mr. cole: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to quickly respond if i may to a couple of points my good friend made. first i want to begin by agreeing with her, because quite frankly as i have stated publicly on many occasions i don't believe government shut down is a good idea, either. i think that's not a responsible, political tactic. while my good friend has been concerned that some people -- in my party have advocated that, i also expressed a similar concern that some advisors to the president have recommended that should we send a so-called continuing resolution that funded the government that did not repeal sequester? there's be -- i think been irresponsible discussion about shutting down the government which i agree is never a good idea. it's come from both sides of the aisle. in terms of her observations about sequestration, as an appropriator shall, again we probably would find common ground. i

mrs. elmertha cole.ned up the cover and she started to play "the well- tempered clavier," and that's what hooked me on the sound of the instrument, was the way that sounded. so yes, it is definitely a classical instrument. tavis: tell me about ms. cole, your teacher. >> mrs. cole could sit as far away as we are with her little wand and pick out which finger was hitting the wrong note. she was that good. she was just an excellent teacher with a huge heart that cared about her students, and she was able to impart to me the way to express myself on that hammond organ. tavis: this is a crazy question to ask, but in the era that you grew up in, how much choice did you have to not be a musician? memphis was -- it still is, but it was the place then. >> i was extremely fortunate to live around the corner from a recording studio and to be chosen to have a paper route to make enough money to pay for the music lessons. i was one of the chosen few to have a job, and to walk through the curtain at stax records was j

it is on page four of his letter and what he points out,m mr. cole describes that the query can only be done on reasonable suspicion and only 22 people trainedess to that,trai

well, we were having questions of mr. cole, but mr. joyce here to be able to add if necessary. >> sure. >> thank you. >> i'll start out with mr. cole, and by questions are to emphasize and to inform, even be repettive because i think the public needs a greater understanding of what we're up to here. there are two legal authorities that are dis-- that we're discussing here. one, section 702 authority, that one i'm going to lay aside. the other authority is section 215. many americans are concerned about the scope there. they fear that the government is spying on them and prying into their personal lives. i asked questions to make absolutely sure that i understand the scope of 215. first question, what information does the government collect under this program, and specifically, is anyone's name, address, social security number, or location collected? >> senator grassley, first to answer the second part, name, address, location, social security number is not collected under the 215 program at all. >> okay. >> never has been, never will b

chairman. >> mr. cole, i have a question i -- i understand the government believes that every domestic phone record is relevant. it can be obtained using section 215, the patriot act. as i understand that fisa court agrees with that interpretation. but you then place restriction how it can be used once you collected it. but i'm going say limit on this theory. couldn't you invoke under this section 215 to obtain virtually all of the commercial data americans phone records are relevant about our credit card records. what sides we go on on the internet. what we may bookmark our medical records that we have it on the computer. firearm records. we keep firearms. all of those things available? >> well, i think there's two point points here, mr. chairman,. number one, the way they find them relevant in the context the restriction and what citizens you are looking for. you center to take all of those feature of the phone record process in to account of how can it be done? how reasonably it can be done. what is the

thank you. >> i will start at with mr. cole. my questions are emphasizing two and to even be repetitive. i think the public needs a greater understanding of what we're up to here. there are two legal authorities that we're discussing here. one, section 702, i will lay that aside. the other authority of section 215. many americans are concerned about the scope there. they fear that the government is spying on them and prying into their personal lives. i asked questions to make absolutely sure that i understand the scope of 215. first question, what information does the government collect under this program, and specifically, is anyone's name, address, social security number, or location collected? >> name, address, location, social security number is not collected under the 215 program at all. never has been, never will be. secondly, the nature of the ollection is very dependent on this reasonable articulate suspicion. unless there is reasonable suspicion that the phone number you want to ask about is associated with terrorists.

inglistions of mr.: mr. -- cole and mr. inglis. >> i will start out with mr. cole. my questions are to emphasize to inform, and even the repetitive. the public needs a greater understanding of what we are up to here. there are two legal authorities we are discussing here. one, section 702 authority. i'm going to lay that one aside. the other authority is section 215. many americans are concerned about the scope there. they fear the government is spying on them and prying into their personal lives. i asked questions to make absolutely sure i understand the scope of 215. first question, what information does the government collect .nder this program if anyone's name, address, social security or location collected? name, address, location, social security number is not collected under 215. it never has been, never will be. collection isthe very dependent on this reasonable, articulable suspicion. while a lot of metadata does exist in a database, it cannot be accessed unless you go through the procedures of documenting that there is reasonable, articulable suspicion tha

one of the -- mr. cole, you have said that it is worst having a debate -- worth having a debate on these issues. you're right about that. i hope the executive branch take a lesson from this experience about the value of classification or, what i would consider to be overclassification. i've seen this over and over. when we are fighting with the bush administration about the torture program, the executive branch got to tell its side of the story because the executive branch was the classifier. -- were the de-classifier andwe were stuck with fax that we knew him well the argument -- we were stuck with facts that we knew blew up the argument. we have seen it on cyber. where becoming more aware -- we are becoming more aware. for a long time, we were in the dark about what was going on. in the private sector, companies didn't want to talk about it. the government over classified everything. now, i think we have a terrific article that senator feinstein wrote. bobave good testimony by mueller. we have good inform

tavis: yeah, mr. cole is not here to defend himself. >> yeah, i know.se when the tavis: he is not here to defend himself. (laughter) >> but see, the problem is is that - it's so funny, because you should hear my producer, because of course he was a huge fan of my father's, but he said he had to do it phonetically. he said, "his spanish is not as good as yours." (laughter) tavis: okay, let me ask another question, since your daddy (unintelligible). (laughter) he'll let his little girl get away with that. tell me more about the challenge of - or the joy, you tell me - of producing singing with him in english on the "unforgettable" project, and in spanish on this project. >> oh, this was a joyous feeling. "unforgettable" was bittersweet. it really was. and it was the first time, as well. since then, i think i get much more pleasure out of it than i do pain. i still go, i must say, when we do "unforgettable," that one still tavis: still gets you. >> it still does, because we have nice video footage. everyone in that picture is gone. my sister, my mom, my da

but i would like to ask maybe starting with mr. cole and going down the line to get your reaction to the criticism made of the operations of the foreign intelligence surveillance court -- jamesormer judge robertson. this has to do with the nature of ex parte proceedings before the court. i know that when it comes to isividualized warrants, it common in our system to have essentially ex parte proceedings but here, when the foreign intelligence surveillance court is authorizing a program, it is, according to judge robertson, under this expanded jurisdiction, it is turning the court into an administrative agency. and of course, talking again in theublic confidence oversight of the court, which i think is an important part of maintaining that confidence, what do you think -- what would you think there would be some advantage, having more of an adversarial process? an and is more information make alows the judge to better decision. i would like to get your reaction. >> thank you center. we have hadou that far more than another administrative

speaker, -- mr. cole: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up i call up house resolution 322 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 49, house resolution 422, resolved that at anytime after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill 367, to amend chapter 5, , to provide code that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate the bill

it is something under consideration. >> thank you. >> mr. cole, i will question -- i have a question. the government says that every domestic phone record is relevant to a terrorist investigation and can be obtained under section 215 of the patriot act. i understand the court agrees with this interpretation. you put some restrictions on that. i do not understand the limits. could you of oak -- invoke section 215 to get all commercial data. how about our credit card records? how about what sites we go one on the internet? what we may bookmark? all medical records that we have on the computer? we keep our firearm records. all those things are available? >> there are two points. first, the only way the court finds those relevant is within the context of these restrictions. you had to take all of those features of the phone record process into account. how can it be done? how reasonably can be done question mark what is the need for speed? was the need to integrate all the records coming together? only when you are looking that entire mix, that entir

because, you know, i know that they're supposed to have been graduating within five years, and mr. cole you know -- 20 years, and there was all kinds of issues about is this a way that you can get people hired that people know as opposed to getting the best and the brightest through this program? so i would appreciate those questions for the record. sorry, senator ayotte. >> you know, getting back to the question that we had initially on the organizational structure and implementing the gao's findings, i know that dr. miller is going to, is looking at this issue, and have you briefed secretary hagel on this issue as well? because i do believe that this is an issue that needs a fire lit on it from the top to make sure that we're really driving this, and we're not ending up in the same position. so i don't know if you've been, had an opportunity, general or mr. winfield, to brief the secretary on this. >> senator, i obviously have weekly conversations with dr. miller, but i would have to take for the record any conversation that he may have had with the secretary of defense. >> well, i'm

stier.r is next her is mr. coles. let's welcome our panel.applause] matt, and he had a chance to catch your breath? >> i have. >> did the supreme court get it right in their decisions? >> the supreme court litigated -- one, there are two sets of marriage cases for the supreme court. there was the windsor case and the perry case. there was an opinion by john roberts. there was a windsor case and the cbs andse reported on the new york times. they are very different cases. the political cases were enormous victories. the prop 8 case needs no introduction. right? we all remember it. the california supreme court decided that it was a violation of the state constitution not to allow them -- same-sex couples to get married. we lost. there was a state court challenge that failed. there was a famous challenge that prop 8 violated the federal constitution. claiming it was invalid. the states under the federal constitution prohibit same-sex couples from marrying? it was originally claimed as a 50 state case. it has a surprise in it. that is to say the s

and i know that they are supposed to have been gradually did within five years and mr. colend there was all kind of issues about is this a way that you can get people hired that people know as opposed to getting the best and the brightest through the programs, so i would appreciate those questions for the record. sorry, senator ayotte. >> getting back to the question we had initially on the organizational structure and implementing the gao findings, i know dr. miller is looking at this issue. have you briefed the secretary on this as well clacks because i do believe that this is an issue that needs a five-year limit from the top to make sure that we are driving this and we aren't ending up in the same position. i don't know if you have an opportunity to brief the secretary of -- on this. >> i've had weekly conversations with dr. miller but i would like to take for the record any conversation he may have had with the secretary defense. >> we will direct this up to the secretary level and obviously talked to dr. miller as well because this has to come also from the top to make

mr. rene? >> before we leave today i would like to say something to rich van cole. dave left years ago and he had been running the alcoholic department. dave was extremely knowledgeable and level headed and fair and rich who i believe is leaving the department. he's one of these guys who is leaving with a big exodus. he has done an amazing job. i would like everyone to give him a round of applause because he has been [ applause ] a real friend and out there every time and always trying to reach solutions and i hope that we can get somebody in those positions that will continue with that where he see's the need for entertainment and public safety and he's always trying to balance and he's done it really well. thank you. >> we are slight looking constrained for time and although i wanted to ask a question of all of you about late night food, instead i will say that i would like to offer you all some food in our breakout session. a couple of pieces of business before we go. one, please be sure to pick up these and come to our breakout sessions. we are in the rooms out

mrs. perry is the sponsor for. she's the sponsor for the u.s.s. cole and i want to welcome you, lee perry, here this morning and thank you for all you've done and supporting your husband and his marvelous career. thank you, ms. perry. (applause) >> our speaker this morning, the former secretary of defense william perry, i first met when he was the deputy secretary of defense, and he and mrs. perry came to korea where i was the c5j5 and i was assigned to escort them around. and i had a lot of those kinds of duties while i was assigned to korea. but it was the most pleasant experience i had and i say that honestly, to get to know these two people. and he then became our secretary of defense. and many of us that have served thought that he was one of the best secretary of defenses we've ever had. he's currently a senior fellow at the hoover institute and a freeman foley institute of international studies. he is the michael and barbara bavarian professor at stanford university and serves as co-director of the nuclear risk reduction initiative and preventiv

mr. tom cole, says the president is getting around congress by passing these executive orders, why are the republicans not to filing a lawsuit and let the courts say is unconstitutional? >> a question, in case you did not hear it. the president is getting around congress by executive orders and executive actions. not all these are orders. why is in congress filing a lawsuit? in some cases, we are. as a matter of fact, the attorney general of the united states as recently -- we filed against him, contempt of court case. we have multiple subpoenas to force testimony. and there is legal action there are also things congress can do in terms of not approving the presidential appointees. there are things it can do in terms of withholding funding, and we have done some of that in some area. particularly where obamacare is concerned. so there is a constant tension and struggle here between the executive branch, but i agree with your point. i think that the president has more than any president a recall, operated outside of the normal legislative framework. since he lost control of the house and th

looked at it, part of it there was such wide disagreement in the command whether the cole report was ginned up by mr. holland in order to make the other two parts of your comant -- command look bad, it was about promoting one part of the command at the expense of the other part of your command because of the squabbling going back and forth. you know, i hate it that we are at this level of micromanaging of your command. this floated to the service when we planned the hearing. we answered the phone, listened issue and it was shocking the amount of input we got. i mean, frankly, on the whistle-blower stuff, our phone rang off the hook, and the complaints were both about jpmo and jpac, where you work, mr. winfield, and there was -- we're getting a lot of complaints about retaliation about whistle blowing. would both of you address the large number of claims of retaliation within your offices? >> ma'am, if i could address the part of you asking of commitment from me to keep you apprised. i'll keep you apprised of the progress made. our mutual friend pull me in touch with an arbiter institute, a managing

i'm proud of my colleagues, such as representatives honda and cole, what they are doing to help promote civic case. mr. gibson: one of my own constituents from columbia county has been helping them. i'm proud of him as well. though it is the role of the state and local governments to establish curriculums, i support federal efforts to assist states and localities who wish to empower their students. i look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure future generations come to learn about our nation's history and remain engaged as citizens. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts ise? without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, reportedly the republican leadership has draft add bill that doubles the level of -- drafted a bill that doubles the level of food stamps over what was included in the farm bill that passed the house in june. that's right, doubles the cuts. more than 50 million people are hungry in america. 17 million are kids, and the republicans think cutting $40 billion from the most import

mr. koppel and we're happy to have his pages. i take a different view. that was the view in the 1990's when we believed that responding to the u.s.s. colein kenya and tanzania should be dealt with in a proportionate way. the result is it encouraged al qaeda to strike homeland and 9/11 was a big deal, if you were in lower manhattan or if you were by the pentagon. that was a huge deal t. cost our economy tens of billions of dollars and that was a foretaste of what a terrorist might do if they had a nuclear weapon so to say we should not over react, i think we have to take this seriously. jenna: in your column, you say after 11 years of taking off our shoes before getting on planes, in some cases there's a forgetfulness what it was like before 9/11 and immediately after. how do we make sure that doesn't happen so we remain vigilant? >> this is really the challenge of state craft. it's more people like president obama to say, no. the threat of terrorism is very serious. it's not a receding threat. naturally when you go through endless orange alerts and all the rest of it, you get used to it and memories of 9/11 inevitably fade. the interns