terrorist attack. the door slammed, the pentagon was hit. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span plus "q&a." >> next, some of the debate in the house on the $585 billion defense bill. congressman mckeon retires at the end of his term.

>> i also want to particularly recognize the leadership of chairman mckeon, as this is his last time as chairman and a member of congress. our committee has tried to have two basic core principles. one, we get our bill done. two, work in a bipartisan fashion. and when you look around this body today, the greater appreciation of how difficult those naturally bipartisan and they are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there's always something about any piece of legislation that somebody would prefer to be a little different. that's not any less true in our bill, but we recognize the necessity of getting it done. and the ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. when i arrived here floyd spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through ike skeleton have made it a priority to number one, work with the other

side. buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment i was elected as ranking, reached out to make sure that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committee. the second piece of it is is the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. the chairman has just been outstanding in that regard. it's been a tough four years, many challenges have cropped up, but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done. so i thank him for his leadership. i want to thank the chairman on the senate side as he's retiring as last year's chairman. he show eded a similar commitment and had an even more difficult time over there. he and senator inhofe were having a conversation a couple days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this to explain the rules. i'm never going to understand them. just don't explain them. here's nothing i can do about it. that's up to you. you figure it out as best you can.

senator levin has shown outstanding leadership as well. this is a good piece of legislation. we have to remember that we face a wide variety of threats at this point. we still have troops in afghanistan. we now again have troops in iraq. we have north korea, which is very unpredictable, we have the challenge of dealing with iran and all of its levels. we have russia and vladimir putin that are messing around in the ukraine and a variety of other areas. this is probably as dangerous a time as we have had since the end of the cold war. our national security strategy, the funding, and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important. at the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. we have sequestration, and we have this rampant. desire to cut everything from not contemplate any new revenue, or any possibility of spending more money and our national security strategy has to try to

wrestle with that. so that makes it very difficult. and i will say, again, what i think is going to be most important in the next few years. i don't think sequestration is going away. i'm going to continue to argue that it should, but given the major majorities in the house and the last house in the senate, given the last election, it's unlikely to go away. which means the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of money than they thought they were going to have. and they are also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that i mentioned and undoubtly a few that i didn't. so how do we do that? right now unfortunately congress is doing it the old way which is parochial parochial. we don't want our base closed or a ship that is stationed in our district or a particular contractor that's invested in a particular piece of equipment. so whenever the pentagon comes up and says, we need to cut this, you have a predictable

group of people who will rally and say why we shouldn't. and by and large, the congress has gone along with that group of people. i'm here to tell you that's just not going to continue to work. it's not. the very small, minor personnel cuts in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. we'd like to have more money, but we don't. on the retirement of the cruisers and the vehicles, on the changes to the garden reserve that have been proposed, all of these are things we would prefer not to do. but we have the money that we have. and until this congress decides to change that and provide more is the absolute worse thing we can do to reject every single change. we have had things as minor as a guard unit wanting to move five c-130s from a base to another and proposes our bill to

disallow them to do that because the people in that state don't want them to be moved. i understand that, but that's not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment. we are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make. we're going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens when we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for those things. the pentagon has to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work. the cuts always come from readiness. we have always said the worst thing we can do is create a hollow force. a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that we ask them to do. that is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts, and leave them with no choice but to reduce training and equipping.

that's all that's left. that's the last thing on the table. i hope we'll start making some of those tough decisions in the next year. i thank the chairman and the staff. i wish senator levin the best in his retirement and i urge passage for the bill, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i at the outset would like to thank mr. smith about everything he said. he has been a tremendous partner to work with. and he just had hip surgery a few weeks ago, and these last few weeks when all these meetings and the time and the effort hooegs had to put forth in great pain, i really commend you for your integrity, for your steadfastness in your commitment to serving your district, the members of our armed services

and this nation. it's been great experience working with you and i enjoyed just about every minute of it. times when we disagreed, but we have really done that at a high level and tried to keep it always on the issue, never personal. it's been great. i want to join him in thanking our staff. we get all the credit -- the majority side. because they work so closely together and that's just the culture of the committee and i'm sure it will continue. as you've heard through other debate, this legislation addresses a wide variety of policy issues including supporting operations in afghanistan, fund inging the war

against isil and iraq and syria, reenforcing our capability in the pacific and maintaining the nuclear deterrent, but many challenges remain. next year the armed services committee will be in excellent hands. mr. thorne beri and i have sat next to each other for 20 years on the committee. mr. smith will continue to be the ranking member. they will have their work cut out for them. but they are more than up to the task. and i wish them all the best because our skurtsecurity of our -- because the security of our nation lies in their hands along with all the members of the committee and all of the members of this body. i hope some time next year a compromise can come to the floor that will end sequestration. there isn't a magical solution that republicans can support and

the president can sign without sacrifice on both sides. when that solution comes, it will be a tough vote on both sides. i pray that our colleagues will hold this one thought and the vote comes. remember the great sacrifice that our troops and their families and loved ones at home are making. right now, they are walking in the mountains of afghanistan. they are at sea within missile range of iran. they are flying wing tip to wing tip against rush russian bombers over the north sea. they are nose to nose with the north koreans. they are sweating in the heat of africa fighting a horrible disease. they are standing on the sands of iraq risking everything against a brutal enemy.

they take those risks, they make those sacrifices because of you. they do it for you, they do it for us, for their families, for their flag, for our freedom. and how have we repaid them. with equipment that's falling apart, by laying them off while they are off in war zones. by docking their way and their medical benefits, but throwing them out of the service and on to a broken economy. i met our forces on the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan dirty and sweating from fighting. i have watched too many families, as have all of you, spend long months waiting for those returning from deployment. i have seen too many heroes put into the ground. they never failed us, not once. so shame on us if we're unwilling to pay back the debt we owe them.

shame an all of us if we cannot make far less sacrifice than we ask of them on their behalf. my road in congress is coming to an end. it will be in the next congress and the present to make these injustices right. so please show our troops the respect they deserve. give them the tools they need, help keep them safe. honor their sacrifice with your service. i know that you'll do the right thing. i'm in the twilight of a 22-year career here in congress. you know, it's been mentioned that we passed this bill 53 times. i want to tell you i was not here for all 53 of those, nor was adam.

he's much younger than i am, and you might think i'd been here 53, but it's been the highlight of the committee to get this done every year because it is so important. i have come to know many of you as friends and many of you as family. to the armed services committee staff once again, that's minority and majority, you're all veterans, you're professionals, you're tireless, but i just think of you as the best. my personal staff -- oh, boy. i did not want to do this. i did not want to give this speech, not because i had any

regrets, i just have this problem, you know, thankfully the speaker has it a lot worse than i do and he gets all the attention, but i have the same problem. you know, we hear a lot about government workers and we spend money on government workers, and they don't do anything. i just to want tell people of america that all of these people that work here spend countless hours, and they do so much for so many people, i have some constituent workers at home that have helped thousands of people, and every one of these government workers here deserve our gratitude, our thanks for all that they do.

i want to thank all my colleagues for their many wonderful things they've said. i've made a comment the other day that my funeral is going to be somewhat anticlimatic. i've heard speeches saying what a wonderful person i am. fortunately, i'm old enough that i don't take any of that personally or too seriously. i understand that this is a responsibility that was given to me by colleagues, i've enjoyed it, its been a great experience, but i know it's not about me, it's about what we do here. i want to thank my -- my family. people say, boy, we love your christmas card. we have six children.

30 grandchildren, and now one great grandchild. and they are all great. and i'm going to spend a little bit more time with them. i think i'd like to teach some of my grandchildren how to fish, if somebody will teach me how to fish. [laughter] and my wife has stood by my side for 52 years now, and she's -- she's a tremendous person who i look up to so much. now, i'm a mckeon, so that means i'm of irish heritage. i'd like to part with a irish blessing for all of you.

may the road rise up to meet you and the wind be ever at your back. may the sun shine upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. and until we meet again, may god hold you in the hollow of his hand. to this great body and to our troops, wherever you may be, may god bless you and keep you. may god bless america. and now, for hopefully the last time -- ms. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. [applause] >> the house gave the white house permission to expand authority. the house also improved and measured to block president

obama's executive order on immigration. the vote was mostly along party lines. the administration says the president would veto that bill. here are some of the debate. ro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to support mr. yoho's important bill, the preventing executive overreach on immigration act of 2014. president obama has just announced one of the biggest constitutional power grabs ever by a president. he has declared unilaterally that by his own estimation more than four million unlawful immigrants will be free from the legal consequences of their lawless actions. not only that, he will in addition bestow upon them gifts such as work authorization and other immigration benefits. this, despite the fact that president obama has stated over 20 times in the past that he does not have the constitutional power to take

such steps on his own and has repeatedly stated that, quote, i am not a king, end quote. pursuant to article 1, section 8 of the constitution, only congress has the power to write immigration laws. our founding fathers established this separation of powers to prevent tyranny. as james madison wrote, no political truth is greater -- is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and a judiciary a, in the same hand, whether of one, few or many, and whether her edtary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. yet president obama is in effect rewriting our immigration laws by granting deferred action to more than four million unlawful aliens. pursuant to article 2, section 3 of the constitution, the

president is required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. yet president obama is refusing to enforce our immigration laws for these millions of unlawful alienle -- aliens. president obama justifies his actions by claiming that his administration is merely exercising the power of prosecutorial discretion. yet as clinton administration i.n.s. commissioner told her agency, exercising prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the i.n.s.'s commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the best of our ability. while previous presidents have provided immigration relief to groups of aliens, usually their actions were based on emergencies in foreign countries. thereby relying upon the broad constitutional power given to a president to conduct foreign affairs. without any such foreign crisis and in granting deferred action to a totally unprecedented number of aliens, president

obama has clearly exceeded his constitutional authority. i commend mr. yoho for introducing his bill which undoes the damage to our constitutional system that president obama's action as are causing. the bill reaffirms the constitutional principles that only congress has the power to write immigration laws and that the president must enforce those lalls. mr. yoho's bill preventing president obama or any future president from exempting or deferring the removal of categories of unlawful aliens except to the extent that the president is relying on his constitutional powers over foreign affairs or utilizing exceptions provided for in the bill for exceptional humanitarian and law enforcement circumstances. the bill prevents president obama or any future president from considering such aliens to be lawfully present in the united states and thus ineligible for the rights and privileges available to lawfully present aliens.

it prevents president obama or any future president from granting work authorization to such aliens. finally, the bill takes effect as if enact aed on november 20, -- enact aed on november 20, -- enacted on november 20, 2014. i again urge my colleagues to vote for this necessary bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the secretary: the senate has passed s. 229, cited as the corporal michael j. clems act of 2014 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for as much time as he may consume.

mr. conyers: thank you. members of the house, in one week this 113th congress will expire without having considered a single piece of legislation to fix our nation's broken immigration system. it's been 525 days since the senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would have made meaningful and long overdue reforms, but our chamber here has still steadfastly refused to allow an up or down vote on that measure. no one questions that our immigration system is broken. it's failing our economy and millions of families and our businesses and yet rather than

deal with these critical issues we are here today to vote on yet another symbolic anti-immigrant measure that has absolutely no chance of consideration in the senate. i want to be clear. politically motivated, hastily drafted, an attempt, once again, to attack our president as well as immigrant families who contribute to our communities and our economy. by blocking the protections offered by the president's actions, the legislation would deprive nearly five million immigrants and their families of the hope that they might finally live without constant fear of separation and deportation and it would

undermine the administration's efforts to devote greater resources towards securing our borders and deporting felons and not families. and this would mean millions of undocumented immigrants, not to e asked to pass national security and criminal background checks and pay their fair share of taxes in order to register for temporary protection from deportation. 579 -- 5759, the president's executive order is recognized by both liberal and conservative legal experts, and in a letter written last month, 11 prominent scholars explained

that the president's actions are within the power of the executive branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of a president's authority. and this letter was signed -- i was amazed at the list of constitutional authorities. strouse llinger, david -- david strauss, formerly in the solicitor general's office, laurence tribe, and even conservative professors like eric posner. and 135 immigration law professors echoed that and provided constitutional, statutory and regulatory authority for these actions. not to mention that the president himself was a professor of constitutional law. nd finally, this measure, h.r.

5759, goes well beyond preventing the president from expanding deferred action -- expanding deferred action for childhood arrivals or creating a program to protect the parents of u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents from deportation. it would not only prevent this president but any future president from protecting discreet categories of individuals facing unique dangers and challenges. this means that no future administration would be able to parole in place the undocumented parents or spouses and children of military personnel and veterans or facilitate enlistment in our armed services by american citizens who have undocumented family members or grant

deferred action to victims of crime or serious forms of human trafficking. for these and other reasons, this legislation is opposed by many organizations that care about our immigration system and are working to protect the vulnerable among us, including the united states conference of catholic bishops, the afl-cio, the service workers international union, the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women. let's think this through carefully, and i urge you to oppose this very dangerous anti-immigrant measure. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: to clarify a couple things.

first of all, it's not true that house of representatives has not acted to fix our broken immigration system. first of all, last summer we passed two bills, one from the appropriations committee and e -- the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee, that did just that, to provide resources to secure our borders to stop the surge illegal immigrants coming into our country and to make sure that similarly unconstitutional daca program that the president implemented earlier was frozen and could not proceed further. so to me that's simply not true. second, to say that president's going to require people who -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say that fact of the matter is that en you talk about taxes, there's no requirement in the president's executive order that anyone who qualifies as an unlawful alien to get this

administrative legalization to pay back taxes. there's none. they pay taxes moving forward. one of the benefits they qualify for the earned income tax credit. this could cost the taxpayers more. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i now yield five minutes to the chief sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the work that you've done on this, and i appreciate the attention that this has brought. there's a lot of consternation about this bill. i stand here today obviously in support of my bill, h.r. 5759, preventing the executive overreach on immigration act of 2014. it's a simple bill. it's four pages. but yet it's caused a lot of debate. it just simply says that the -- it states that the president, mr. obama, does not have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty by issuing work visas to five million people

here illegally. i've got a list of scholars, claim at back up the this bill is not unconstitutional. this does not talk about deporting -- it will deport nine million people. it doesn't talk about that. it doesn't talk about granting amnesty. it just stops an unconstitutional action by our president who has taken an oath to defend, protect the constitution of the united states, just like the rest of us in this body has. to vote no against this bill is to vote no against the constitution. harry reid has already said he will not bring up this bill for a vote. the president says he will veto this if it makes it to his desk. my question is, to not bring up this bill or to not sign it, is that not a vote against our constitution? it is important that we address the true debate here, and that is the separation of powers. this bill's not about border

security, work visas, e-verify or immigration reform. this is about the administrative overstepping its bounds and unilaterally challenging the laws of this great nation of ours. article 2, section 3 of our constitution makes very clear that the duty of the president is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. despite this straightforward charge, the administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws for millions of unlawful aliens. article 1, section 8 of the constitution clearly states, only congress has the power to write immigration laws, and our founding fathers established this separation of powers to prevent an overreaching executive. mr. speaker, the supreme court found in galvin vs. perez that the formulation of policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here is entrusted

exclusively to congress and it has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body of politics as any aspect of our government. preserving article 1, the legislative powers, this is not a partisan issue. it's not republican or democrat. it's allowing executive action like this to slide simply because we are frustrated with a system establishing -- and it establishes a dangerous precedent that could be abused by presidents of both parties for any area of law they disagree with. i'd like to point out to my colleagues on the other side that if we continue to surrender from this body, our legislative powers to the executive branch, then we could easily be standing here in two, five or 10 years discussing a republican president who refuses to enforce the employer mandate of the affordable care act or uphold portions of the voting rights act and it could go on and on and it could open up a dangerous precedent.

just because one disagrees with the outcome, doesn't mean they need to violate. the congress has the power to create and write laws and the president has the duty to faithfully execute those laws, not to pick and choose, like he does or doesn't like them and that's according to, again, article 2, section 3. i ask members to support h.r. 5759, restore constitutional powers to congress and stand on the side of the constitution to protect this great nation of ours. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. conyers br before calling on our -- mr. conyers: before calling on our distinguished colleague from california. i want everyone, particularly the author of this bill, to know as the senior member of

the house judiciary committee, i firmly believe and support the constitution, the amendments and the precedence. i'm now pleased to yield to a senior member of judiciary who's worked on this issue for a number of years, the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, the legal authority for the president's immigration actions derives in part from his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. in heckler v. cheney, the supreme court explained this duty does not require the president to act against every technical violation of the law. the court said, quote, an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to the agency's absolute discretion. two years ago, the supreme court in arizona vs. the united states, struck down most of

arizona's sb-1070 law. the court said then the broad discretion exercised by federal immigration officials extends to -- and here's a quote -- whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. the arizona courts said discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns and can turn on factors including whether the alien has children born in the united states, long ties to the community or a record of distinguished military service. when we created the department of homeland security in 2002, we charged the secretary with the duty to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. that's 6 u.s. code 202. congress delegated that authority to the executive branch and they are now using this authority. we enacted a law that permits the issuance of employment authorization. they are now implementing that part of the law. this bill would block some portions of the president's

recent action to keep young people from facing deportation and to prevent parents of u.s. citizen kids from being deported, but the bill harms others too. immigrant victims of domestic violence who seek a green card through the violence against women act are not protected from deportation while they wait for a visa. with this bill they would face deportation. victims of serious crimes approved for u-visas get deferred action while they wait is insufficient because victims may assist law enforcement without appearing at trial. victims of severe forms of human trafficking eligible for statutorily can'tee visas could face deportation. the bill would end the ability to parole in place the undocumented families of american military personnel and veterans. deporting the mothers of american soldiers could be the result. . there are precedents for the president's actions. prior presidents were not met

with such instructionism. president ronald reagan created the family fairness program. once expanded by president george h.w. bush, that program is expected to protect 1.5 million people. the reason was to keep families together. one of the key motivations for the president's actions last month. some wrongly claim the reagan program was to carry out congressional intent in the 6 -- 1986 act, that is false. when the senate judiciary committee reported the bill, they said, quote, it is the intent of the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. they will be required to wait in line in the same manner as immediate family members of other new resident aliens. but president reagan decided otherwise. some wrongly argue the scope of the reagan family fairness program was smaller, that it was not intended to provide relief to 1.5 million people, about 40% of the undocumented population at time. again, that is false.

the i.n.s. commissioner then testified before congress that it covered 1.5 million people. an internal decision memo at the time states, family policies provide voluntary departure and employment authorization to potentially millions of individuals. the draft processing plan at the time said current estimates are that greater than one million eligible family members will file for this benefit. many m.e.p. members on the other side -- many members op the other side of the aisle want to prevent the president's actions from going into effect. but the president has strong constitutional and statutory authority to take these actions. i would ask an additional 20 seconds. mr. conyers: i'd like to grant her an additional half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lofgren: he cannot change the law and he has not done. so he has the authority to grant temporary relief to some. we need broad reform and to do that we need to legislation. it's shameful that the house has failed in its duty to

legislate, to fix our broken immigration system. the judiciary committee has reported out four bills. we've yet to see them on the floor and i would ask unanimous consent to put in the record the testimony by the commissioner before the judiciary committee in 1990, the draft processing plan from 1990, and the decision memo from 1990 that prove the elements of the reagan fairness plan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, that will be part of the record. ms. lofgren: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. to point out that the supreme court decision in heckler vs. cheney in no way in no way justifies the claim that the president of the united states has this authority to issue this enormous order. i quote from the decision. nor do we have a situation where it could justifiably be found that the agency a has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that

is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities. that's what's happened here. the president has abdicated his statutory responsibilities in enforcing the law and changed the law and that's why it cannot be upheld. the chair now is pleased to recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, a member of the judiciary committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for bringing this legislation to the floor. mr. speaker, president obama just last week made the action and said, i quote, change the law, closed quote, on immigration granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. the president should not be allowed to do this. in fact, article 2, section 3, of the constitution requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. on march 2, 2011, -- 28, 2011, president obama said he would

not use an executive order for amnesty. explaining that, and again i quote, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances, closed quote. those are his words. more than 20 times the president said, executive action on immigration would not be appropriate. nothing has changed in our constitution but now the administration is now singing a different tune. mr. speaker, i'm from the show-me state. i would love for any of my colleagues in this body to show me in this document the constitution of the united states where it grants the president the authority to change the laws. article 1 of the constitution says, congress will change the laws. not the president. the president will execute the laws. faithfully execute the laws. mr. speaker, i proudly support this legislation and i ask all my colleagues to do so to stop this action. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm ms. pelosi, eld to our leader, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california, the minority leader, is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend him for his leadership as chairman and now ranking member of the judiciary committee. and his important work for comprehensive immigration reform. i also salute the ranking member of the subcommittee on immigration, congresswoman lofgren of california, who has not only chaired the immigration committee, she has taught immigration law. she has been an immigration lawyer. she represents a very diverse district in california blessed with strong immigrant population. mr. speaker, more than 520 days ago the senate passed bold bipartisan comprehensive

immigration reform by an overwhelming majority, it was bipartisan, it was overwhelming, 520 days ago. more than that. time and again the republican leadership in the house has promised productive action to fix our clearly broken immigration system. yet time and again republicans have refused to give the american people a vote on this critical issue. they have ignored law enforcement, the badges, faith leaders, the bibles, and business groups, the three b's, denied our countries billions of dollars in economic benefits and $1 trillion in deficit reduction. turned their backs on millions of hardworking immigrant families forced to live in daily dread of separation and deportation. in the face of republicans' failure to act, president obama has used his well-established legal and constitutional

authority to bring our immigration system back into line with our needs as a nation and our values as a people. the president's executive actions will restore accountability to our immigration enforcement, securing our borders, deporting felons, not families, requiring undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes. presidents have had broad authority to defer removal when it is in the national interest and past presidents have regularly used this authority. president ronald reagan understood that immigration was a constant reinvigration of our nation. s a new president in 1981, president reagan said, our nation is a nation of immigrants. more than any other country our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our

capacity to welcome those from other lands. in the lead up to the immigration control and reform act, president reagan again called out our nation to action when he said, we're also going to have compassion and legalize those who came here some time ago and have legitimately put roots down and are living as legal residents of our country. even though illegal. we're going to make them legal. in a signing statement of the immigration control and a reform act, president reagan said, we have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to america. he went on to say, the legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the

shadows without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. does that sound familiar? he went on to say, very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and ultimately if they choose they may become americans. in the years immediately following the enactment of the 1986 immigration reform and control act, president reagan and president george h.w. bush took both actions to protect the spouses of children and children of people who received status under the law. although congress in that immigration bill explicitly chose not to grant status to these people. presidents reagan and bush recognized that it was not in the national interest to separate families. using their authority to establish a family fairness program by executive action.

they offered spouses and children indefinite protection from deportation and work authorization -- gave them work authorization. every president since president dwight david eisenhower has used this same broad authority. republicans and democrats alike fpblgt dating back more man -- alike. dating back more than 50 years, presidents have granted extended voluntary departure to nationals of more than a dozen countries, including cuba, vietnam, laos, cambodia, chile, poland, afghanistan, ethiopia and uganda. president bush granted deferred enforcement departure to chinese nationals after the tiananmen square massacre, even though he vetoed a similar bill passed by congress. i remember that well, it was my bill. he vetoed the bill because he didn't want to sign the bill and then he issued the executive order, doing exactly what the bill would do. several years later he granted e same status to 200,000

salvadorans. thanks to president obama's immigration accountability executive actions in the same vain, millions of hardworking, law-abiding families will be able to celebrate the holidays with a renewed hope in the future. in response to this presidential action of common sense and compassion, republicans are asking today on this floor a radical bill of appalling callousness and cruelty. with this bill republicans are demanding that we deport hundreds of thousands of young dreamers who know no country but the united states. with this bill, republicans would tear apart millions of thousands throw upon thousands of american children into foster care with this bill republicans would deport the family members of our heroes in uniform serving oversales. deny release and respite to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, reject

the values that are the at the heart of our heritage and our history. this legalization -- excuse me, this legislation is unworthy of our nation. don't take it from me. that is why this bill is opposed by groups including the united states catholic conference of bishops who wrote, instead of traumatizing these children and young adults, the future leaders of our country, we should invest in them by ensuring that their families remain in tact. mr. speaker, i hope our colleagues will take the advice of the catholic conference of bishops and vote against this legislation. democrats in the house will continue to demand comprehensive immigration reform that honors our heritage, giving certainty to families, fueling innovation,

creating jobs and reducing the deficit. we know that the president's steps cannot be a substitute for legislation. they must be a sum ons to action. -- summons to action. here in congress and across the country, we will keep up the drum beat for progress, of advancing comprehensive immigration reform. we will do so, heeding the advice of president george w. bush who told us, as we dealt with this issue, to treat the people who are affected by it with respect. republicans should reject this cold-hearted bill and give the american people a vote on immigration reform that they deserve. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the majority whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding, for his leadership on immigration issues, i especially want to thank my colleague and friend, congressman yoho for bringing forward this piece of legislation which just goes back and re-establishes the rule of law, mr. speaker. you've got a president who's consistently gone out time and time again and shown disregard for the constitution and the rule of law of this nation. . we just had an election in november. the president said himself this was going to be a referendum on his agenda, and the american people were crystal clear about their dislike of this failed agenda from this president. and they've told him, get back to work. go work with congress to solve problems. and what's the first response? the president has to poke his finger in the eye of the american people who spoke loud and clear to him is to say he's going to disregard what they said and he's going to ignore the rule of law and in fact

ignore what our constitutional framework of checks and balances is and he thinks he can sit in the oval office and write his own laws. and then he comes forward with this proposal to literally disregard enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. this isn't going to stand, mr. speaker. this legislation says you can't do that, mr. president. there is a rule of law. you need to start enforcing that law. we came together as a house just a few months ago and passed a border security bill. let's actually get back to the rule of law and protecting our nation's borders. it's not just an immigration issue, it's a national security issue. and so what is the president's response to this legislation? he threatens a veto. again, the president thinks he can sit in the oval office and make up his own laws. that's not the way our system of government works, mr. speaker. so we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of law and to remind

the president it's time for him to heed the message that millions of americans across the country set just a few weeks ago and said you need to start working with congress and solve real problems. in fact, this weekend in my home state of louisiana, there are three more elections on that ballot. pay close attention, mr. president. pay close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that's going to occur this saturday with a senate election and two more house races. the american people want you to get out of the cocoon of the oval office and start working with congress to solve real problems. we've passed legislation to solve those problems. you can try to ignore them, issue veto threats, but it's time for you to roll up your sleeves and get to work with us and solve those problems together. pull back your executive action. this legislation ensures that happens. i urge approval and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair reminds members to address their remarks to the chair.

mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm proud to recognize a dedicated member of the judiciary committee, judy chu of california, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: mr. speaker, it seems the republicans will do anything other than put a bill on the floor to pass immigration reform. so far they've refused to allow for a vote on the bipartisan h.r. 15. they are threatening another government shutdown and they suggest impeaching the president for doing what's right. when they did put a bill on the floor it was to repeal daca. it's been more than a year and a half to allow a vote on h.r. 15. even if it were put on the floor today it would pass. instead we have this bill to undo the president's executive action, a step he wouldn't have had to take had congress done its job. this is just another distraction when what we need are real solutions.

there are real families at stake who need real immigration reform. american businesses need it. our communities need it. if republicans are unhappy that president acted, there is still an option for them. legislate. join us in crafting and voting on a bill that will fix our broken immigration system. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this very reasonable legislation which really simply requires that our present immigration laws be fully enforced or at least not be violated. i commend the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, for bringing this legislation to the floor. the president has said he's been forced to act because the congress has not done so. that is not correct. as chairman goodlatte pointed out a few minutes ago, congress can write a new law, changing

an old law or leaving present law in effect. the administration is glossing over or is ignoring the fact that we have very detailed immigration laws on the books now. they may not like present law, but no one has the right or the power or the authority to pick and choose and enforce some laws but not others. presidential executive orders have traditionally been used almost entirely for noncontroversial, administrative-type actions. they were not meant to be a way for a president to bypass the congress. we do not live or not supposed to live under a system where all the power is vested in the executive. we have a constitution and it should be followed. mr. speaker, all of us admire those who have immigrated here legally and have contributed so much to this nation. we have allowed many millions here legally. since the law of 1986, far more than any other country. but with 58% of the people in the world having to get by on $4 or less a day, that means

that almost four billion people are hoping to get one good meal today and probably aren't. we are blessed beyond belief to live in this nation, but our entire infrastructure, our schools, our hospitals, our jails, our roads, our sewers simply could not deal with the rapid influx of millions who would come here in a relatively short time if we opened our borders. we have to have a legal, orderly system of immigration and it must be enforced. i urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, a distinguished member of judiciary, 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. i rise with a sense of moral indignation that we would want to block parents from loving their children, children from

loving their parents and deporting persons who have no reason to criminally act in this nation. i join with the president in saying, let us keep families and deport felons, and that is a discretion that is given by the law to allow presidents to take care and ensure that laws are enforced properly. this legislation is wrong headed and misdirected. allow me to say this november 20 executive order is now being retroactively judged by this congress. that is not the congress' responsibility. the congress, if they desire to do so as they've done on many occasions is to bring this to the judicial courts. but if they do so they will find that law has dictated that courts read without much interest in deciding whether or not an administrative decision has been made with fault. the president, through executive order, is making an administrative decision in terms of how laws are

prosecuted. just yesterday, the state of texas and a number of other states, filed a lawsuit against executive actions announced by the president on november 20. much to my surprise and, of course, with great joy, the fifth circuit court of appeals appears to have already issued a decision dismissing such a complaint. it did so in 1997 when governor george w. bush arguing that the federal government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated article 1. the court rejected the texas argument that the federal government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the immigration and nationality law. specifically, the courts said we are not aware and have difficulty conceiving any standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by congress are constitutionally adequate. why? because there's an interpretation of the law and an administrative component of the law. likewise, in heckler vs. chainy the courts said an agency's

decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the act because the court has no workable standard against which the judge the agency's exercise discretion. the president of the united states is instructing and giving guidance to administrative agencies who will make decisions accordingly to the framework of making sure that those who are felons are out but families are not. if you want to stop human trafficking, if you want to have a conscience in this nation, if you want to protect the vulnerable, if you want to keep young people whose bright eyes is to simply serve in the united states military or in -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. conyers: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: if you want to recognize those individuals who have come here to do what is right and if you want to stop the siege of human trafficking, as i've said, where houston is the epicenter of it, we see it every day where people are out of the shadows, if you want to do that then you will vote

against this misdirected law and you will read the constitutional dictates, first from the fifth circuit court of appeals, then from the united states supreme court in arizona vs. the united states, and understand that the president has executive authority to do what he's just done, to be a moral keeper and to give discretion to the law. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from michigan has 14 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this transcends the issue of illegal immigration. the president's action has crossed a very bright line that separates the american republic that prides itself on being a

nation of laws and not of men from those unhappy regimes whose rulers boast that law is in their mouths. it's true that throughout the nation's history presidents have tested the limits of their authority, but this is the first time a chief executive who is charged with the responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed has asserted the absolute power to nullify or change these laws by decree. under our constitution, the president does not get to pick which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. he does not get to pick who must obey the law and who gets to live above the law. and he's forbidden from making law himself, all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states. whether we choose to recognize it or not, this is a fall-fledged constitutional crisis -- full-fledged constitutional crisis. if this president is allowed to stand, it will render meaningless the separation of powers and the checks and

balances that comprise the fundamental architecture of our constitution that have preserved our freedom for 225 years. if this precedent stands, every future president, republican and democrat, will cite it as justification for lawmaking didecree. the measure before us is the first act of this congress to restore the balance of powers within this government. the president would be well advised to heed it before sterner measures are required. the seizure of legislative authority by the executive proved failtal to the roman republic. now it's happening in our own time. let that not be the legacy of this administration. for more than two centuries, americans have successfully defended our constitution and now history requires this generation to do so again, which it does beginning with this measure today. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield

now two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, member of the judiciary committee, representative cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, everyone in congress and most people in this country understands that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked a bipartisan senate bill from coming to the floor, and president obama has taken action that he's legally permitted and morally obligated to take. executive orders are not unusual. every president since president eisenhower has used this authority to take action on immigration issues, including six republican presidents. so mr. speaker, when the gentleman from florida said voting against his bill is like voting against the constitution, i suggest it's just the opposite. the contours of the executive authority of the president are defined in the constitution and by precedent of the courts and there is no question that the president has authority to

exercise prosecutorial discretion in this regard. in fact, voting for this bill undermines the constitution because the executive authority of the president is set forth in the constitution of the united states. we all recognize there are 11 million undocumented citizens or residents of this country. we don't allocate resources to deport all 11 million. we allocate resources to deport about 400,000, which means by definition we are asking the department to set priorities in deciding who to deport and say those priorities makes sure they deport the most serious offenders, those that pose harm to our communities. this is what's reflected in the president's executive order. it's very important to understand that there is -- in fact, little question from legal scholars and i'd like to ask unanimous consent that a letter which has the signature of 136 law professors who support the constitutionality of this provision as well as a separate letter from additional

titans in the legal community, beginning with president lee bolger from colombia university, several other legal scholars be submitted. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, they will be part of the record. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, the speaker's executive order will ensure we have a safer country, that we will grow our economy, that we will keep families together. i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this republican proposal and to allow the president's executive order to remain. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from virginia. . mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to mr. barletta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5759. this bill simply says that the president cannot issue blanket amnesty. this legislation also contains language that is similar to my own bill, the defense of legal workers act. it states clearly that illegal immigrants who are granted

executive amnesty are not authorized to work in the united states. when we talk about illegal immigration, we always hear about what we should do to help the illegal immigrants. what about the american workers? who's going to stand up for them? there's this toxic intersection of this executive amnesty and the affordable care act. under the a.c.a. employers with 50 or more workers will have to provide health insurance or pay a $3,000 fine. but under the president's amnesty, the legal immigrants are exempt from the a.c.a.. that means with their new work permits, the legal immigrants will be $3,000 cheaper to hire. that will drive companies to hire illegal immigrants instead of legal american workers. or worse yet, get rid of american workers in exchange for cheaper replacements. this bill is a small step but i will vote for any bill that

stops executive amnesty. that includes stopping the funding and supporting my own bill that protects american workers. let's remember that we have been put in this position by a president who campaigned on the slogan of, yes, we can. but the government's under the philosophy of -- but governs under the philosophy of, because i want. to i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: i ask permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. price: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this misguided and politically motivated legislation. in fact, it would be dangerous and irresponsible for this body to prohibit the department of homeland security from exercising prosecutorial discretion.

d.h.s. and i.c.e. must be able to prioritize the detention and the deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and national security. as opposed to deporting, for example, college students who were brought to this country by their parents. or perhaps spouses of u.s. citizens serving in the military. it's not even a close question. the reality is discretion is and always has been exercised by every prosecutor in this country. to my knowledge, republicans have never questioned this. never challenged it. until the current president began prioritizing dangerous criminals for immigration enforcement. as former solicitor general walter dillinger recently wrote, and i quoting, in light of how legally conservative the justice department opinion really is, it is a wonder that this issue has become the

subject of such heated, occasionally apocalyptic, commentary. those who object to the president's efforts to unite families should stop hiding behind unfounded legal allarums and debate president pes action as on the merit -- the president's actions on the merits. very good advice. i urge defeat of this cyni the california democrat is expected to take questions on the funding measure. later in the afternoon a forum from north korea and the west. our live coverage begins at 1:45 astern also on c-span 2.

>> here are some of the programs you'll mind the weekend on the c-span network. saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. live coverage of the memorial service for washington, d.c. mayor marion barry and on and saturday night at 10:00, university of new hampshire steapt professor on how the northeast u.s. wasn't always the haven of racial equality and supporter of african-american civil rights. sunday at noon our live three-hour conversation with arthur brooks. on american history tv on c-span 3, saturday night at 8:00 on lectures in history. university of michigan professor martha jones on female slaves 8:00 law and sunday at

on the presidency, president george h.w. bush's former secretary of state on the fall to have berlin wall. find our complete television schedule on cspan.org and let us know what you think. cspan.org il us at or send us a tweet at c spanch hash tag comments. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the pentagon released a report on the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the military that happened in 2014. it was done by the sexual -- chuck hagel spoke and also spoke about his retirement. we fwreefed president earlier

this week on that report and the results and today i'm announcing the review's findings as well as the actions to continue to improve d.o.d.'s prevention and response efforts. i want to thank everyone and in e were many involved this. but i want to thank everyone. who was involved in this comprehensive review. which was organized and directed by our sexual assault prevention and response office and supported by the manpower. want to thank in particular our undersecretary of personnel and readiness. as i think you all know, she has

announced her retirement after 40 distinguished years of service to this country. she ed secretary wright if would stay on the job until this mission was complete. she did. i appreciate that. i know our defense department men and women of this department appreciate it as well. thank you, jess, for your service to this country many, many long and as i said distinguished years that you have given to this country. also general jeff snow. to you, thank you. as you all know, general snow heads up our office. jeff, thank you for what you have done. your direction, your leadership, your commitment and to all who work with you, we appreciate it. i think you all know that general snow is going to stay after my remarks. i'll take a couple of questions

and then he can take you zpwune the depth of the review and the results. and go as far as you want to go with this. incidentally, members of congress on this over the last 24 hours. general dempsey and general snow and i briefed the president on this two days ago and the white house has all been briefed. quantitative bout measures we needed to evaluate our progress here at d.o.d. we asked the rand corporation to independently administer a department-wide survey, which was the largest ever of its kind. it received over 145,000 voluntary responses, which is the highest response rate we have ever seen. focus groups gave

us direct feedback from our own people but also recommendations, important recommendations, many of which have been incorporated that i'm rectives issuing today. he learned where they have seen progress and where we need to do better. overall, the data shows that while there have been indications of real progress, measurable progress over the last two years, with improvement in 10 of the 12 specific measures, including reduced prevalence, increased reporting, we still have a long way to go. sexual assault threatens the lives and wellbeing of the men and women who surf our country in uniform. and stroys the trust

confidence of those serving. it is also about honoring our highest commitments to protect our fellow soldiers. the department of defense has been taking aggressive action to stop sexual assault. i made this and i think as you all know, one of my highest priorities as secretary of defense. as i think you all know, i have directed over 28 new initiatives over the last year to strengthen how we prevent and respond to sexual assault in the military. how we support the survivors of this despicable crime. how we screen, educate and train our people and how we hold accountable not only offenders but also d.o.d. as an institution. significant military justice reforms that have since been codified into law with the help of congress and the white house. outside groups that have given

us much counsel on this and support. and help. we improve victims' rights and privacy and implemented a ground breaking special victims program across d.o.d. giving survivors for first time a voice in the military justice process. we believe our efforts to prevent sexual assault are beginning to have an impact. compared to 2012, the d.o.d.-wide survey we are releasing today shows that the oppressive lens of sexual assault in the military over the past year has decreased by about 25%. we also tuned in most service members highly rated their commanders' efforts to promote a healthy climate of dignity and respect and discourage inappropriate behavior. nearly 90% reported taking action to prevent an assault when they saw the risk of one

occurring. we also believe the survivors are becoming more confident in the military's response to sexual assault. compared to 2010, because more survivors participated in the justice system than ever before. we have been able to hold more perpetrators accountable. we now have over 1,000 full-time certified response coordinators and victim advocates and over 17,000 volunteer personnel ready to assist. a 50% increase in reporting. the rate has continued to go up. that is actually good news. two years ago, we estimated one in 10 sexual assaults were being reported. today, it is one in four. these crimes, however, are still heavily underreported. both nationally and in the military. so we must maintain our focus throughout the ranks and continue to earn the confidence

of survivors. one of the most important wivers earning that confidence is to re-- ways of earning that confidence is to reduce retaliation against those who report sexual assault. this is a challenge we are aware of and have been addressing. we now have better data to help us keep working to be more effective in stopping this retaliation. in 2014 over 60% of women who reported a sexual assault received some kind of retaliation. often in the form of social retaliation by co-workers or peers. we must tackle this difficult problem head on. because like sexual assault itself, reprisal directly contradicts one of the highest values of our military that, we protect our brothers and our sisters in uniform. when someone reports a sexual assault, they need to be embraced and helped. not ostracized or punished with

retribution. today i am naming four new directors to close those gaps and build on what we have already done. to engage commanders to prevent social retaliation and revamping raining for junior officers. enlisted supervisors and civilian supervisors so they are better prepared to prevent and respond to sexual assault within their units and also reduce the potential for retaliation. while these initiatives will take time to have an impact, they are critical for lasting change. they are critical for lasting change. additionally, to better understand how environments mitigate the risk, we are taking steps nationwide. there is much more to be done. for example, data showed we have a long way to go in fighting cultural stigmas that discourage

reporting among men. in addressing assault that hide under the veneers of hazing or practical jokes. we must reinforce accountability up and down the chain of command. i am also concerned there may be an increase in use of social media for sexual harassment. like sexual assault, this problem is not new or unique to the military. the dod holds its people to a higher standard. if you want to wear a uniform, understanding our core values is not enough. on-duty or off duty, we must live these ideals and enforce our values every day. dod will continue its efforts to

pursue approaches at combating sexual assault in the military. president obama and all of the dod leaders are committed to doing whatever it takes to stamp out the scourge. in may i told you about my visit to the help line for survivors of sexual assault. i told you about the wall i saw. it was covered in post-it notes, notes that contain inspiring words of thanks spoken by individuals who called into the hotline. i thought about those notes. we ultimately want a military with no more victims, no more calls, no more post-it notes, because it will be stop. we are not there yet, but we will get there. we will continue working relentlessly to prevent sexual

assault, and we will give survivors the help and support they need. i want to thank you all for your continued coverage of this issue, and before i take a couple questions, i want to acknowledge our vice chiefs of our services who are with us this afternoon. their efforts, their leadership, their commitment to stamping out sexual assault would not have come as far as we have come. thank you. i am glad you are here today. general snow proceeds with his details. i would be grateful to take a couple of questions. >> there has been a lot of

report about your decision to resign, including your observation you were forced to resign. did you feel pressured to resign? did that play a role in your decision. mccain pointed to micromanagement. was that also a factor in your decision, and how big a problem do think that was and is? >> i haven't really noticed there has been attention given to this. i am flattered you would concern

yourselves with this. the real question, i would answer it this way. you heard the president's comments on this. i will let those comments speak for themselves. the president and i have had private discussions. no one else has been in the room. with all the speculation and all the smart people figuring out what was said and what wasn't said, only two people know what was said. that's the president and me. i will give you my version, and you can ask the president his. he has spoken directly on this.

i submitted my resignation to the president. this was a mutual decision based on discussions we had. i don't think there was ever one defining decision in situations like this, unless there is some obvious issue, and there was not between any of us. i always looked at this job as a job of immense privilege, which i have expressed many times over, which i will always be grateful to the president for this privilege, but also, when you look over the last two years, part of leadership is you build and participate and

contribute to an institution. you build on a process. i build on what my predecessors, secretary gates and secretary panetta, did. i took on a separate set of challenges over the last two years. the preparation of an institution is probably the most significant responsibility a leader has. to hand that off to someone who came behind you, and the

conversations we had were about the next two years. how is he best prepared to lead this country? how is the institution prepared to do the things he must have insurance they are prepared to do? capabilities, capacities? do? capabilities, capacities? going back to the point i made about the last two years, we have had a tremendous amount of challenges over the last two years. i'm very proud of how this institution and its leaders, all of our chiefs, the secretaries have responded. i am proud of our leadership, but the next two years is another zone of kinds of challenges for this country. leaders have to be wise enough to know that. as we talk through what the president and i did, we both came to the conclusion that i think the country is best served with new leadership. he thought it was after we

talked for a bit. i'm in my contribution during my time, and i'm proud of that, of of what we did. all of us together as a team have prepared this institution over the last two years to take on these big issues that are ahead. those issues are undefinable. we know some of them. we know long-term challenges, but i think you need to know when to leave. there were just two of us in the room during these discussions. we had some very direct and very honest relationships. i would also say the president is a friend.

i consider him a friend. he said that about me, which i appreciate. friends can talk plainly with each other. he is president of the united states. we talked as friends. we talked as americans. we talked as senior leaders for this country who both have awesome responsibility. as for any differences you reference, there were no major differences in any major area. sure, there are always issues of style and how you get things done and are things moving fast enough, but this country is well served to have a president like president obama, who is thoughtful, careful.

this is a time that the most powerful nation on earth must be very wise in its implementation of power. it must do so with a clear, steady sense of who it is, what it wants to accomplish, always looking to the longer-term, not just the quick decision, impacts, consequences, ripple effect. a president of the united states has that awesome responsibility. i've been proud to served in his administration. best to serve in his administration. i leave here very secure in knowing these people and the next secretary who comes behind me will be better prepared than

we were two years ago, not having anything to do with my predecessors, because they did tremendous work. their challenges were different. we bring a new leader in, and we face a new set of challenges. >> was senator mccain wrong? >> i have already answered the question. >> you are suggesting you came into office, thinking you might only stay a couple years, but nobody i know thinks of you as someone who would quit, so the question goes back to you. why did you feel you could not stay and finish the job if there were all these challenges? was isis too much? why didn't you want to stay and finish the job?

>> i didn't come into this office with any preconceived notion i am staying four years, one year, three years. this is a business that is always unpredictable. you recognize that going in. i would never say i would be here two years or four years. that's the first part of your question. no one ever knows about a job, especially a big job until you get here, until you are the actual practitioner of the job. you can read about it. your predecessors can tell you about it. you can think you know about it, and you can write about it and broadcast about it, but nobody knows about these jobs.

it wasn't a matter of whether i thought i could stay here for another two years. i thought i explained it. that wasn't the issue. whether i thought i could do the job or isis or any other challenges, that was not the issue. as you look forward the next two years and the challenges that are coming, as the president and i talked about it, i think fresh leadership is not unimportant in all areas, but the president and i had a long conversation -- actually more than one conversation about this, so it wasn't a matter of was isil too much. no. it comes with the responsibility

of knowing when it is probably a good time to let someone else come in behind and pick up where you left off, as panetta did, as gates did, an institution. >> you didn't want to stay? >> it's not a matter of what i wanted to do and didn't want to do. it's a matter of what i thought was best for this institution, for the country and the president. this has been a great job. i loved every minute of this job, but as i think ahead, this may be hard for people to understand. you've got to be in this jobs to understand. how to prepare an institution and what's best for an institution.

to take this further, i think everyone knows most likely there is going to be a rotation of the new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff next year, a vice-chairman of some of the chiefs. that's the president's call ultimately, but there's most likely going to be a rotation of leaders. one other point. as i began my comments, it's not one defining issue for me. it would be different if it was one thing i just could not do. no, it wasn't that at all. it's a combination of things as you think through these things. the president and i talked about it. i am very comfortable in my decision.

i think the president feels good about it. i feel good about it. this country is such a great country. this institution is so much the core of who we are as a people. i have always tried to do everything in my life based on what i thought was best for the country or institution i represented. not that i am a selfless person. i'm not, but one last point. i will end here. 46 years ago today, i arrived at oakland, california, on a transit back from vietnam after i spent one year in vietnam 46 years ago today. if anybody would have told

sergeant hagel walking off that plane with my duffel bag where i would be 46 years down the road, that would have been pretty hard for me to believe it. the privileges i have had have been tremendous. happy holidays. >> one question. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> ok. i guess it's called last man standing. listen, i would like to follow-up and asked the secretary to articulate, kind of go into the details of the report.

i will walk you through a set of highlights and reinforce some of the points. the first point i would like to make is this report is comprehensive. it covers a lot of ground. it's over 1000 pages long. in addition to the overall report, each of the military departments and the bureau attributed a further report detailing their progress. the secretary also agreed to include a submission, because they modeled their program after hours. significant improvements made in sexual response and the justice system over the past few years. the report contains results from the survey conducted independently by the rand corporation and overseen by the people here today.

increase in reports of sexual assault. some of the media outlets got this incorrect. i want to make it very clear that is not true.

in 2014 we experienced an 8% increase in reports of sexual assault. they counted that as an increase in sexual assault, but that is not true. the increase is in reports, which as you know in this crime, an increase in reports is a good thing. given the increase in reporting, we estimate we heard from one in four victims, up from one in 10 in 2012. condensing a report of this size does not do justice to the progress the department has made over the last 12 years. i will try to give you some highlights. the department approaches this problem through a strategic plan organized by lines of efforts. on this slide is listed some of the top areas of progress and more evidence of the progress you can review for yourself. for example, the prevention line of effort captures the work we're doing to stop the crime. past research shows there are likely to be fewer sexual assaults and years with healthy climate. in 2013, the secretary directed every unit commander to regularly assess the unit and act on the feedback of that assessment. that process includes

accountability measures as well. each commander's immediate supervisor has also provided the results of that assessment. each has a limited policies that allow actions to be assessed. this cycle of assessment, feedback, and a valuation is something the department has not had in prior years. we expected to be a powerful aid in creating change to prevent sexual assault. another thing was something that was enacted this year across the department. that was the special victims counsel program and the victims legal counsel. this is the program that provides consultation and representation to the military justice process. when this was less than a year old, indications are that the

victim was highly satisfied with the services rendered by these attorneys. we will be watching closely how this program impact sexual assault reporting and victim participation as it occurs and becomes a robust part of the response system and justice process. the steps we have taken a real and tangible, and this has a demonstrable effect on some of the statistics. we use prevalence rates to estimate the extent of sexual assault in the military. between 2012 and 2014, prevalence of unwanted sexual contact decreased significantly in military women and trended downward in men. rates of unwanted sexual contact went down for men and women. this came from an independent survey effort taken at the

request of leadership of the senate armed services committee. the doctor will describe this in more detail at another press event following this one. the official reports of sexual assault in 2014 continued at the same high levels we saw in 2013 and actually increased by 8%. as you can see, reporting increased substantially between 2012 and 2014. last year and this year, 9% of the reports we received were from victims who were seeking assistance from an incident that occurred prior to them coming into the military service. we see these reports as particularly encouraging and an indicator of confidence in the response system. victims in these cases are only seeking assistance in catching the perpetrators. this highlights our efforts at closing the gap. the blue points our population

estimates of military service members who experienced unwanted sexual contact and are based on a scientifically conducted survey. in 2014, 29% of men indicated experience of unwanted sexual contact prior to being surveyed. we estimate about 19,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2014. the red points are the number of active duty members. these are reports of coordinators. the number of active service members making a report increased substantially.

given this year's reporting rates, we estimate about 24% -- we received a report for about 24 percent of victims of sexual assault. this is up from 11% in 2012. that is progress in terms of closing this gap. however, there is considerable difference in estimated reporting between women and men. we estimate 40% of female victims made a report in 2014. elite 10% of estimated male victims made a report. we have more work to do to encourage men to come forward. reporting of sexual assault is a highly personal choice and one that may never be right for some. we respect that decision, and for them we have a report service available which is 100

percent anonymous. to those victims who are considering reporting to the department, we have provided services they can choose to assist them and help them navigate the process. if you are a survivor of sexual assault, please reach out to one of our counselors at the dod hotline at www.safehotline.org. of the 2,419 service members accused of sexual assault, the department could take action on 2,419 service members accused of sexual assault the department had evidence to take action against 73% of them. actions could be taken for offense or any

other form of misconduct that was discovered during the investigation. action against the remaining 27% could not be taken due to as insufficient evidence, victims declining to participate in the justice process, and other evidence paced reasons. as you can see, the percentage cases ending in some type of action is up considerably from in 2009. we believe this does represent the investments the department andmade in the training resourcing of criminal investigators and attorneys over years. this slide answers the question, commandersmilitary adjust allegations of sexual assault when they have sufficient evidence of a sexual assault and the legal authority over the accused. red line, see by the in 2014, two-thirds of the legalders supported by advise chose to address the