another hijacked aircraft. this one tearing into the adjacent south tyler. pentagon suffered a similar attack. 10:03 a fourth plane's shattered the serene landscape in pennsylvania as passengers refused to allow al qaeda to use one more plane as a missile to strike the homeland. minutes,ort span of 77 the terror attacks which were -- forever change the history of our country. it would rob us of 3000 lives and ultimately cost us trillions of dollars and plunge us into a aver ending war against globally dispersed collection of terrorist with a murderous agenda. of the cia onctor

that morning, i knew what it was like to belong to an intelligence agency that had been ringing the bell for many months about the plans to attack. thatf us were devastated al qaeda operatives were able to carry out such horrific attacks in simultaneous fashion. while i remit or walking the halls of cia that day to ensure as many agencies as possible had left the building. they work through that day and that night in the following days in the following nights to piece together the clues as to what plans are underway to carry out more attacks. their cia brothers and sisters who were dispersed around the globe many in dangerous environments to the same thing

only 15 days after 9/11 under it was cia who put the first american boots on the ground in afghanistan. less than two months after arriving the united states suffered its first casualty what a 32-year-old cia officer was killed in action november 25. ciae his death, 20 other officers have lost their lives around the world the events of seared in be forever the memories of all americans who are witness to the single ourtest tragedy to the fall homeland in recent history. not only were our consciences shocked but so too are collective national sense of homeland security was shattered, much like the steel, concrete, flesh, bone and lives during

those fateful 77 minutes. immediate aftermath of 9/11 our nation eight, cried and prayed. pledged topain we come together as one to do it we could to prevent osama bin laden and his killing machine from ever carrying out another attack against our beautiful country. never again we vowed, never again. had other ideas, as well as additional operatives and more plans to strike us again and again. with a globally distributed network that had stealthily wasributed itself al qaeda poised and ready to pursue its final agenda. systemsrnment and recognize the urgency of the task, to find and stop al qaeda before could shed the blood of more innocent men, women, and children.

and as has been the case throughout its 54 year history, cia was looked to for answers. not only to the questions on the to the we face but also questions about what we were going to do to stop future attacks. the mission in the wake of the 9/11 attacks would be multidimensional. stopping al qaeda would require the cia to work closely with the intelligence community, military , homeland security and law enforcement partners. to be successful officers knew that they needed speed agility courage, resources and most important intelligence. their mission was to require through human and technical operations and then to analyze whatever expertise

bits and pieces of information might help fill out the menacing yet incomplete puzzle of al qaeda terrorist plans. indeed there were numerous, reports and worrisome about a second and third wave of major attacks. grieved and while he honored our dead and tended to our injured and while he embarked on the long process of recovery, we feared more blows from an enemy we couldn't see and an evil we couldn't fathom. this is the backdrop against which the agency was directed by president bush to carry out a program to detain terrorist suspects around the world. in many respects, the program was uncharted territory for the cia and we were not prepared. we had little experience housing detainees and precious few of our officers were trained interrogators. but the president authorized the effort six days after 9/11 and it was our job to be carry it out.

over time, enhanced interrogation techniques, d. -- which the department of justice authorized at the time to be lawful and which were duly authorized by the bush administration were introduced as a method of interrogation. as concerns about al qaeda's terrorist plans endured a variety of these techniques were employed by cia officers on several dozen detainees over the course of five years before they ended in december ef 2007. the legal advice under which they were authorized subsequently has been revoked. when the president came foo office in january, 2009, he took the position that these techniques were contrary to our values and he unequivocally banned their use. he has consistently expressed the view that these techniques did significant damage to america's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners.

something i have experienced firsthand. but as the president stated this week, the previous administration faced agonizing choices about how to pursue al qaeda and prevent additional terrorist attacks against our country. while facing fears of further attacks and carrying out the responsibility to prevent more catastrophic loss of life. there were no easy answers. and whatever your views are on eits, our nation and in particular this agency did a lot of things right during this difficult time to keep this country strong and secure. the same year the techniques were banned by the president, the senate select committee on intelligence, the ssci, initiated a review of the detention and interrogation program. the cia's implementation of the detention and interrogation program is a very legitimate

oversight issue. and we gave the committee our full support, providing an unprecedented amount of sensitive cia documents to the committee and devoting considerable resources to help review. our hope was that it would offer an impartial and authoritative assessment of the program, help us learn from our mistakes, and inform how we conduct sensitive activities in the future. unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a bipartisan way forward and no cia personnel were interviewed by the committee during the course of the investigation. this was unusual. in the vast majority of cases, sscis, congressional reports have been the result of collaborative bipartisan investigations. over the course of my career, i have seen the value of the committee's reviews. even on politically sensitive matters such as the ssci's investigation into the

interrogation failures regarding weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the committee succeeded in producing a report that was supported unanimously. in that case, the committee reviewed tens of thousands of documents and conducted interviews with more than 200 officers from the intelligence community. some of whom were interviewed up to four times. this week, the senate select committee on intelligence released the executive summary, findings and conclusions of its study of the agency's former detention and interrogation program. vice chairman sham bliss joined by five other senators also released the minority views. the authors clearly worked very hard to produce a report of this magnitude. over several years, they sorted through over a million documents provided by the cia and 245ir -- their commitment to the task is obvious. although we view the process undertaken by the committee when investigating the program as flawed, many aspects of their conclusions are sound

and consistent with our own prior findings. over the years, internal agency reviews including numerous investigations by our office of the inspector general found fault in cia's running of the program. we have acknowledged many of these mistakes in our response to the study last year and i will touch on some of them today. acknowledging our mistakes and absorbing the lessons of the past is fundamental to our ability to succeed in our mission and is one of the great strengths of this organization. even today, we know there are further organizationalal improvements to be made as he an -- as a result of our review of the study and we are pursuing them. as i have already noted, the cia was unprepared to conduct a detention and interrogation program and our officers inadequately developed and monitor the its initial

activities. the agency failed to establish quickly the operational guidelines needed to govern the entire effort. in a limited number of cases, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent, and rightly should be repudiated by all. and we fell short when it came to holding some officers accountable for their mistakes. it is vitally important to recognize however that the , overwhelming majority of officers involved in the program at the cia, carried out their responsibilities faithfully and in accordance with the legal and policy guidance they were provided. they did what they were asked to do in the service of our nation. in fact, some of these officers raised objections and concerns with the program and with its implementation which is crucial to insuring that the system works as it should and that we are able to adjust as needed. but the cia officers' actions

that did comport with the law and policy should neither be criticized nor conflated with the actions of the few who did not follow the guidance issued. at the same time, none of these lapses should be excused downplayed or denied. in some instances we simply failed to live up to the standards that we set for ourselves. address the concerns identified the cia has , implemented a number of reforms in an effort to make sure those mistakes never happen again. for example, as a result of our own investigations, and our review of the committee's report, cia has taken steps to broaden the scope of our accountability reviews. strengthen the planning, management, are oversight and evaluation of our covert action programs, systematically we examine the legal opinions underlying our sensitive programs and improve our

recordkeeping for interactions with the congress. we are also carefully observing the new statutory requirement to provide our oversight committees with notice of any significant legal interpretation of the constitution or other u.s. law affecting intelligence activities conducted by the cia. as to the issues on which we part ways with the committee, i have already stated that our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful interrogation that helped the united states thwart attack plans capture terrorists and save lives. let me be clear. we have not concluded that it was the use of eits within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them. the cause and effect relationship between the use of eits and useful information subsequently provided by the detainee is in my view unknowable. irrespective of the role eits

might play in a detainee's provision of useful information, i believe effective noncoercive methods are available to elicit such information. methods that do not have a counterproductive impact on our national security and on our international standing. it is for these reasons that i fully support the president's decision to prohibit the use of eit's another key point with which we take issue is the study's characterization of how cia briefed the program to the congress, are the media and be within the executive branch. including at the white house. the record simply does not support the study's inference that the agency repeatedly systematically and intentionally misled others on the effectiveness of the program. to be clear, there were instances where representations that the program about the program that were used or approved by agency officers were inaccurate imprecise or fell short of our

tradecraft standards. we have acknowledged such mistakes. i have been firm in declaring that they were unacceptable for an agency whose reputation and value to the polesmaker rests -- policymaker rests upon the rescission of the language it uses every day in intelligence reporting and analysis. primarily, however, the study's contention that we rerepeated by and intentionally misled the public and the rest of the u.s. government rests on the committees view that detail knees subjected to eits did not subjected to eits did not produce useful intelligence, a point on which we still fundamentally disagree. now, there should be sufficient trust and credibility between our institutions enabling us to disagree the an times but also to come together and listen to each other's perspectives. our

partnership with congress is crucial. in my view, there is no more important oversight relationship than the cia relationship with its its intelligence committees. particularly because we do so particularly because we do so much of our work in secret, the congress ises as a critical check on our activities closely monitoring the agency's reporting and programs when the applicant. one of the most frustrating aspects of the study is that it conveys a broader view of the cia and its officers as untrustworthy. that the institution and the workforce where is willing to forego their integrity in order to preserve a program they were were invested in and supposed by believed to be right. this in no way comports with my experience in. the cia. while the agency has a traditional bias for action and a determined focus on achieving our mission, we take exceptional pride in providing truth to power. whether that power likes or agrees with what we believe and

what we say or not. and regardless of whether that power is affiliated with any particular political party. and as long as i am director, i will continue to defend and fight for these ideals as cia's lefrth is he is closely tied to its credibility and we can afford to lose neither. we know we have room to improve and i am committed to addressing the issues identified by the committee that remain a concern. in light of the fact that these techniques were abandoned seven years ago, my fervent hope is that we can put aside this debate and move forward to focus on issues relevant to our current national security challenges. in doing so, this agency will only grow stronger

and it is my hope that we can do so under the oversight of the committee and the collaborative and constructive manner that the american people expect of us. i pledge to do my part to facilitate such relationship as we move forward to address the many challenging national security issues we face. i first joined cia in 1980. over the course of my career, i versus come top experience and appreciate the cias many national security accomplishments. most cia successes will never be known as we are an intelligence service that carries out its mission without fanfare and without seeking praise. i have come to admire and greatly the women and men ho come from all over the united states to make up the cia's workforce. they are among the best and brightest our nation has to offer. over the last several days, we here at cia have been pouched by

the 0 south pouring of support, price, and grootitude our colleagues in government have expressed regarding the work of this agency. these expressions from kindness and support have truly been inspiring. as the president said in his own statement, as americans, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who's serve to keep us safe i've. the memorial wall at the cia honor those who is have given their lives to protect ours. our lives as professionals, our patriots, and we are safer because of their heroic service and sacrifices. these stars are a testament to our history and our spirit and a consistent reminder of the women and men who make sacrifices daily so that they can help keep their flee americans safe and our country strong. and now i'll be glad to address any questions you might have. >> the wall street journal. two-part questions and thank you very much for taking questions.

the first is did you express your -- support the public release of the senate report and the second is, just if you the could clarify your stance on the eit's a little bit. if i recall, the agency's argument for their use was that they were necessary to to obtain information that couldn't be obtained another way that would save lives. i'm wondering if that's something that you agree with, that that's what they did or what they were for. >> thank you for your service and the fourth estate issue, are head off to do something else. i made my views known about this report. its contents as well as its disposition throughout the course of this process and i participated in the discussions that were held on it. and as you can well imagine, the council that i give to the dni, the white house is something something that i take very seriously but also it is something that i keep to myself.

so they knew my views. i continue to express them. >> you can't share this em with us in interests of transparency? >> i think there's more than enough transparency that's happened over the last couple , i think it is over the top. eit's, i think there is -- as i said in my remarks there is no way if some to know , whether or not some information that was obtained from an individual who had been subjected at some point during his confinement could have been obtained through other means. it's an unknowable fact. so i think what the agency's point has been consistently and what certainly my view is after having reviewed the is that there was useful intelligence very reuseful, valuable -- very useful -- valuable intelligence that was obtained from individuals who had been at some point subjected to eits. whether that could have been obtained without the use of those eits is something again that is unknowable. i think as others have said

recently with the president missed the point that what i think going forward we want to do is to make sure that we're able to do what is necessary to protect this country and we have a very robust counter-terrorism program under way right now. we're working with our partners abroad to make sure we're able to obtain this information from individuals who are captured and that we are able to gain some some access to. >> thanks, are ken delaney from the associated press. director brennan, do you agree with president obama's statement that parlancen common tortured detainees? and then secondly, senator udall gave an impassioned speech on the senate floor yesterday about something called the panetta review which problems the cia is continuing to lie about this program. he aid that's a document prepared by cia insiders. i know you disagree with his characterization. why not release the panetta review so we

can be the judge of that. >> i agree that there were times when cia officers exceeded the policy guidance that was given and the authorized techniques that were approved and determined to be lawful. they went outside of the bounds in terms of their actions that as part of that interrogation process. and they were harsh. as i said, in some instances, i considered them abhorrent and i will leave to others how they might want to label those activities. but for me, it was something that is certainly regrettable but we are not a perfect institution. we're made up of individuals and as human beings, we are imperfect beings but as i think we have acknowledged over the years, we have brought those mistakes shortcomings and excesses to the attention of the appropriate authorities whether it be to our inspector general, the department of justice and

others. the department looked at this for many years and decided there was no prosecutable crimes there. as far as the so-called panetta review, i believe this is in reference to an internal document created here at the agency. when in the interests of trying to fulfill our responsibility to the oversight committee, leon panetta had authorized the release of as i mentioned over 1 million documents to the committee and so he also asked at that time that there be an inventory pulled together of exactly what documents were provided. this was an internal document that was never completed and it's one that i believe is an internal deliberative document and therefore, something that was not subject to the

committee's oversight. in addition, it was outside of the scope of the period of time that was covered by the agreement that was worked between senator feinstein and leon panetta about the documents that would be provided to the committee. it was subsequent to that. reuters. you say in the first page of our statement that you were deputy executive director of the agency on 9/11. tell us a bit about your involvement in that role and -- perhaps subsequent roles in this program. i mean as deputy executive director, presumably you had some role in managing or arranging parts of the program. what did you actually do in relation to this program and did you ever at any point express reservations about the way it was being carried out while going on? >> as deputy director, i was the

equivalent of the deputy chief operating officer to make sure all the different support systems and services here at the agency were providing the support to the mission elements and so after 9/11, i worked with others to make sure that our officers whether they be overseas or here had what they needed to get their job done. in that position i was aware of the detention interrogation program. i was not in the cane of -- chain of command. i did not have the authority over the management oversight of that program. >> thanks for doing thissing -- thanks for doing this, and pr. i wonder if you could clarify. . you say here we have not concluded there was use of eits within the program that allowed -- allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them and then you say on the following page the committee's view that detainees

subjected to eits did not produce useful intelligence a point on which we disagree. did the eits lead toe useful -- lead to a useful intelligence or did they not? you said it is unknowable. which is it. >> what i said was that detainees who were subbed to eits at some point during their confinement subsequently provided information that our experts found to be useful and valuable in our cower terrorism -- counterterrorism efforts. the cause and effect relationship between the application of those eits and the ultimate provision of information is unknown and unknowable. but for someone to say that there was no intelligence of value of use that came from those detainees once they were subjected to eit's i think that is lacks any foundation at all.

>> let me follow up on that. what seems to be a an inherent conflict. the agency's position and its defenders has been that in particular, one of its signal successes, the take-down of osama bin laden, could be attributed to the use of what the president and others have caused torture, what you prefer to call enhanced interrogation techniques. do you think the bin laden case can be attributed in some part to enhanced interrogation techniques or torture? and you've acknowledged in your own experience that what the president described as difficulties in relationships with allies has resulted from this chapter in american history. can you expand on that how you have experienced difficulties as a result of what has been

disclosed and finally, if there is some unknowable value to these techniques to waterboarding, near drowning, are slamming people against the wall, hanging them in stress positions, confining them in small boxes or coffins, threatening them with drills, waving guns around their head as they are blind folded, what or which of these techniques could be used if as the director of central intelligence you and another president or this president were faced with an imminent threat? could there be another covert finding and rulings and advice from the attorney general that would lead you and your successors to say we should do this because there could be some value to prevent an attack on america?

>> first question on bin laden. it is our considered view that the detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against bin laden. again, intelligence information from the individuals who were subjected to eit's provided information that was used in that. again, i am not going to attribute that to the use of the eit's. i'm just going to state as a matter of fact the information that they provided was used. as far as the relationships with others that sometimes are complicated, i think we see in the international press right now, there is a lot of scrutiny being paid to what different partners did during that period of time. and i think there's a lot of

hyperbole that is now fueling the discussion, the debate and also then is harmful to continuing our intelligence cooperation because there is a lot of exaggeration, misrepresentation of the facts, and therefore, i think certain agendas are being pursued so i certainly wish that this would not be happening. and then finally as far as what happens if in the future there is some type of challenge that we face here, the army field manual is the established basis to use for interrogations. we cia are not in the detention program. we are not contemplating at all getting back into the detention program using any of those eit's. so i defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis. >> actually, sorry. cnn.

>> one thing about your answer, sir, was the useful information on bin laden before the torture or the waterboarding was used? >> there was information obtained subsequent to the application of eit's from detainees that was useful in the bin laden operation. >> cnn. right now, your agency is involved in overseeing the drone program. we know from the government's own statements you know, that there have been some civilians, innocent civilians killed alongside terrorists. i'm wondering if you feel that there's enough control over those programs and that we're not going to be here in a few years with another director having to answer these same questions about the loss of trust from the public, from policymakers. >> i'm not going to talk about

any type of operational activity that this agency is involved in currently. i'm not going to do it. i will tell you during my tenure at the white house as the president's assistant for counter terrorism that the use of these unmanned aerial vehicles that you referred to is an drones in the counter-terrorism effort has done tremendous work to keep this country safe. the ability to use these platforms and advanced technologies, it has advanced the counter-terrorism mission and the u.s. military has done some wonderful things with these platforms. and in terms of precision of effort, accuracy, and making sure that this country, this country's military does everything possible to minimize to the great extent possible the loss of life of noncombatants i think does a lot for this country and this white house and the military to be proud of.

>> director brennan, katherine harris, fox news. have you heard from our allies overseas since the report was released, the impact on these relationships, has it reinforced the view that the united states government cannot keep a secret? what has the impact been on morale here at the agency and in 2005, interrogation vitio tapes were destroyed. was that the right thing to do? >> i have spoken to many of my foreign counterparts over the past week to alou them opportunity to prepare for the release of this document in the event that there was going to be any implications for them. as a result of either information that was contained in this document and then could be correlated with other information that is out there and which the speculation about what their countries, their governments, their services might have done.

and so yes, i've spoken to many of them and there was strong concern. there are things that we do with our partner services under our authorities that -- and we have covert action authorities and covert is something that they were hoping that was going to remain such. but what i've told them is that it's important for our partnership to move forward and to strengthen in the years ahead because of the nature of the national security challenges we face. so i am interested in making sure we're able to do that. as far as morale here at the agency, this is a tremendous workforce. as i said. i had a session with the agency workforce yesterdaye and i talked about the importance of the mission and of the cia's mission is as important today as it was before this report came out and it's going to be even more important tomorrow. one of the great things about this workforce is it's able to

focus on what it is they're asked to do. the cia officers are operating in some very, very dangerous places and doing this on behalf of fellow americans. so there is some concern and disappointment about what has happened. there certainly is concern about the misrepresentations that they think are circulating now out in the public. but they are determined to make sure that they're able to do what they need to do. what was the third one? >> i'm sorry. the discussion of the -- [ inaudible question ] >> i think that has been looked at quite a bit over the years and people take actions at the time when the what they believe is the right thing to do. i'm going to leave it at that. >> martha raddatz, abc news. thanks for taking the questions today, sir. say it's unknowable be whether eit's in fact led to useful information or it was just detainees who were subjected to

that. was this a question that was asked at the time? this went on for five years. or were senior officials told, you couldn't get any information except through the eit's that was so valuable? and also, my second question, to you, back to thinking about those methods of interrogation that we all read about in the report. you say some are abhorrent. can you tell me when, to you, the officers or interrogators crossed the line? >> on your first question, which is a good one, what was the nature of the discussion and how did people decide to continue to go forward with these eit's. do they feel as that was the only way they were able to ob tape information. those are good questions. and i wish the committee took the opportunity to ask cia officers involved in the program

at the time, what were you thinking. what did you consider? what was the calculus that you used as far as going forward on it. i think as you can well understand, everything that cia officers did and said at the time was not memorialized in a document. there were a lot of discussions going on. i know when i have various discussions and meetings here, i don't run back and do a memo for the record. i would be doing nothing but memos all day. as a review of all the documents provided by the agency, it loses -- you lose the opportunity to really understand what was taking place at the time. it loses that context and again, i think it's lamentable that the committee did not avail itself of the opportunity to be able to interact with cia personnel. >> do you think it was -- [ inaudible question ] >> i look back at the record and i see that this was a workforce that was trying to do the right thing. i cannot say with certainty whether or not individuals acted

with complete honesty. when i look at what went on at the time, there are clearly the questions about why certain techniques were used and to your question about which of those do i consider beyond that, i think anything that went outside the bounds of those enhanced interrogation techniques. this agency went back and forth with justice, with the white house to make sure that there was clear understanding of what what were going to be the approved enhanced interrogation techniques and how they should be applied. we were not prepared and the individuals that were given the responsibility to carry out this work early on were ones that were trying to do their best. and i think at times came up short. >> cbs. mr. director, bob orr from cbs. you talked about your workforce. you have men and women in the

field now confronting threats in a number of places and you're asking them to do difficult things. what have you told them about how youal cover their back in the event that down the road, another committee looks at their actions today and judges them out of bounds? and do you think moreover, you have the full support of your workforce? >> so this workforce continues to be focused on mission and i think the leadership team here has gotten together and has engaged with the workforce to make sure that they feel genuinely that they have the support of their leadership as well as their government. and i am determined to make sure that i continue to give them the support that they need and deserve. so this is going to be a chapter in our history. it's one they're going to work through and i am determined to make sure that as we go forward with the committee that there is a better understanding on what exactly it is that we do. i think we keep the committee very fully informed about our activities right now, and one of the things i want to make sure is on the sensitive programs

that we're involved in, that it's not just cia's leadership that has their back. it's the policymakers that approve these sensitive programs. it is the committees that oversee them and are briefed on them and that's why we are determined to make sewer that they have the visibility that they need so our officers feel they have the support in the future, irrespective of changes that might take place in the congress or in the white house. >> mr. director, thank you. the report said it found evidence that suggested that waterboarding was used on more than the three individuals that the agency has identified as undergoing waterboarding. can you categorically say that those were the only three people who were waterboarded or is it possible that more were? thank you. >> one of the things i've learned in life i guess is to avoid being categorical.

what i will say based on everything that i've seen, what i've read, it indicates that there were three individuals that were subjected to that. and i can only tell you what i am aware of, what i have read, and the data i have observed. and so, i will stand by that at this time. let's do just a couple more. >> what's the last question? >> dan delewis, france press. just wanted to ask first if the agency has changed its view of the efficacy of torture or eits because in 1989, apparently there was a report or a correspondence with congress that indicated that the agency believed those techniques were not effective. and then also, your own wording. i was interested if you still

stood by it, what you said in 2009. you said that these techniques are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists and increase the determination of our enemies and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us. in short, they undermine our national security. would you maybe have a different view now? >> i stand by my comments from previously. when i was at the white house, i spoke out on these issues. and it was at the time when these techniques were band and it was a time when there was a fair amount of propaganda as well as anti-u.s. sentiment related to guantanamo as well as other issues. and so these are things that i think we as professionals in the national security environment tried to take into account. and so this is a feature i think of our past. and one that we have to come to terms with. and deal with.

and this agency is determined to move forward. the first part of the question. >> involved with congress in 1996. >> oh, yes. you know, the one thing about -- whether it's the intelligence business or nash security or something, you can always find something that you can pull out and say, the agency said this. or judged this or this was the conclusion at that time. now it's going to be different. a lot of times there are differences of views. it was one of the things that the wmd commission encouraged there to be, a diversity of views within the intelligence community so there wouldn't be single group think. there have been a lot of studies done over the years about the value of different types of interrogation methods and whether or not coercive methods can lead to useful information that couldn't otherwise be obtained.

i tend to believe that the use of coercive methods has a strong prospect for resulting in false information. because if somebody is being subjected to a course of techniques, they may something to have those techniques stopped. and i think this agency has said that individuals who are subjected to those techniques here provided useful information as well as false information. and as our experts tried to pore through a lot of data and information, that job is made more challenging as you get more false information. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] carl levin is the chair of the senate armed services committee. he released information today that he says is evidence the bush administration misled the u.s.

to a cable sent to c.i.a. headquarters dated march 13, 2003, and a letter to me from c.i.a. director brennan relative to that cable. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, very briefly, what i am asking and doing in this statement, which is now in the record, i'm asking c.i.a. director brennan to fully declassify a march 13, 2003, cable from c.i.a. field officers to headquarters. this cable provides information about the bush administration's campaign to build public support for the iraq invasion. one part of that campaign was the repeated misleading suggestions that mohamed atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers, had met with an iraqi intelligence official in prague. i received a letter from director brennan making public for the first time some of the cable's contents. he quotes the cable as saying,

"there's not one u.s. government counterterrorism or f.b.i. expert that has said they have evidence or know that atta was indeed in prague. in fact," the cable say, "the analysis has been quite the opposite." close quote. now, my statement just entered in the record, i also discuss recent revelations by the former head of a czech counterintelligence agency about u.s. pressure to confirm the report of that meeting. the american people deserve to know the full truth about this episode and particularly in light of the new revelations from a top czech official, i have renewed my request to director brennan to declassify the entire cable. i thank >> senator 11 released a letter he received earlier this year

from john brennan who wrote, not one expert has said they have evidence or know that mohammed auto was in prague. senator levin has asked renin and previous directors to declassify the entire letter. cia's response to the report on its interrogation on the next washington journal with alberto gonzales. he will address u.s. tactics post 9/11 as well as federal spending. karen friedman with the pension rights center will talk about the proposed budget and how it could affect workers and retirees. plus, your calls, facebook comments and tweets on washington journal. the house passed a $1.1 trillion

funding bill to keep the government open until next year. vote came after behind-the-scenes negotiations and the vote count was 219-206. the senate is working under a temporary funding bill to avoid a government shutdown. harry reid says the funding bill may not pass the senate until monday. here is some of the house debate. face the expiration of the current continuing resolution to present the house amendment to the senate amendment on h.r. 83, legislation to fund the federal government for the rest of the current fiscal year. this amendment prevents a costly and damaging government shutdown while making good government funding and policy decisions and reining in regulatory overreach. it's good for the continuity of vital federal programs and services, it's good for our economy, and it's good for the american people. in total this legislation

provides $1.013 trillion for the operations of the federal government. this total is in line with the terms of the ryan-murray budget agreement. it includes full year appropriations legislation for 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. reflecting the most up to date budgetary needs of each agency and department. the appropriations committees in both the house and senate went line by line through these -- all of these bills, prioritizing funding for effective and vital programs, making the tough decisions to cut funding for lower priority programs. in addition, the measure includes short-term funding for the department of homeland security, holding the funding levels for those programs at current levels. this will ensure that efforts to

secure our home front are maintained until february 27 of next year. this legislation is a compromise. the product of hard-fought negotiations between the house and senate, with give and take from both sides. but at the end of the day, mr. speaker, it reflects conservative priorities. keeps our spending in line. and reins in the regulatory overreach that has been hampering our economy. as such, national security is a top priority in this bill. we provides -- we provide a total of $554 billion for the department of defense, including $64 billion in overseas contingency operations to support our troops in the field, to combat isil, to train and equip our iraqi allies and to counter russian aggression.

to further assist our economy, we include provisions that put the brakes on regulatory programs that are too intrusive and too burdensome on american businesses. for instance, the legislation prohibits funds for the army corps of engineers to act on two potentially harmful regulations, changing the definition of, quote, fill material, quote, and regulating water in certain agricultural areas under the clean water act. the bill measure prevents the listing of the sage grouse on the endangered species list a premature action that would have severe economic consequences on western states, especially. and the bill protects job creators from onerous regulatory burdens by amending dodd-frank swaps pushout rules. this bill also demonstrates, mr.

speaker, fiscal restraint. it cuts $60 million from the e.p.a. it provides no funding for high speed rail, the president's race to the top initiative, or unesco, or i.n.f. no new funding is included for obamacare. and the bill holds the line on funding for the agency most responsible for implementing that law at health and human services. for the i.r.s., the bill cuts the agency $345 billion below last year and includes language to put a stop to improper behavior by prohibiting the targeting of groups based on political beliefs, prohibiting the white house from ordering the i.r.s. to determine the tax exempt status of an organization, and from funding inappropriate videos or conferences. this legislation is the product

of the bipartisan and bicameral cooperation that the american people called for at the voting booths last month. passage of this bill will show our people that we can and will govern responsible -- responsibly, rise above inaction, and work together on their behalf. now, i would have preferred, as i'm sure all of us would have, that we would be considering each of the 12 appropriations bills under regular order, the old-fashioned way. this is the way it should operate. in the house, as you know, our committee passed out 11 of the 12 bill the floor passed seven of the bills and would have passed more, but we realize the senate uh was not going to act on any of them and did not. -- the senate was not going to act on any of them and did not.

so five of the bills were left in the lurch because the senate would not consider any of the bills. we face a very tight deadline now and we have no choice but to try to put together an omnibus spending billing a gating all 12 bills into one. i would have preferred separately but the senate blocked the way. if we do nothing, we'll be turning our backs on our constitutional duty and on the american people. mr. speaker, before i close, i want to take a moment to recognize some people who made today possible. first of all, the staff. we've had about a month to put together this enormous bill with thousands of items in all 12 subcommittees. we've had great negotiations then with the senate. but it was the work of the

staff, of course, that enabled us to be here today and i want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who work sod hard to make this happen. -- who soed -- who work sod hard to make this happen. i would like to call names but i'm afraid i would leave out somebody important, so i want to thank the staff for all their wonderful, la boirs you work -- baylors you work. and i will sing -- laborious work. and i will single out will smith who guided the staff through this process and i think did a wonderful, marvelous job. i want to thank will smith especially and all the staff for their great work leading up to today. now, i want to thank the members of the committee. they've all had a part in making this bill up. each subcommittee, each chairman of the subcommittee, each of the

members of the subcommittees that fought long and hard to ensure that we have the best bill before us today that we could have, and notably, the ranking member of the committee, mrs. nita lowey, with whom we share this responsibly -- responsibility, she's been a tremendous asset to us in the procedure. leading up to today. i want to thank her personally for the great work she did. i also want to acknowledge, mr. speaker, six members of the committee who are moving on to greener pastures, making new chapters in their life. they have been enormous helpers in the committee. they've chaired subcommittees, they've worked long and hard on every bill that we produced, and we certainly hate to see them go. but they are writing a new chapter. so i want to recognize jack

kingston for his service, frank wolf, tom latham, jim moran, ed pastor, and bill owens. all of those six are moving on, we want to thank them for their service. and it's appropriate that their final vote on the house floor will be on an appropriate appropriations committee bill, funding the entire government. this nation is a better place because of their service. i want to thank all of them for their contributions to the committee and to the house and the people of this country over their combined 120 years of service. i now call on the members of the house, republicans and democrats alike, to support this legislation, keep the government open. it's a good bill. it's bipartisan.

it's bicameral. it was negotiated in good faith on both sides of the capitol and both sides of the aisle, and most importantly, mr. speaker, this bill is necessary. so i urge members to vote yes and i yield -- i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. he gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. at the outset, i want to thank chairman rogers for the cooperative way you have guided this committee, it has truly been a pleasure to me to work with you and your staff. as we all know, mr. speaker, funding to keep the government operating expires at midnight tonight. it is my sincere hope that we can avoid the antics of last year when a vocal minority in this body was able to hold the entire government hostage for reasons they could not -- they couldn't articulate. it wasn't fair to the american

people and i hope we never have to go through it again. throughout this process, my has been to avoid another costly -- my goal has been to avoid another costly shutdown, enhance our security and protect the most vulnerable among us. i remain disappointed, mr. speaker, that the house majority decided to leave out the agreement reached on the department of homeland security , the decision reflects their political calculation on immigration policy. i believe my chairman was right when he rebuffed efforts to restrict the president's executive orders on immigration on a must-pass appropriations bill. but forcing these important agencies, customs and border protection, the u.s. secret service, the federal emergency

management administration, the transportation security administration into a two-month continuing resolution was unnecessary and unfortunate. the short-term c.r. creates uncertainty and will limit the department's ability to make important decisions on procurements, hiring and a new initial -- and any initiatives we all support. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from secretary johnson outlining the problems with funding the department through a c.r. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be part of the record. mrs. lowey: my colleague, david price, the ranking member of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, was unsuccessful in his attempt at the rules committee to restore full-year funding through this bill. i offered an amendment to strike two very controversial

provisions. e, to strike a rider for swaps under the dodd-frank law. the other to strike a provision raising contribution limits to political parties. these provisions are divisive and unnecessary. they should be removed. the 11 other spending bills included in this package are a mix of wins and losses. i was very pleased that most of the worst riders were dropped, including those on the affordable care act, the clean air act and those preventing full implementation and new reforms to the federal school lunch program. statutory budget caps essentially kept all discretionary programs at a hard freeze, but i'm pleased we were able to prioritize a few key items such as the national

institute of health, food safety at the food and drug administration. another very modest but very important increase is provided for after-school programs, many of which suffered steep cuts under sequestration and have still not made up those shortfalls. i'm also pleased the final agreement provides $500 million to the department of transportation's tiger program to fund major surface transportation projects, including bridges, transit and passenger rail. to keep firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them, the national instant background check system will receive an increase of $14.5 million. this important investment was achieved because members on both sides of the aisle

recognized how crucial this money is with states to improve their submission of records into the background check system. the appropriations package includes much of the administration's request to respond to the deadly ebola crisis. $5.4 billion. we must ensure that all of those tasks with being on the front lines fighting this disease from local hospitals to federal agencieses have what they need -- agencies have what they need. we all recognize how the ease of international travel has changed the way we must respond to contagious diseases. i have confidence in our health care system. the center for disease control and the fantastic hospitals that stepped up to take and treat the patients with ebola, but we should do whatever we can to stop the disease where

it is the most deadly. the funding provided will allow research to ramp up to treat and hopefully develop a vaccine for ebola. before i close, i would like to thank the committee's staff for their tireless work, particularly david pomerance and leslie turner, who worked closely with will and the entire appropriations staff. i am very pleased the appropriations committee was able to come together on a package to fund 11 of the 12 spending bills, but, again, i wish it had been on all 12 bills and only dealt with issues related to appropriations. i will reiterate that the funding contains many things. i wish it had a different outcome.

i fought throughout the conference, for example, to get rid of the swaps language. it does not belong on the appropriations bill. the reid-boehner provision to increase by 10-fold the limit on contributions to political parties does not belong in this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the very distinguished and hardworking chairman of the appropriations defense subcommittee, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the chairman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership and i thank ranking member lowey as well. they both deserve credit for moving this bill. as we begin consideration of this important legislation this afternoon, i want to pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, all

volunteers. they deserve our heart felt thanks to their dedicated service and sacrifice. that is also extended to the professionals in our intelligence community. these men and women, whether in uniform or not, deserve greater certainty, stability and predictability in their lives. it's nothing -- it's something they've often lacked because of a flawed congressional budget process over the past several years which we seek to re-establish today as regular order. and frankly, so do the american people. they deserve better. the centerpiece of this comprehensive package, the engine that drives this bill is our house defense bill. passed in june with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. like that bill, this measure assures the strong national defense posture gets terrorist groups like isil and al qaeda and challenges from nation states like russia and china, iran and addresses the ebola epidemic.

this bill provides $550 billion in new spending authority for the department of defense and our intelligence community and cludes $64 billion for the overseas contingency operations. the base funding in this measure is $500 million below the president obama's 2015 budget and just $3.3 billion above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. overall, the defense title of the omnibus appropriations package assures our commitment to the u.s. military's dominance over air, land and sea. our commitment to our allies and partners, our commitment to our service members and their families. at the same time our committee clearly recognizes our nation's debt crisis, and we found areas and programs where reductions were possible without adversely impacting our armed forces or our defense industrial base, which is so vital to

maintaining our military edge. we make every dollar count in our portion of this bill without increasing risk for our war fighters. national security is the priority job of the federal government, our constitution grants congress the full range of authority for the defense of our nation. with our armed forces facing formidable enemies around the world and standing watch everywhere to protect our freedom, this bill cannot wait, and i urge its passage today. in closing, i'd like to thank my ranking member, pete visclosky, he's been a valuable partner and friend. and thanks to the incredible committee that makes up the defense appropriations committee, members of the committee and our professional staff, led by tim prince. they did an incredible job. we should be enormously proud of them. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york.

mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, the ranking member of the homeland security appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. mr. price: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to this misguided legislation. first, however, i want to commend the bipartisan, bicameral leadership of our appropriations committees and subcommittees for their efforts this year to restore the normal appropriations process with careful scrutiny of executive budget requests and the cooperative crafting of bills that fund our agencies and chart their course for the coming year. their work is reflected in the 11 bills out of 12 before us today, a significant achievement despite the overall inadequacy of the underlying budget numbers we're working with. budget allocations, unfortunately, still reflect

the ill advised republican strategy of -- ill-advised republican strategy of nondefense discretionary spending on our critical national investments. as ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee, i'd like to thank chairman carter for the collaborative process he's led throughout this year. our full-year homeland security appropriations bill has been finished for over a week now, making the exclusion from this omnibus all the more troubling. so mr. speaker, stitching together 11 of our appropriations bills is indeed a positive achievement. but it is greatly diminished by the subjex of homeland security funding to a short-term continuing resolution and by the inclusion of controversial legislative riders which too are particularly egregious. the first amendment would blow a major hole in the dodd-frank bill, putting taxpayers on the hook for some of the riskiest

behavior of wall street institutions. the second amendment would blow another hole in our efforts to prevent big money from swamping our political system. the bill's campaign finance provisions are completely nonjermaine to appropriations -- nongermane to appropriations and would have influence to wealthiest americans by allowing a couple to donate a million and a half dollars annually to the parties. to my knowledge these provisions have never had had a single hearing in either the house or the senate and they have no place in an appropriations bill. on top of these troubling provisions is the short-sighted abusive treatment of homeland security. the bill before us would force the department of homeland security to operate under a short-term continuing resolution until late february, creating a cloud of uncertainty, putting critical programs and acquisitions at risk and raising the threat of a full agency shutdown early next year. a short-term continuing

resolution limits the department's ability to make strategic decisions about carrying out its security missions, improving coordination among its components. it also limits the ability to move ahead with the secretary's southern border and approaches campaign. it creates uncertainty regarding isis capability to detain and deport dangerous criminals and to transfer unaccompanied children to h.h.s. for humane treatment. it could also delay needed procurements and necessary security upgrades at the white house complex to prevent fence jumper intrusions. most confoundingly, the bill provides immigration enforcement agency with hundreds of millions of dollars less than their known needs and what our bipartisan bill would have provided. if the republican majority is concerned about the effectiveness of our immigration policy, this is really a strange way to show it. to hold enforcement funding hostage, that's not the way we

bring about positive change, but we know this is all about political peek directed at the president. this is an unfortunate end, mr. speaker, to what has been a cooperative, bipartisan homeland security appropriations cycle, but it leaves me unable in good faith to recommend a iowa vote. we should re-- recommend a yea vote. we should proceed with an appropriations bill that truly represents the consensus of this body. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i now want to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. tom latham, who is retiring. he chairs the transportation-h.u.d. appropriations subcommittee and has been a stalwart help over he years on this committee and to congress in service to the

country. time, ess for the last he will be giving us a great speech. mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for the last two minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for the kind words. i rise in strong support of this omnibus appropriation bill. i am in particularly proud of the transportation-housing and urban development division, which makes critical developments in our nation's infrastructure, our air traffic control system and housing for our neediest citizens. the bill requires some tough choices but it advances our priorities and responsible government and fiscal restraint. we worked hard to ensure this final bill includes funding and policy provision that is are a priority for this body. we provide funds for the f.a.a. to support the full operations of the air traffic control system and the f.a.a.'s

investment in next gen. we meet theman 21 extension, authorize funding levels for highways and transit. we provide housing funds to assist families served by h.u.d.'s housing programs plus 10,000 new veterans housing vouchers. we provide $3 billion for the community development block grant program which is a priority for members of both sides of the aisle. mr. speaker, i have been honored to serve as chairman of the thud committee for the last four years and on the committee for the last 18 years. it's been an amazing experience each and every year how the work of this committee works for the people of america. i'd like to thank my ranking member, mr. ed pastor, which is -- with whom it's been a real honor to serve. i wish him well in his retirement. and i know that this body will miss him as much as i will. i'd also like to thank the staff of the committee who put in

countless hours to draft this compromise. i'd also like to recognize and thank doug from my staff who for the past 12 years and who has served this institution for nearly three decades. our chairman, hal rogers, has demonstrated you can stick to your principles and still come to a compromise that puts the american people first. mr. chairman, it's been an honor to serve on this committee and under your leadership. i appreciate it very, very much all the kindness and personal things that you have done for you and cynthia for kathy and i. very much appreciate t i urge members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. search the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. serrano, the ranking member of the financial services subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. serrano: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. serrano: i thank our ranking member for the time. first let me mention a few of the good things in the financial services bill. we were able to substantially increase funding for the securities and exchange commission by $150 million above last year's level. we were also able to increase funding for the community development financial institutions fund and to authorize a cvfi loan guarantee program for another year. we were also increased robust funding for the s.b.a. to help our nation's small businesses. and we added additional dollars to the consumer product safety commission and the commodity futures trading commission. we removed numerous troubling riders that affected the affordable care act, traveled to cuba, and the ability of the s.e.c. to police our markets. unfortunately several problems remain in the bill.

the bill would essentially repeal an important provision of dodd-frank to prevent banks from engaging in risky swaps activities backed by their depositors and ultimately by the federal government. the protections of dodd-frank were put in place to prevent a return to the risky transactions that led to the 2008 meltdown. we should not backtrack on those important reforms. i'm also very concerned about the cuts made to the i.r.s. which will force the agency to operate at levels below that of sequestration. this would cause a serious strain on the agency. there are several riders attached to the district of columbia section of the bill. something that happens every year. republicans have again limited the district's ability to use their own dollars to provide abortion services. this bill also seeks to stop the district from implementing a recent ballot initiative that legalizes the recreational use of marijuana. thankfully on this last

provision republicans have simply missed the mark. the language of the rider only prevents the district from enacting laws, rules, or regulations regarding marijuana legalization. but it does not to prevent already enacted efforts like the recent ballot initiative. the president recently took executive action to end everyday tragedies to occur when families are separated and people glorted. rather than using this as a chance to finally engage in reform, we are now doing something to the d.h.s. by putting them on a c.r. i would like to yield momentarily to the ranking member. mrs. lowey: i thank the distinguished ranking member and i want to make it deleer that -- clear that -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mrs. lowey: i give you an additional 30 seconds. i agree with the gentleman from new york, the ranking member of the financial services subcommittee, and our colleague, the delegate from d.c., that the

language in the bill does not block either decriminalization of marijuana or the referendum on legalization. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the energy and water subcommittee on appropriations, mr. simpson of idaho. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from idaho is recognized for three minutes. mr. idaho: i thank the chairman. it should be noted also, mr. speaker, that this is the last time we expect to see you presiding before you retire also. you have done a marvelous job and thank you for your service to this institution. i hope this vote doesn't go on for $3:45. if there's anybody that can handle, that i'm certain you can handle that experience. i'm pleased after months of work the committee has been able to bring this package together before the full house. i'd like to thank my ranking member, ms. kaptur, for her close collaboration throughout the entire process of putting together the energy and water sections of the omnibus. i'd also like to thank the hard work of our senate counterparts,

senator feinstein and senator alexander for their hard work in bringing this package together. now, i want to be clear. i didn't get everything i wanted in this bill. none of us did. but we have worked hard to ensure that the bill clearly reflects the will of the american people. it makes critical investments and makes important policy changes that will continue to build on in coming years. for instance, i'm pleased with how strongly it invests in our national defense and water infrastructure. weapons activities receives the largest increase in this bill, $387 million over last year, within this level is full funding for the critical warheads such as the b-61 and long range standoff. investment in naval reactor programs increases by $144 million, including the full request for the ohio class replacement reactor. funding for the army corps of engineers is modestly increased from last year, including not less than $1.1 billion for the harbor maintenance trust fund activities. last year we directed no less than $1 billion.

we also include some policy changes critical to supporting our country's economic development in a responsible manner. new this year we included provisions prohibiting the regulation of certain agricultural activities such as the construction and maintenance of farm ponds or irrigation ditches under the clean water act. this is a major victory for our country's farmers and ranchers who are concerned about the potential of the e.p.a. and army corps of engineers' over reach into their operations. we continue prohibitions from last year against changes to the definition of fill material under the clean water act and the implementation of the new light bulb efficiency standards. these are commonsense provisions that protect consumers choice and responsible commercial operations. i think every one of us in this body, including myself, can think of other things that they wanted to see in this pack and and things they would have liked taken out. but overall this bill moves the country forward in a balanced way and allows the new congress to proceed with its most

important obligation, that of governing this country. i want to echo the words of my chairman, mr. rogers, how important the staff is in putting these bills together. most people that don't serve on the committee don't know the time that they put in. they are here on thanksgiving day trying to put together this package so that it will be ready for the floor. they do incredible work not only of the subcommittee that i'm lucky enough to be the chairman of, the members of the staff of all the subcommittees, and they do a tremendous job. we owe them a great deal of gratitude. mr. speaker, this deserves our support. and i thank the chairman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished zpwreal ohio, ms. kaptur, the ranking member of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the ranking member many of the full committee, nita lowey of new

york, and the chairman, hal rogers, for the perseverance they have shown throughout this process. i rise to address the bill before us to fund the department of the government of the united states for fiscal year 2015, which incidentally began over two months ago. though two months late and a christmas tree bill at that, what is very troubling in this measure are dangerous and unwelcomed nongermane riders like opening the door to more wall street abuse and reckless behavior with swaps and derivatives. haven't those megabanks hurt america enough? and what is this doing in this bill? i recognize that not passing a bill can severely hamper the economic recovery and job creation many of us view as the top priority our constituents have sent us here to achieve. job growth this past month increased again by 321,000. the unemployment rate dropped to

5.8% nationwide. we have gained 10 million private sector jobs since president obama took office amid the deepest recession in modern history. still 9.1 million americans remain unemployed. this bill will promote future economic growth which is in america's interest. there should never be a question whether the government of the united states will remain open for disand honor its commitments and contracts. this appropriations bill is within budget limits. indeed, our deficit has been going down year after year as employment increases and revenues with it. the annual deficit has dropped from $1.3 trillion in 2010 to an estimated $469 billion for 2015, and enormous improvement made possible by steady economic growth. the energy and water portion of this bill assures america will continue its decathlon for energy independence and diversification. a major strategy objective -- strategic objective for our nation, some would argue the highest. and all of the above energy

strategy is strengthening our nation here at home financially and militarily, as fewer imports are required and new energy jobs are created within the borders of the united states. the energy trade deficit by the way for our nation has been on a downward path. may i ask for an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentlelady. the energy frayed deficit for our nation has been on a downward path, from 4.7 billion barrels to 3.6 billion barrels in 2013. that is real progress. you can even see it in falling gasoline prices across this country. our bill will support thousands of jobs through the army corps of engineers in developing infrastructure and the bill provides $922 million above the request to meet an unmet enormous backlog. this bill as a whole is far from perfect and the congress must work toward keeping our economy and jobs growing and give certainty to the public that congress can operate --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i rise once again to address the matters related to the clean -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield herself time? mrs. lowey: i yield myself 30 seconds. i'm pleased that this package explicitly rejects attempts to prohibit clarifying the definition of navigable waters of the u.s. however the cromnibus does have certain ranching, farming, and silver culture prack it'ses. to be clear this provision does not change current law and preserves the current scope of agricultural exemptions. if you needed a permit before, you will need to get a permit under this provision. if you didn't need one before, you won't under this provision. i'm pleased again that as with most riders this provision maintains status quo. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 12 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from new york has

13 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the labor-h.h.s. subcommittee on appropriations. the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, who is retiring leaving this body, he has done remarkable work on this subcommittee. chaired a very difficult subcommittee with great distinction. mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. king don: thank you very much, mr. -- mr. kingston: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i thank you for your leadership and friendship over the years and capable staff as well. mr. speaker, i congratulate you on your retirement as well and wish you the best. . i came to washington to cut the spending and that's why i'm supporting this bill today. this spending level is below last year's when you combine the emergency spending with outlays, this is lower than last year.

and it's a lot lower than the year before. and so if you want to hold the line on spending, this is a good vote for you. but the second part of it is the calvary is coming and next year there will be more cuts and should be more cuts. this bill holds the line on obamacare, which is something that we all have fought for. virtually all republicans fought to repeal obamacare and to end the president's amnesty program. no one is backing away from those objectives. there may be a debate on the strategy, but this bill makes sure that those debates will happen and that those votes will happen. again, mr. speaker, when the calvary arrives. this bill moves that debate forward. the a good thing. it stops risks which keeps the obama administration from raiding private insurance companies to subsidize obamacare. it really hits obamacare where it counts. if you do not like obamacare,

this is a good bill for you to vote for. this bill puts dodd-frank in check. if you're concerned about the overregulation of the financial services industry, this bill challenges dodd-frank. this bill supports our troops. we still have troops in harm's way all over the world. this bill supports them and actually increases their pay along the way. this bill puts the e.p.a. in check. the e.p.a. has tried a back door power grab on putting lead -- a ban on lead in ammunition and fishing tackle. that is spg that would increase the -- that is something that would increase the tough and make it much, much tougher for the person to enjoy the great outdoors. this bill puts that in check. this is a good yes vote and i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah,

ranking member of the commerce, justice and science appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: in each and every one of our district throughout our country and every one of the families situated, there's a concern around neurological base diseases and disorders from alzheimer's to autism, schizophrenia, we could go through the list of 600, but the point is this work in our committee on a completely bipartisan basis, we are moving aggressively on neuroscience initiative. i want to thank chairman rogers for his support and the ranking member from new york and i want to thank my partner and the chairman, frank wolf, for his support in this effort. we launched an initiative to map the brain and to do so much more. and i want to talk about what's in this bill today. we have the framework for a global fund on alzheimer's. we have the effort now on the brink for the first time, the

national labs, into an effort the national brain observatory which is -- it's a complete scientific art national of our country to bear on this war on disease, and a better understanding of the human brain. we have in this bill language that would have the united states create a premiere conference in a national -- international conference to bring together the global initiatives in the european union and israel and china and other countries have come together to work on these issues. and we have a new initiative on imaging. so i want to just say there's a lot i could talk about in our bill, in the c.j.s. portion, but i want to just say that this effort on the human brain with some 50 million americans suffering from brain-related diseases and illnesses, a billion people worldwide, this is something this congress can feel as a major achievement for us to move in a major direction

to move forward in addiction and everything in between. i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i recognize -- i yield time, two minutes, to the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw, the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. crenshaw: well, i thank chairman rogers for yielding the time, and i thank him for his leadership in this appropriations process. as chairman of the financial services and general government subcommittee, let me highlight a few areas in our part of the bill. overall we reduce spending by $246 million in an effort to rein in the out-of-control spending. some areas are increased. some are decreased. for instance, law enforcement receives an increase. drug abuse prevention receives an increase. small business receives an increase, and women's business centers, they help grow our economy and create jobs.

on the other hand, there's some agencies that don't do so well. they waste taxpayers' dollars and become ineffective. i think all would agree that the internal revenue service has betrayed the trust of the american people. they have wasted taxpayers' dollars. they've singled out individuals and groups of individuals based on nair political philosophy and they have -- on their political philosophy and they have not cooperated with congressional investigation and therefore their funding is reduced by $346 million. all in all, it's a balanced approach. we spend less money than we spent last year. it's a good portion of the bill. and let me take a moment to say thank you to rodney frelinghuysen, the chairman of the defense subcommittee, upon which i sit. i want to thank him for his tireless work in this area for allowing members like me to help draft legislation that clearly puts our men and women in uniform first, clearly helps saves lives by making sure that we have the best qualified, the

best trained, the best equipped military and makes all americans more safe than they are today. all in all it's a great bill. i urge my colleagues to support it, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor, the ranking member of the transportation-h.u.d. subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. pastor: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pastor: first off, mr. speaker, congratulations on your career and the best luck for you and your friendship while i served here in this congress. i stand in support of this bill, and i want to congratulate both my dear friends, the ranking member, nita lowey, and the chairman, harold rogers, for working the many hours on this bill and i'm

very happy that as we're about to close this session that we're working on a bill that will keep our government funded and bring some tranquility to the economy of our country for the remainder of fiscal year 2014. so i thank them for doing the fine work. out of the past 23 years that i've had the honor of being in congress, 21 of those years i served on appropriations, and i have to tell you that it was a great opportunity for me and an honor for me to serve with various members on appropriation to do the best we could, to serve our country and many of us could not have been able to produce the bills and provide for the services without the staff. on both sides of the aisle that worked on these appropriations bills. so today i want to congratulate current chairman, the ranking

member and thank chairman tom latham for the work he did on the transportation-h.u.d. bill and also it's time for me to thank all my colleagues for all the help and service they've given this country and the kindness they've shown to me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the interior subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the fiscal year 2015 omnibus appropriation. interior division of the omnibus is well-balanced, reflects what can be achieved when all sides work together to find common ground. this bill provides for fiscal year 2015 funding for fire operations at the 10-year

average and provides additional resources to conduct critical hazardous fuels reduction work on the ground. the bill takes positive steps in promoting domestic energy and minerals development both onshore and offshore. the bill provides essential funding for the national parks service which will enhance day-to-day service, responsible stewardship of over 400 national park units. the bill also provides investments to our national park system as it begins its sen tanial celebration and prepares for centennial celebration and prepares for the future years. we meet our moral obligations in indian country and honors long-standing commitment to alaskan ricans and natives. it partners with states tribes and provides grant funding for states to promote jobs and economic growth. i want to take a moment to pay

tribute to former chairman jim moran. this is mr. moran's last appropriations bill. i'm happy to know my friend will be leaving this body that he loves on a high note. enthusiastically supporting the subcommittee. jim, we're grateful for you and your service and we salute you. also want to thank chairman rogers for his incredible support and leadership and his role for bringing this omnibus bill forward. lastly, i want to thank the scorers of appropriation committee staff who has been working day and night and weekends on this package for many weeks and even worked through their thanksgiving holiday to produce this legislation. the staff of the appropriations committee deserves our appreciation and gratitude. this is a good bill, mr. speaker. i urge members on both sides of the aisle to support it. with that, merry christmas, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield one

minute to the gentlelady from california, our minority leader of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california, the minority leader, is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i commend her with hire leadership and with great pride we point to her as our ranking member on the appropriations committee, thank you for yielding and for your leadership. thank you, mr. rogers, for your leadership. as an appropriator for many years, i know the hard work that goes into putting an appropriations bill together. there was a day when we did them individually. it seems lately we just keep putting them on a bus and on omnibus. that's too bad. in any event, i appreciate the work you've done to bring this bill to the floor, and that's why i was so really heart broken. i don't think i've ever said that word on the floor of the house. heart broken to see the taint that was placed on this

valuable appropriations bill from on high. i'm sorry that we cannot have a full homeland security bill. that's for sure. we knew that was possible. as the speaker said in january, we'll vote on a full homeland security bill. i hope that that is the case. but the taint i refer to is what the president described in his letter today as a rider that would amend the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk. so when people are talking to you about what's in the bill and this or that, i want to say to you what you're putting your name next to if you choose to vote for this bill. d why i'm so appalled, well, i'll tell you why.

it was september, 2008, things were happening in the financial services industry. lehman brothers down, merrill lynch down, a.i.g., whatever. it all happened within a matter of days. i called the secretary of the treasury and i say, how can we be helpful? what is going on? and he said, it's terrible. i said, one of the major financial institutions going down? no, it's bigger than that. we're in a serious meltdown. why am i calling you, mr. secretary paulsen? well, the white house wasn't ready for congress to know about this. but you're the speaker -- at the time i was. you're the secretary. i'm telling you. we're in a terrible situation. so they came to my office that night, the speaker's house, house and senate, democrats and republicans. we came together and we heard an appalling meltdown of our financial institution and i

said to the chairman of the fed, mr. ben bernanke, who was there. mr. bernanke, what do you think about what the secretary said? and he said, if we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by monday. we will not have an economy by monday. by the policies that were in place at that time, we were taken to a place where we wouldn't have an economy. no commercial paper. no economy by monday. going down are 2014 the same path. earlier today, the republicans put a bill on the floor that would make certain tax incentives permanent and unpaid for. we should be doing revenue reform but not that way because the revenue policy of the bush

administration contributed to the great recession, taking us close to a depression. so their tax policy jeopardized our economy. and then their lays yea fair attitudes of no regular -- laisez faire attitudes of no regulation took us to a meltdown of our financial institutions to the point where we, the taxpayers, had to rescue the financial institutions to the tune of $700 billion. that's twice as much as in the necessaryic discretion -- domestic discretionary spending bills that will come before us. two year's worth of nondefense -- domestic spending. we put provisions in the bill that the american taxpayer would be paid back. but that wasn't enough for the republicans to vote for it. they voted against it by and large. it was the democrats who voted harmful rp, the most

-- difficult vote for members to vote for and the most politically harmful to them. so here we are in the house. being blackmailed, being blackmailed to vote for an appropriations bill. i'm not asking anybody to vote one way or another. i'm just telling you why i would not put the name of my constituents in my district next to a bill that does as the president says, weaken a critical component of financial system reform named at reducing taxpayer risk. at that time accused us of bailing out wall street at the expense of main street. the public still doesn't understand fully why everybody would benefit from what we had to do. but we shouldn't have had to do

that. $700 billion, because of laisez faire attitudes and trickle-down tax policies of the bush administration which got us to that place. and because of the initiatives taken by president obama when he became president, working with the democratic congress, with our initial recovery act, we were able to reverse some of that, pull ourselves out of the ditch republicans took us in. here we are today. this should be a day where we say, isn't it too bad we can't do more for the american people, but in the interest of bipartisanship, we have put together a bill on the appropriations committee that helps meet the needs of the american people. it wouldn't that have been just fine. except popping out of the wilderness come two things. one, one, this provision. this provision that, as i

described it, the president described, and then another one to make matters worse. to make matters worse, a bill that lifts political contributions to such a height that it's really unimaginable as to why those who put this in their thought that that was a good idea. they told me it was $90,000 for the convention. it turns out to be millions of dollars from a donor or from a family in that regard. we aren't even on the level of how it was portrayed. but be that as it may, what's important is what's in the bill. and as congressman sarbanes said, it's quid proquo. -- quid pro quo. you have quid, give wall street what they want. relax the responsibility. this is a moral hazard, we are being asked to vote for a moral

hazard. why is this in an appropriations bill? because it was the price to pay to get an appropriations bill. i was told we couldn't get all these other things that have been described here so beautifully. unless we gave wall street this gift. and on top of that, that we gave their donors high end donors all the opportunity in the world to pour money into the process. maybe the public is right about washington, d.c. heard this funny line about lily tomlin when she was the operator when she said am i communicating with the people that i am speaking to? are we communicating with the people we are speaking to when we say to them it's an important priority and we have to put it in our budget bill that we give

donors the opportunity to spend endless money, undermining the confidence the american people have in our political system, at the same time, at the same time as we say to wall street, you can engage in risky activity th your derivatives, and the fdic will insure your action. that's just plain wrong. under this bill, under the act, if the bank wanted to engage in those risky activities, they had to be pushed out to another entity. and that entity could engage in those activities. but they were not insured by the american taxpayer. with this bill now we are saying the exposure, the recourse is with the u.s. taxpayer. just plain wrong. what is it doing on an

appropriations bill except to be -- have this bill be taken hostage. this is a ransom. this is blackmail. you won't get a bill unless wall street gets its taxpayer coverage. so it's really so sad that something as -- which i respect enormously the appropriation process, because it's hard. there's so many competing calls on resources, so much that we have to try to invest in the american people, their health, their education, the economic stability, their family, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and how we fund all of that. and i have some questions about some of that in this bill. but the fact is it's all a compromise. and it could have been a good compromise. so whatever members choose to do, and i'm enormously disappointed that the white house feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this and that would be the only reason they would sign such a bill that would

weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk. those are the words in the administration's statement. i feel sad for the american people today we are saying in order for us to invest in the education of our children and all of the responsibilities we have to the american people, we have to pay off wall street and in addition to that -- i don't paint everybody there with the same brush. what i am saying is the taxpayer should not assume the risk. back to the same old republican le formula. privatize the gain, nationalize the risk. you succeed, it's in your pocket. you fail, the taxpayer pays the bill. it's just not right. so i think we have a missed opportunity today to have some strong bipartisanship, and there

will be bipartisanship for this bill, but the fact is my colleagues, you are being asked put your name next to privatizing the gain and nationalizing the risk. you are asked to put your name next to a practicely -- practically unlimited contributions. just at the at the same time when we are trying to reduce the role of politics in money and increase the voice of the american people. so again a missed opportunity. i respect decisions that members will make because there are equities to be weighed here. but the biggest equity we have is our responsibility to the american people to do the right thing. and what was added to this bill which may be a good bill, but was added to this bill is not the right thing. d that is why it has bipartisanship. it has good things in it, but it

will not have my support. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, a member of our committee, mr. for then berry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the chairman, mr. rogers, for his commitment and hard work on this bill. as president kennedy once said, to govern is to choose. and the key here is to try and choose wisely. this bill is a result of a long and arduous and democratic process. it is the result of extenive effort of the appropriations committee -- extensive effort of the appropriations committee with input from members to effectively prioritize government services. i don't agree with everything in the bill. i don't think anyone here does. but the question is, are we going to move forward and govern a bit forward towards something a bit better.

what is good in this bill? first of all it continues to prioritize the right type of budgeting and reduce spending. the spending levels in the bill are $176 billion below fiscal year 2010 funding levels. although our deficit has come down significantly through a smarter budgeting process and some tax reform, nonetheless our deficit is still way too high. we have work to do in this regard, and this bill does make significant progress on that front. there are also important reforms, some big ones involve the i.r.s. there are problems they impose on the american people have begun to be curtailed here. the bill also addresses the sat and difficult issue of the emerging needs to fight ebola and its spread. it positions the u.s. congress as well to curtail the president's executive action on immigration moving forward, which represents a very serious overreach on the part of the administration and a threat to the separation of powers.

the bill provides a pay raise for our troops and important funding for our veterans' programs. another fact, mr. speaker, i'm on the agricultural subcommittee. we work very hard to continue our strong tradition of production agriculture while funding new emerging food systems that link the farmer to the family and help beginning and young farmers. mr. speaker, i think we can do better in certain areas such as providing the right type of development assistance which truly protects women and children and doesn't entangle us with organizations such as the u.n. population fund. it is important to remember that in the volatile med immediate the peace treaty between israel and egypt continues to hold with significant commitment from us. that's an important part of this bill. on balance, i'll be supportive and i want to thank mr. rogers, our chairman, for his leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased, mr. speaker, to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from connecticut, ms.

delauro, the ranking minority member of the labor, health, human services appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is ecognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: as ranking member of the labor, health, human services and education subcommittee i worked hard on this portion of the legislation. there are some real bright spots. our problem is simple. the resources provided in this bill are not adequate to tackle the challenges middle class families face every day. the bill does not keep pace with inflation. it continues to underfund some of our nation's highest priorities. education, health care, medical research, job training. however, there are many more troubling aspects of this bill. the department of homeland security's only funded for nine weeks. why?

because the majority disagrees with the president on immigration. holding up full-year funding for national security over an immigration disagreement is a game that poses a serious risk to our border, our secret service, and our ability to respond to natural disasters. the bill gambles with our financial system. it would reverse dodd-frank safeguards. allow banks to engage in some of wall street's riskiest transactions. the same transactions that caused a crisis in which millions of hardworking americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings. why? why would we want to put families at risk once again? public funds should be used to protect our families not to prop up casino banking. this bill threatens injustice to millions of seniors. it allows mention funds to

reduce benefits to current retirees. they worked hard for their retirement. they earned their. why would we want to put our economic security in jeopardy? finally, the bill seeks to overturn some of the last remaining campaign finance laws as if they were not generous enough. the american public is angry about a government that responds to the highest bidder. the majority's dangerous games benefit big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of working families and seniors, and i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. .

the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. rogers: i verve. >> pursuant to the rule, i'm claiming my time for the next 20 minutes of debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 83, the omnibus appropriations bill for 2015, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i want to commend the members of the house appropriations committee, all of them, especially the committee's distinguished chairman, hahl rogers, for their hard -- hal rogers, for their hard work that will fund our national priorities and stop a government shutdown. i'm glad the bill will include critical reforms that will avert our nation from having a looming financial crisis. mr. speaker, roughly