Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140522

They sought to protect americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensation. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone. The most comprehensive of right and the right most valued by civilized men, end quote. After the horrific tax attacks on september 11, 2001, the country was determined not to allow such an attack to occur again. The changes we made then to our intelligence laws helped keep us safe from implaqueable enemies. Today we renew our commitment to our nations security and to the safety of the American People. We also make this pledge that the United States of america will remain a nags whose government answers to the will of the people. This country must be what always has been, a beacon of freedom to the world, a place where the principles of the founders, including the commitment to individual liberties will continue to live, protected and nourished for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Mr. Speaker, i rise to claim time pursuant to the rule. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rogers id yield myself as much time as i might consume, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rogers id like to recognize mr. Goodlatte, mr. Sensenbrenner, the other judiciary sponsors, leader cantor, for their continued hard work of forging a compromise with the Intelligence Committee while preserving operational capabilities. Its commendable we have found a legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone Metadata Program so we may move forward on other National Security legislative priorities. Our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the traitor or traitors who leak classified information that put our troops in the field at risk or those who fear monger and spread mistruths and misinformation to further their own misguided agenda. Following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last june, section 215 telephone Metadata Program has been the subject of intense and often inaccurate criticism. The bulk telephone Metadata Program is legal, its overseen and effective in saving american lives. No review has found anything other than that. All three branches of government oversee this program, including congress, inspector general, privacy and Civil Liberties offices in the executive branch agencies. Despite the effectiveness of the program, an immeans and immense safeguards on the data, many members of this body have concerns about the potential abuse. The debate has been about the potential of abuse, not that abuse had occurred. The legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflect hundreds of hours of member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise. In march the Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, mr. Rupp ersberger, and i mr. Ruppersberger, and i had legislation that accomplished these main priorities. We committed to ending bulk metaData Collection. We committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put america at risk. We committed to provide and even more robust judicial review that exists today and process for that program. And we committed to providing more transparency into the fisa process and the decisions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. The revised u. S. A. Freedom act accomplishes the same goals as well. The u. S. A. Freedom act provides the meaningful change to the telephone metadata that members of the house have been seeking. If we had the fortune of having a commander in chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. With that not being the case, and i believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a Counterterrorism Program we know has saved lives around the world. I urge members to support this legislation. I want to thank all of those who came together to forge something that has been certainly a difficult process along the way. But at the end of the day, something important happened here. A better understanding of the threats by i think more members of congress that posed every single day to the lives of american citizens by terror groups around the world. And that rise in threat level is getting worse. The matrix for that threat level is getting worse. And it was important as we forged and i think met the concerns of so many and educated i think many on the misinformation that was out there that we protect the core capability to detect if a foreign terrorist on foreign soil is making a call to the United States to further advance their goals of killing americans. I think we accomplish that today. Its not the bill i would have written completely, but i think we protected those operational concerns and met the concerns for those who had a mistrust of that metadata being locked away with the National Security agency. So with that i would reserve the balance of my time, mr. Speaker, and look forward to a thoughtful debate. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan reserves. The gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Ruppersberger thank you, mr. Speaker. And i rise in strong support of the u. S. A. Freedom act. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Ruppersberger on may 8, the house Intelligence Committee passed out of the committee the bipartisan u. S. A. Freedom act. The identical bill that the Judiciary Committee passed out of may 7. I especially want to thank chairman rogers for his years of leadership on the house Intelligence Committee. I also want to thank chairman goodlatte and Ranking Member conyers and also congressman sensenbrenner and the staff of our intelligence and Judiciary Committees for the hard work they did on this bill. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner and we have come a long way. After our committee markups, chairman rogers and i have continued to work with the Judiciary Committee and the administration to iron out some remaining issues which we have done and which is represented in the current bill. The bill represents the productive efforts of bipartisanship and working together for the American People. Just yesterday, the administration stated that it strongly supports passage of our bill. Again, the administration said that it strongly supports passage of our bill. It also stated that the u. S. A. Freedom act, quote, ensures our intelligence and Law Enforcement professionals have the authority they need to protect the nation while further ensuring that individuals privacy is appropriately protected. The u. S. A. Freedom act contains important measures to increase transparency and enhance privacy while maintaining an important National Security tool. First, we have ended bulk collection of telephone metadata and ensures the Court Reviews each and every search application. The database that contains phone numbers of millions of americans will go away. It will be replaced with a tailored, narrow process that allows the government to search only for specific connections to suspected terrorists to keep us safe here at home. There is an important emergency exception when there isnt time to get prior approval from the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, also known as fisc. Second, we have expanded reporting for Court Decisions to improve transparency without threatening sources and methods. Third, we are creating an advocate to provide outside expertise for significant matters before the fisa court. Fourth, we have established a declassification review process of Court Opinions to ensure the public has access to our National Security legal rulings in a manner that still protects our sources and methods. The u. S. A. Freedom act is critical to our countrys safe and our Intelligence Community safety and Intelligence Community. It is focused on a logical bill that will protect our citizens through important legal tools while strengthening Civil Liberties. I was opposed to the original u. S. A. Freedom act because it sets high a standard. In short it would cut off the Building Blocks of foreign intelligence investigations. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner and created a solid bill. Now, it ends bulk collection of all metadata by the government. Those that say this bill will legalize bulk collection are wrong. They are trying to scare you by making you think there are monsters under the bed. There arent. We end all collection of metadata records. Im again saying, read the bill. Thats what the bill says. Theres nothing else in the bill. It states that we will end all bulk collection by the government. The u. S. Freedom act includes the necessary checks and balances across all three bruverages of government. It protects our branches of government. It protects our nation while protecting the nations privacy and Civil Liberties. Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit a longer statement for the record. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore so ordered. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Rogers thank you, mr. Speaker. Id like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, who has been incredibly important, not only on forming this piece of legislation to find the right balance but his work across Northern Africa on boko haram before it was even popular and bringing attention and resources to important intelligence problems around the world in difficult places, a good friend and a great member and a great patriot, mr. Lobiondo from new jersey. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Lobiondo thank you, mr. Speaker. Let me start out by thanking my colleagues for bringing together an incredibly complicated and difficult issue that probably as recently as a couple months ago no one thought possible. Tremendous, tremendous accolades to chairman rogers, to mr. Ruppersberger, to mr. Sensenbrenner, to mr. Conyers on a whole host of issues that, again, are critically important to our nation. You have heard the chairman and mr. Ruppersberger outline some of the key portions of this, but i think it is critically important to stress that the protection of american Civil Liberties must always be a top priority and always will be a top priority. And this bipartisan bill underscores the importance of that while keeping our nation safe. The u. S. A. Freedom act increases transparency. Thats something that people have demanded. Increased transparency to the American People and allows for greater oversight. Something else that we listen to that people wanted to see. It firmly, as mr. Ruppersberger and mr. Rogers have stated, ends bulk collection records. This is critically important. And it reforms the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court on fisa to ensure greater checks and balances are placed in such sensitive National Security programs. But as we discuss this, lets not miss the bigger picture. I have had the opportunity to see firsthand in some pretty dark and remote places on the earth how our enemies are plotting not just on a daily basis, but on a minutebyminute basis on how to find a chink in our armor. How can they find some gap which will allow them to attack our homeland, to attack our citizens. This is a constant and ongoing threat. This bill strikes the balance to allow that transparency for Civil Liberties, but while it underscores the ability of our Intelligence Community to be able to do their job. And having been, as mr. Rogers indicated, firsthand in some very remote places on the earth, weve got some incredibly dedicated people who are putting their lives at risk every day to protect this country. This is a good bill, lets pass it. I yield back. Thank you. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan continue to reserve. Mr. Rogers continue to reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Ruppersberger i yield one minute to ms. Jan schakowsky, a very important member of our Intelligence Committee who focuses very strongly on issues of privacy and Constitutional Rights and peoples rights. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. Ms. Schakowsky thank you, mr. Speaker. As a cosponsor of the u. S. A. Freedom act and a member of the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, i have been committed to reforming these laws. No bill is perfect, including this one. The u. S. A. Freedom act we are voting on today is quite different from the original bill i cosponsored. It has changed significantly from the version recently passed by the house intelligence and Judiciary Committees. On its path to the floor several of the bills proposed reforms have been watereddown and many of us would like to see more meaningful change, however we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want to congratulate all those who have been part of this bipartisan compromise. The bill we are considering today includes real reforms and the intent of congress is clear. We are putting an end to the bulk collection of metadata, and ensuring that important fisa Court Decisions are declassified for public consumption. These reforms are important and future interpretations of fisa must reflect our intentions here today. I support the act and i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with my colleagues to make even more improvements in the in you ture. Thank you. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired in the future. Improvements in the future. Thank you. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. Mr. Rogers i yield one minute to mr. Reed of new york for a colloquy. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. Mr. Reed thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, i rise today to commend your efforts along with those of the Judiciary Committee in bringing this legislation to the floor of the house. As you and i have met and discussed on fume russ occasions along with my good friend from indiana, mr. Stutzman, this issue is important to not only many of my constituents back in western new york but also to our country. Provisions in this bill such as the reforms made to bulk Data Collection and enhanced declassification requirements are specific ideas that were shared with me by constituents in western new york and brought to here in washington, d. C. As you know im happy to report through our work with you these provisions were incorporated into this legislation. Mr. Chairman, as this bill moves forward, i hope i have your commitment to continue to Work Together to assure that a balance between National Security and the protection of our personal freedoms is achieved. Thank you again and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from michigan reserves. Mr. Rogers actually if i may continue. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rogers i would thank the gentleman from new york for his diligent work on this issue since last summer. Mr. Reeds work along with mr. Stutzman from indiana was critical to ensuring we struck the right balance on this legislation. Would not have been able to find that sweet spot that got us to a strong bipartisan agreement without input from these and other members interested in finding a solution. Again i want to thank the gentleman from new york for his interest, his time, and his effort to help be a part of the forging of this important piece of legislation. With that, sir, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman continues to reserve. The gentleman from michigan maryland is recognized. Mr. Ruppersberger mr. Speaker, i yield one minute to mr. Langevin from rhode island, an expert in cybersecurity. The years i have been in congress i worked with mr. Langevin on this issue. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. Mr. Langevin i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Langevin i thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of the u. S. A. Freedom act and want to thank and congratulate all those who had a hand in crafting the legislation before us. Particularly chairman rogers and Ranking Member ruppersberger. Changes to our National Security program should not be taken lightly. This compromise legislation is the result of a vigorous debate and careful consideration. As chairman rogers pointed out, with all the reviews and investigations that have taken place with respect to the bulk collection program, no violations of law were found, but there was concern that there could be abuses in the future and the American People wanted a better balance to be struck between National Security and protecting privacy, sib liberties, and more accountable. Many of my constituents have expressed concerns about the sanctity of their Civil Liberties and i share their concern. I firmly believe this legislation protects that privacy by ending bulk metaData Collection while still safeguarding our National Security. Im particularly pleased this legislation includes provisions very similar to those that i championed in the Intelligence Committee which allows the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to appoint an independent advocate with legal or Technical Expertise in the field such as privacy and Civil Liberties, intelligence collection,le ity communications cyber, or any other area of law necessary to ensure independent checks on government surveillance within the courts process w that i urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from maryland continue to reserve. Mr. Ruppersberger i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Rogers thank you. I just want to briefly thank mr. Langevin who has done not only incredible work on this particular bill but his work on cybersecurity should make americans proud of his effort to move that ball down the field. Without his and other effort and expertise on these matters, the United States would be a little worse off when it comes to National Security. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this bill and cyberand other National Security issues. I continue to reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Ruppersberger mr. Chairman, i yield one minute to mr. Adam schiff, a very important member of our committee. Does his homework and has helped me a lot and advised me on a lot of issues important to our committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. Mr. Schiff i thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, i rise in support of the u. S. A. Freedom act. This bill ends the bulk collection of americans telephone records and puts in place reforms to surveillance authorities to protect privacy and increase transparency. I have long advocated that the telephone Metadata Program should end in favor of a system in which Telecommunications Providers retain their own records so they could be queried based on a court approved, reasonable standard. Thats precisely what this bill puts in place. It allows us to keep the capabilities that we need to protect the nation from terrorist plots while protecting privacy and Civil Liberties. There are many ways the bill can be improved and i hope as it heads to the senate there will be opportunities to do so. In particular, id like to see provisions to introduce an adversarial process in the fisa court. The fisa court and public trust would benefit from an independent advocate in the limited number of cases that call for significant statutory interpretation or novel legal issues. I hope that the senate will include such provisions which would be both wise and actually sound. With that i urge a yes vote. I compliment my chair and Ranking Member on the extraordinary job they have done. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from maryland reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Rogers i continue to reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman continues to reserve. The gentleman from maryland. Mr. Ruppersberger i have one ore speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. Mr. Gallon lego thank you, mr. Speaker. I serve on the House Armed Services committee and through that assignment i have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with soldiers and airmen and marines and sailors and their families. Like all americans i certainly want our sons and daughters to be safe when we send them into harms way. We want to take as much care of them as we possibly can. The media has talked some about some of the documents that were released by mr. Snoweden, but there were at one point seven million documents that were released. Many of these documents didnt even relate to the n. S. A. So when those files are disclosed in the press and they are disclosed to our adversaries, that naturally puts our sons and daughters in harms way. It should Say Something that the first place you go is china and the second place you go is russia. That should Say Something to the American People. This memorial day i want the American People to focus on those men and women, our countrys sons and daughters, who have honorably served our nation and stood by their brothers in arms and protected one another as we have asked them to fight for us. Mr. Speaker, thank you for mr. Chairman, mr. Ranking member, thank you for your work on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from maryland is advised he has two minutes left. The gentleman from michigan is advised he has two minutes left. Mr. Ruppersberger im ready to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for closing. Mr. Ruppersberger thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The u. S. A. Freedom act is a bipartisan compromise that is strongly supported by the administration. Our bill protects privacy and Civil Liberties while also protecting National Security. I urge members to support the u. S. A. Freedom act. Nothing in this bill will legalize bulk collection. Unfortunately, there are those members that are saying this will legalize bulk collection. It is clear that this bill, read the bill, states there will be no more bulk collection by the government. Thats what the bill says. End of story. This bill balances the issue of taking care and protecting our country from people and individuals who want to kill us and attack us and our allies. Yet it also does whats so important to americans, to make sure that we protect our actual rights and Constitutional Rights and prifecy. It is a balance, republicans, democrats, left, right, middle coming together doing what is right for this country. This is what this body should do and we are asking for a yes vote on the u. S. A. Freedom act. I also in closing want to acknowledge the leadership of chairman rogers and his important leadership that has allowed us to get to this level, along with the Judiciary Committee. The chairman goodlatte, ranking mber conyers, and also mr. Steinbrenner. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair will receive a message. The messenger mr. Speaker, a message from the senate. The secretary mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore madam secretary. The secretary i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2086, cited as the reliable home heating act. In which the concurrence of the house is requested. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Speaker. In the comity of the moment when all the love extended and the group hugs and the high fives, i think its important for america to understand how much effort and how proud i think they should be about the intensity of the debate and discussion over what this bill looks like. Because i believe everybody involved in this cares about Civil Liberties and prifecy. They do. Wherever you fall on it. I do believe that everybody who is involved in this cares about our National Security. And this debate, this fierce, intense debate that happened off of this floor in committees, in negotiations over every word and every paragraph and every period resulted in the bill that you see before us today that did get bipartisan support and buyin for a very critical issue. At the end of the day the National Security of the United States and the Publics Trust in the intelligence agencies that have the responsibility, each and every day, in some very dangerous places around the world to collect the information that keeps america safe. I think at the end of this i hope that people take away from this debate that those who believe that the first round of negotiations meant that our National Security was in peril and those who believe the first rounds of negotiation that our Civil Liberties and privacy were in peril found that right balance today. Its that important for our country. Mr. Speaker, i only bring that up to talk about the republicans and democrats on the Judiciary Committee, the republicans and democrats on the sblell committee and all those that were involved in this negotiation, i think have done america a favor today and theyve brought back the institutional notion of negotiation and intensity of debate that brings us to a better place today. I think this bill is the result of that. America should be proud. And now we can move forward on other National Security priorities that will serve to protect americans and our allies lives around the world and with that, mr. Speaker, i the house and onto path that though. After the vote, members of the judiciary spoke to reporters about the measure where the senate is likely to take up the vote this summer. Its 35 minutes. Good afternoon. Todays vote bands the collection of folk records. Getting your was not easy getting here was not easy with working across party lines. Reach aall of us to bipartisan solution approved today. As the house Judiciary Committee work to reform our foreign Intelligence Committee programs, we knew that both our National Security and Civil Liberties are at stake in the debate, but that both could be protected. The usa freedom act accomplishes both of these goals among protecting our cherished individual liberties enshrined in the civil rights, and protecting our and preserving our fundamental duty to keep our citizens safe from foreign enemies. By prohibiting the government from indiscriminate collecting of phone records. This goes beyond just the telephone Metadata Program. The prohibition will apply to all records, from email communications to firearms purchase records to financial records. At the same time, the bill ensures the federal government continues to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept the tax. Attacks. It will also guarantee transparency of our gathering operations. For example, it requires the federal government to report the number of orders issued annually. It also authorizes Tech Companies to publicly report National Security request from the government to inform their customers. The Terror Threat is real and ongoing and we must always be aware of the threats we face. Muste same time, congress ensure our individual liberty is not sacrificed in the name of National Security. The usa freedom act allens is these concerns, protecting both balances these concerns, protecting both our individual liberty and safety. We will now hear from chairman sensenbrenner, a tireless advocate to and bulk Data Collection and the author of the usa freedom act, who has been working on this through very difficult personal times right now. I want to thank him for his commitment to both his family and his country in working on this bill today. Jim . Thank you, bob. As the author of both usa freedom act and the patriot act that my let me say concern through all of these debates is to balance out the need for increased security with the Civil Liberties and personal freedoms that have made america different than any other country in the world. Doesreedom act, i believe, that. Because for the first time, it does rain in the bulk collection of data from americans. And it does not allow the to gettration or the nsa around and use something other than section 215 of the patriot bulko try to reauthorize collection. There has been some criticism both on the floor today as well as beforehand about the specific selection criteria section that is contained in the freedom act as past. As passed. Let me say that a lot of those included, including our staffs, tried to work on a definition of a specific collection criteria that they the lawyers of nsa would not be able to blow a hole in and get the fisa court to do an aboutface like they did making irrelevant making the definition irrelevant in section 215 and seven. While we are not able to lock the door and throw away the key in this area, what we have done is probably going to be more effective in stopping the nsa from attempting to use bulk collection through this definition by requiring a classified notice to congress within a day after a policy change, and then an unclassified notice to the public within 45 days after the policy change. And that way, if the nsa goes too far, congress will be able to stop it and the American Public will know what the nsa is doing. And i hope if they go too far, they will be as outraged as they were when they found out what the nsa was doing in terms of the indiscriminate bulk collection. Provisions closure are specifically stated as applying to the specific election criteria part of the bill. It will give us the distant early warning, a major change. And let me say, as a result of the freedom act passing the still bee nsa might watching us. But now, we can watch them. And we means all of us, not just members of congress and our staffs, but all of americans through disclosure and transparency. Now, im happy to introduce the Ranking Member and my successor as chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, john conyers of michigan. Thank you. Greetings. Me,usa freedom act is, to an important step to our therming the in dash nations intelligence gathering programs and improving reforming the nations intelligence gathering programs and improving Civil Liberties. This is a win for Civil Liberties today. Here is why. First of all, we end woke collection bulk collection. Although it is not perfect, the require thewould Public Disclosure of all significant opinions of the fisa court. Protection of a the content of the u. S. Persons from unnecessary disclosure or dissemination. This is a great move forward. We think that our Civil Liberties are protected. This is the First Time Since the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act was passed in steps to we have taken roll back some of the aspects of government surveillance. And for that reason, im proud to stand with my colleagues huge,as we got a overwhelming vote of support that makes me feel that the senate maybe even go may even be able to go further and take more steps. I now introduce the Senior Member of the house Judiciary Committee, a former subcommittee chairman from new york, jerry nadler. Thank you very much. Thankinggin by chairman goodlatte and chairman sensenbrenner and mr. Scott for their great work on this bill. This is the First Time Since 1978 that we have advanced a bill to really rein in government surveillance. This bill will end will collection old collection, not only under bulk collection, not only under 215, but in other ways. It does it in a number of ways. Described within, and i think quite thoroughly. It also opens up the nsa somewhat. It opens up the five the court. It requires that there be an position advocate the opposed to the government position. And it provides that significant interpretations of the law will have to be given to the congress within a day and to the public within 45 days. We cannot have secrets anymore. If there were ever to be an egregious misinterpretation of the law as there was to the word relevance in the patriot act, we would know about it and can do something about it. I want to say that these are very significant changes. The criticisms of the bid the bill, all of the criticisms of build didre that the not go far enough. I would wish that the bill went farther. It went farther when it was initially introduced. But congress has to work its will. I hope the senate will take it a little further. But there was never a good criticism to the bill that says it doesnt go far enough, therefore we should vote against it. This ill goes quite far in ending bulk collection. And bulk collection is one of the reasons this country has established as an opposition to general war and by the british, to protect peoples rights to privacy and to their effects and papers. It reopens with the Fourth Amendment. This goes a long way toward shutting those doors. A very good step. It could go further, but it goes quite far. Im very glad we have done this. I hope the senate will follow through. Oh, i thought i was introducing bobby. Bobby scott. Thank you. Im pleased to join my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee. Amended version of usa freedom act. I commend my colleagues for working together to develop a bipartisan bill to address some of the shortcomings in the statute. As recent revelations about the way some of these statutes have been used have come to light, members of the Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over these statutes , studied the issues, proposed solutions to Work Together to find a way forward. We have also worked with our colleagues from the Intelligence Committee to find Common Ground and bring meaningful surveillance reform to the floor today. Enhance is amended to privacy protections and provides more rigorous review of legal interpretations, and increases transparencies are citizens will know what is eating done and decided in their name what is being decided and done in their name. It is the first rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the original Foreign Surveillance intelligence act in 1978. While the administration has agreed to change some of the procedures, i believe the best course is to trust, but codify. Not accomplish all that we want, but is a significant step in the right direction. Now i call on my colleagues from virginia, a member of not only be Judiciary Committee, but a subcommittee chair on the Armed Services committee, randy force. You. Bby, thank it is always difficult to get the pendulum of government just right. And sometimes, that is almost an impossible thing. I think this moves along way in trying to do that. Jim sensenbrenner, we all thank you for grabbing this issue and staying with it so long. And as you know, these kinds of issues dont happen unless you have the right committee doing theho is leadership for that. And chairman goodlatte has exemplified that kind of leadership in doing this, and also the support of a strong Ranking Member like congressman conyers. And all both of them, of the staffs, majority and minority, for making sure they came together to get this just right. And today is an attempt to get that right, by enhancing our Civil Liberties protections, but at the same time preserving our ability to protect National Security. You have heard everyone fade is a new comprehensive review, extensive Public Disclosure, but the big word is more transparency. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the Intelligence Committee has taken appropriate action to root out threats to the security of the American People within the boundaries of the United States constitution. I think the house of representatives took a huge step in making sure they got that balance right today with this piece of legislation. Inc. You. Thank you. I want to second that appreciation for all the members of this bipartisan team. Now we will be happy to take any questions from the media. Yes, sir . [inaudible] step in renewed ambiguities in the bill [inaudible] Civil Authority issues and National Security issues are never debates at the bottom of the stack. We are always looking for ways to both enhance our Civil Liberties and our National Security. I think this bill accomplishes both of those in improved ways. Particularly with regard to creating the kind of transparency that will allow American People to trust what if going on. What is going on. Unfortunately, the biggest casualty for this whole past year has been the trust of the American People. In organizations and the organizations keeping our people safe, they want that to be accomplished, but they also want to know that their privacy and Civil Liberties are being respected at every turn of that process. At examination and discussion, i believe, will always go on. But we have a big problem to solve here right now with the program that has been carried in a direction that in my opinion, and i think in the opinion of everyone up here, was not intended when it was passed. And the correction of that and the added transparency that goes along with it is a huge step in the right direction. Could you better explain the language with regard to selected terms . What was it the administration would have been prevented with this new language that the original language would have allowed . Is this hypothetical . I cannot share hypotheticals, and maybe someone else can. But what i can say is when we worked on this legislation, we had to make sure that it was not just stopping bolt Data Collection in section 215. It was not just stopping bulk Data Collection with regard to telephone records. Ofhad to encompass all types Data Collection and all statutes used around the collection of that. That meant that the terms of this legislation has to cover not just one statute, but at least six different statutes, for related to National Security letters, one related to pen register trap and trace, and it had to take into account what Law Enforcement has traditionally done when it has confronted the need to get pieces of information and for all those chains. Under certain circumstances, the courts have been very clear. You have to have under the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, a warrant. But under other circumstances, having a phone number and morning to get phone numbers that have been called not the content of the calls, but just the numbers called, you can do that with a lesser standard. Changing is not about every aspect of how Law Enforcement in the country goes about doing its work. And keeping people safe. Necessary to was bridge all of those considerations. If you were to try to list every single circumstance in which a different selector would be used, you would have to try to come sit down and come up with every single word and phrase that could be used as a selector. This would be a better way to do it. But we were also concerned that if you did not list every single thing, something inappropriate could be used. That is why we added terms like discrete close quote and terms to such as and wanted inted to. I think that coupled with the increased rent parents he at and at nsaat fisa being capped when they want to track phone calls or some other data they want to pursue, all of the American People can be assured of the kind of abuse that took lace with the use of section 215 cannot take lace with section 215 or any of those statutes. That is what brought us together in the resolution in dealing agencies. Or these after all, theyre responsible these enormous in keeping the American People safe. Making sure we know how they work and how this process works was critical in bringing it to the floor. I have a technical question. Still on the definition of what the select criteria are, it was mentioned earlier that Congress Needs to be informed if there was a policy change, one day, and then 45 days. Lets say there was a broad definition of one of the select terms chosen by the nsa. Is that a policy change . Is that something they are required to tell you . What is the difference between a definition and a policy change and having to report about it . Two things. First, they have to get a court order for the use of that. And that court order, if it is, indeed, a new selection, a new process it might be a word selector change or a change in technology that is used. Because this bill will not only cover things that we have used ir long a longtime telephoned, but it covers a wide array of technologies being used right now. Mostly for legitimate purposes, but also by people who would wish this country and its citizens harm. Our intent under the statute requires that at the appropriate time to be disclosed. I dont know if anyone wants to add anything to that. But i was wondering if i was wondering if you or anyone else there believes Edward Snowden should be allowed into the country . No, i do not believe that. I think it is important to understand that what Edward Snowden took as a contract employee of the nsa was not just information about processes used , which was important for us to know and understand and address, as we have done, but he also took massive amounts of information regarding the security interest of the United States and the people who help to protect that security. Some have said he took the crown jewels of american intelligence. And i believe that is correct. I cannot share with you all of that information, but i have reviewed the reports regarding what was taken, and i can tell you this is a very serious matter. Secondly, i believe that mr. Onlyen, if that were his interest in here, made a tremendous mistake in going first to china, to hong kong, and then onto russia to seek the protection of Vladimir Putin rather than coming to the United States congress, or someone else, or some other entity in the United States and seek the protection under our whistleblower statute. Could have done this very differently than he did. The consequences of him having done it the way he did it our as yet untold and a big concern to me and many others. Could i just add to that . It is hard for me to imagine that snowden didnt realize he was breaking the law in several respects and that he was apparently willing to pay the price, or at least take the risk for that activity. I dont think there should be givecommittee seeking to him a pass or lighten his responsibility. I have to assume that he realized that if he were detected that this thing would not work out too well. Indicated of you have that you hold the senate comes back with stronger language, but we also know this is a delicate compromise that has been reached over weeks and months. I think we know what the administration has said they could support. What makes you think negotiation with senators will be able to reduce any stronger language . We always think operatively, first of all. Even with the senate. [laughter] it is very critical that they understand what happened in this debate today, because there is room for improvement. I havent met a member supporting that voted for the legislation that doesnt have some ideas about how we could make it better. Im hopeful that some of those ideas can work their way into the debate and the law and the bill that they sent over. Just add that no legislation is perfect, and in this case, there are people on both sides of the team some would say that this is not the perfect way to protect our National Security and others would say its not the best the perfect way to protect our Civil Liberties. I think you can have a tremendous bill that provides for that. We are always interested in seeing what dissent might do, but you are correct. This has been very carefully can negotiated here within the house and also with the administration. It will be very important that if the senate does something different, that it is as ranking con your met Ranking Member better andd, it is not just different. We will look forward to working with the senate to reach a final conclusion on what can be put on the president s desk to be signed into law. Let me get somebody who hasnt asked a question, in the back. Sensenbrenner, and those who were around for the original patriot act, im wondering if you could explain a little bit of the evolution here in congress, from crafting a bill, what happened, and what we seen in the implant mentation implementation of that to this day. First, at of the gift as evolutionary as you think. We still try to believe we are protecting the National Security. We still know the events that occurred on september 11, 2001, could happen again. And of course, that was written in the close aftermath of that. But it was also carefully crafted and vetted. It has been reauthorized with some changes over that time will stop over that time. But nonetheless, the majority of the provisions in that are valid and important. And theres still some is agreement about some of the provisions, but not most of the provisions in that legislation. , and i will let Jim Sensenbrenner address this because he can do so better than i can, but our trouble here is be carefully considered what section 215 should be used for. They used it for purposes different than what i believe congress intended, and certainly the vote here today reflects that. If that same question were asked back end, you would get the same answer. Back then, you would get the same answer. Thank you, bob. When we negotiated out the original patriot act after september 11, 12 thousand one 2001, probably the most difficult thing was to get an agreement between house and the senate and Bush Administration over section 215 and the scope of 215. Other members of congress and i have sent letters throughout the year each year over to the Justice Department requesting information and we put the responses up jointly on the committees website. Until the 2006 amendment to the patriot act and the reauthorization, which put the term relevant post quote in relevant in, there was really not much of a problem with section 215. There was a lot of material that the nsa and the Justice Department came to through the use of National Security letters rather than through 215 five the court warrants. But with the insertion of subsequent five the Court Determination that relevant meant everything rather ,han it be a limiting factor that is when the nsa and the Justice Department literally went out of control. Us i can say that most of did not know about it until the snowden revelations. We have prevented that from happening in the freedom act by requiring significant policy changes. And this certainly would have been one of them, as the law would have been as proposed of the time, to be disclosed to the American Public. , had thisnion is disclosure provision been in the patriot act, we would not be here at this time. Mr. Snowden would not have ,ecome a worldwide figure because the congress would have taking care of this either through job owning and legislation or both. Job owning or legislation or both. [inaudible] or any ram operating under 702 . There are some reforms to 700 to in this to make sure it cannot be used for the purposes of section 215 was being used for. And some of the provisions will allow for Greater Transparency with regard to any request for any type of data across all these different statutes. We, as has been said earlier, are always open to new ideas that would enhance the Civil Liberties of americans if they do not significantly jeopardize the security of americans. I dont think there is a specific postal on the table, but we are always open to new ideas. A number of members of both parties did the did decide not to support the bill because they did not think it went far enough. Was there enough going on behind the scenes to prevent the falling off of key members . That never happened. [laughter] we have, from start to finish, conducted a thorough effort to educate members regarding what the still this bill does. The focus of any discussions, and there were many, im sure, in my case, and i hope in other cases as well, it was to look at the actual language and what the parameters and ramifications of that are. I will not speak for any member who voted against it, but i will say that this is a major step forward in protecting americas Civil Liberties, and in ending datadata bulk collection by the government. I think that is the salient point here. But for those who want to have recommend, as i think mr. Nadler said earlier, dont make the perfect enemy of the good. And i understand there are differing opinions. There were a few members who voted against the bill because they think it went too far in that direction. That is something that always has to be weighed in the balance. It is very unusual to get everybody to support everything. We had a large the journey of democrats and republicans who voted for the bill, and we will continue to educate the members and the public about what this accomplishes, because we want it passed by the senate and signed into law. We want to and bulk Data Collection. It is continuing and flowing, by the minute, i the hour, and this is a major step forward, but theres still more work to be done. We have made an important contribution. Now we would like to see the senate act on it properly so we can and Data Collection. Could i add, when we noted on the final vote of the freedom act that there were a number of members that switched their vote no, and from yes to we think we would have gotten even a larger vote in support of ashad they not realized, most of us did, that it was going to pass overwhelmingly, so they decided to vote a no vote. [indiscernible] right. Can you describe to us what happened over the weekend. The language [indiscernible] first of all, you need to ask people who voted no regarding their reasons for voting no. In terms of the process, i can assure you that it is not at all legislation comes out of committee that concerns expressed by other committees, concerns expressed by other leadership, concerns expressed by National Security and Law Enforcement organizations, concerns expressed by civil wereties organizations, all heard and carefully considered in making the changes that were made. We felt those changes were necessary in order to make sure that there were not unintended consequences in moving this legislation forward toward becoming law, and we had to address it from that standpoint because the Judiciary Committee produces legislation. We do not get to decide when bills come to the floor. In i think the work was done an expeditious manner, but also in a very thorough manner, and this bill was at the point where it was ready to come to the floor of the house, and though we spent a good deal of effort over the long term in general terms, over the short term, with regard to specifics here about how they would work. Could some people have more and more information to bring about a different vote on their part . You can always say that, but that is the nature of a legislative, audit as large as ours that when legislation is ready to go to the floor, it is ready to bring it to the floor. Thank you. Thank you, all. Thank you. The house passed that measure that would shift the collection of phone records from the nsa to private from companies. The chamber approved the defense programs bill which revised nearly 600 billion with about 80alien of that for billion of that for afghanistan in iraq. You can follow the house live on cspan. W a discussiong, about the problems at the Veterans Affairs department. A look at immigration and what the current deportation policy is. A recent piece looking at gerrymandered congressional districts. See washington journal live tomorrow morning at 7 00 eastern on cspan. Some people in the movement decided to take the cause of Marriage Equality to the Supreme Court. That is what i chose to write about. I am gratified that the New York Times hosted a stunningly intimate story. That is what i set out to do. I was fascinated. I wanted to know what it would feel like to feel like a plaintiff in a major civil rights litigation case, one that was not only controversial. What was the judge thinking as he was considering the evidence. The judge as it turned out himself to be gay. What does it feel like . Ultimately what i wanted to convey was what does it feel like to want something that everybody else has and be told you cannot have it . From the first attempts to stop prop eight to the Supreme Court decision to strike down the defense of marriage act, the new civil rights movement, saturday night at 10 00 eastern 9 00 onay night at cspan2. Club selectionk is it calls you back. Oh back. Join others in the discussion at booktv. Org. What i am trying to say is that fraud kills, ok, and it is nonpartisan fraud. Theres something we got to do something about it. We do not have unlimited budget. When money gets wasted on a building that is never going to be used, it could have helped people in afghanistan, in the United States, and you see it again and again and again. Im very proud to work for this administration. And i think it is important that people realize i was appointed by the president. Inspector generals are independent, but it is important that the people see that the government does care him and there are a lot of people, people in aid and state and pentagon who care about wasting money. Sopko on how american taxpayer dollars are spent on reconstruction in afghanistan, sunday night at 8 00. Harry reid and other Democratic Leaders held a News Conference today on immigration policy. They urged the house to take up the senatepassed bill before the 2014 midterm elections. This is 20 minutes. As you can see, we have had to doctor up our chart a bit. It was 328. Days, using it today, 329 since the Senate Passed a comprehensive immigration bill that would create jobs, reduce 1e deficit by almost on trillion. There is real human cost to the houses in action. 11 Million People are waiting in the shadows. They and their families and children have been suffering. The most frequent excuse wouldve heard from House Republicans for their inaction is one that they use over and over again we do not trust president obama to enforce the law. Even though that is not t rue, the president has proven days, houset 329 republicans have used various excuses for why they cannot act. Today it is my understanding that the speaker said i want to do Immigration Reform. Well, that is pretty easy for him to accomplish. We cannot allow the radicals in the house like stephen king, a man who says that the dreamers are drug dealers, we cannot let people like him to determine the fate of this legislation, and that is what has happened in the house. Heres a suggestion to resolve the impasse. It is very reasonable. Lets pass Immigration Reform today, make it take effect at the beginning of 2017. If republicans do not trust obama, lets give him a chance to move the bill under president rand paul or president theodore cruz. To be clear, delaying implementation of a migration reform is not my preference, but i feel so strongly this bill needs to get done i am willing to show flexibility. I will do whatever i can to help pass this important bill. We need to get it across the finish line. F done seriously, show some compassion. Senator durbin . Thank you, senator reid. Were about to celebrate an anniversary of a year since the Senate Passed its bipartisan, comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, a bill that i worked on with my colleague senator schumer and many of the democrats and republicans who believe that we could you this am and we did it. At a time when people were skeptical that congress could do anything on a bipartisan basis, we did something that i would say was historically significant. Thear since we passed it in house. It would be unfair to say the house has done nothing on immigration, because it has been about a year since the house, under Speaker Boehners leadership, past the only immigrationrelated bill that they considered, a bill offered kingngressman stephenven to deny funding for a program. The program was an executive order differing deportation of dreamers. Boehner thought it was appropriate to call that to the floor of the house for a vote. Sadly, his members supported it overwhelmingly. That to me was an embarrassing moment, embarrassing that the house of representatives would take that up as their only action on immigration within the last year. I might say a word about congressman king. Because of some of the statements he made, i went to his district in iowa senator harkin and had a town meeting, and i will tell you, he does not represent the feelings of the people of iowa on the. Issue of immigration some of the statements he made have been part of a sad and timehonored tradition of prejudice against immigrants, and he continues that to this day. The basic question for boehner to answer, does he speak for the House Republican caucus . There have been times when the speaker has apologized for some of his outrageous comments and call him to task for something. The question now is, will he set the agenda when it comes to immigration in the house of representatives, the remainder of this year . I hope not. I really hope the speaker will listen carefully to former speaker Dennis Hastert as well as the business and labor leaders and religious leaders across america who are calling once and for all for us to fix this broken immigration system before the end of this year, before we break for august. We need to get this job done. We need to have a bipartisan bill, passing in the house of representatives, brought to the senate, and on its way to the president. Thank you. Now we are coming up, as the sign shows, on the oneyear anniversary, and it is clear the house has not lifted a finger to act. They have not lifted a finger and they have gone out of their way to give steve kings antiimmigration amendments, like the one that would require us to deport fellated torrence, on the house, amazing. Now we have this so called conservative manifesto that does not contain a word about him gratian. Any book about guiding the gop act to prominence at does not mention Immigration Reform is a waste of paper. They may as well not have written this, because they will lose the 20 16th election for president , the senate, and for the house if they do not do Immigration Reform. But they cannot. They are letting the steve kings call the shots. Do nothing, and house leadership does nothing. That is what has happened so far. We hope they will move, but thus jubeverything perceivesteve wanted they have done. It is time to make clear that the republican will work with democrats and pass Immigration Reform. Leader reid mentioned something i have been talking about for a while. They keep coming up with excuses. Their present excuses we cannot pass Immigration Reform because we do not trust president obama to enforce the law. First, they should not pass any laws. Why are they here . Why dont they just go on vacation for the next 2 1 2 years . Second, it is a bogus argument. As many people will tell you in this room, the president has been tougher on deportations than any president before him, and many people in the community to not like that. But, third, if they really believe that, then lets let them take up our suggestion, that leader reid and i have the billch is passed now, have it take effect january 1, 2017, and the president will not enforce the law. Claimant civil. That is the reason for not doing it, we have a simple answer. Plain and simple. And one other point we are not going to go along with minor fixes that failed to address the problems of our immigration system today. If the oil is leaking in your car, your muffler has a hole in the, you do not change the windshield wipers. That is what they want to do act. This enlist republicans are barely considering that, but it does not scratch the surface of our immigration system. We support giving those that serve in the military the opportunity to earn citizenship, ut we also wanted secure our borders. Anybody who thinks the in list act that something was done on immigration form is whistling to the wind. So heres the bottom line ,hey have a sixweek window from june 10 after the last republican primary until the august recess. If they do not pass Immigration Reform than, the president will have no choice but to act on his own. We would much rather pass legislation, but theyre worried the president is going to do something on his own . Well, you have one easy, simple way to prevent it pass Immigration Reform. And if you do not want the president to implement it, as we said, have the starting date be january 1, 2017. Thehe president has to act, only blame will fall on the shoulders of the house theblicans who at against wishes of their party and the American People are just dictates steve kings and refusing to move. I know the extreme voices in the House Republican caucus get nervous and get upset every time the word Immigration Reform is uttered, but hopefully, House Republicans will pay more attention to the vast majority of the American People and that we can get this done. There is not any one that i know in Washington State who thinks that the current law works. Everybody in america knows it is broken, whether it is our companies, highTech Companies who know that they cannot get the workforce to help create jobs here because of the Current System, or a desire Agriculture Sector who cannot literally pick the crops in our fields because of the broken system, or the many, many families who are torn apart the Current System that does not affect the realities of making sure that we can keep the values of his country when it comes to our families and taking care of them. Even though this is an election year, i really hope the House Republican caucus can stand up and do the right thing and do what the American People expect them to do, whether it is a budget agreement or whatever challenge we have him and that is work to fix a problem. Our leader,reid, has offered a compromise in the spirit of compromise that does not reflect what almost want, waiting until 2017, but it is a compromise offer an auto be taken up by the house and passed. For all of this fiscal conservatives out there who are not coming to the plate on this, i want to remind them that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the senate bill on immigration would not only grow our economy, it would reduce the deficit i nearly 1 trillion over the next decades. There are many, many reasons to pass this legislation, but most of all we need to show the American People that our country can work, that we can fix laws that do not work, and that we have an obligation as leaders to step up to it. I hope the republicans in the house caucus will stand up and say it is time to do this. We will take some questions. Yes. I just spoke with Speaker Boehner [indiscernible] he says he does not trust president obama. [indiscernible] reform, and now [indiscernible] he has destroyed thousands of families. [indiscernible] first of all, we understand what this has done to families. Started talking about this situation a long time ago, the words were family unification. There is no Demographic Group in the world that leaves in family unification more than hispanics. That is what i believe. Andhat is my first goal, what i think should be our first goal. The way to do that, once and for all, is to pass comprehensive Immigration Reform. As we have said here today, each one of us, if they do not trust the president , pass the law, pass it and make it effective at the beginning at the next presidency. That is reasonable. If they are unwilling to do that, senator schumer mentioned that a deadline, i will accept have if i then we should the secretary of Homeland Securitys report as to what the president should do from a legal perspective. 329 days. Have waited to waitilling another six weeks. At the end of six weeks, if something has not been done, we will have a move that has to be made, and that will be too bad. It is better to change the law. We have 11 Million People who are waiting and have been waiting, and i admire what the with the dreamers. That is something that is a church or her for a tearjerker for all of us. Example, a little girl who came across a boat with her rosary, and a little doll. She was four years old. Home. Was not her america was her home. Were going to continue, and i think we have laid out our plan here. I am disappointed that my staff has told me, you just told me, that owner is going to do nothing. We gave him an offer today that he should not refuse. Does ther reid, leadership agreed that president isma and the administration not doing anything on are there smaller things that the president should do we have in the department of Homeland Security a report, and isre are things in there he considering doing. They are fairly minimal. I think the big move would have to come after having received on the secretary of Homeland Security what he believes can be done, and he is in the process of reviewing that now. [indiscernible] do you think the president tould expand what he gave dreamers to other groups . My personal feelings is it is not going to get done administratively. I have some strong things about what can be done if things do not move in six weeks. I will wait until jeh johnson gives the president to report. I asked about they do not want they propose a stepbystep approach. I asked why that was not moving either. It came back, they do not trust him. It is strategy. We know what the talking points are. Terms of strategy where you are, is it obvious the house is not going to move now or six weeks or before the elections or after the elections, what is your game plan . I think our game plan has been laid out right here this morning. They do not trust the president and make it effective when we have a new president. [indiscernible] here is what i want. I want chairman feinstein and chairman laeahy to take a report toem and the senate what should be done. I believe we must do something, and i have no problem with the cannotn action, but i pass a test of what is in their beer, but i will be able to after feinstein and leahy take a look at this. [indiscernible] again, i think what the house has done is not unreasonable, as far as i understand. Again, chairman sanders has done a remarkably good job as chairman of that committee. His predecessor was the woman standing next to me, and im confident if the bill will get something very quickly, but i do not think we should wait around for a long time. I hope this is one thing that the Senate Republicans would not hold up. [indiscernible] i think we have taken the gloves off. I repeat, we have laid out our plan. I think it is a good plan. If they do not take our offer, then we are going to have to go to the second step which is not my preference. Cannottrative rules trump legislation, but we are going to have to do what we have to do as we prove with thank you very much. [indiscernible] schedule update. If you missed any of that youfing, we will show it to again tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan. President obama heads to the Baseball Hall of fame to discuss tour is an and the u. S. Economy. On cspan3, a Senate Transportation subcommittee holds a hearing on the u. S. Transit system and a lack of funding for repairs. Morning, a retired marine sergeant discusses the ongoing problems at the Veterans Affairs apartment and the future tenor of secretary shinseki. And a look at immigration what the current deportation policy is. A recent piece looking at gerrymandered congressional districts. Plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. Live friday morning at 7 00 eastern on cspan. Chuck hagel delivers remarks at the u. S. Naval academy graduation, a commissioning ceremony in annapolis. He is joined by the navy secretary. You can see that live tomorrow at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Starting here at this landing, all of this stairwell and bannister that you see here were the original banisters and steps from when clara barton was here. By walking i am walking on the same stairs that clear barton did for that time when she lived here in the building. Attic, thend in the stationery set, a military portfolio, as it is called on here. Clara used these as a while theg product civil war was going on. You can see how nice and the engraving work is done on the street it also lists what was in the kit, but she had tied to this together to hang up for when she was out trying to sell these. So she had a booth at the markets, and she could hang this up and people could come by where she was and take a look at what she had there. The life and work of clara barton, starting saturday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. We will visit the missing Soldiers Office museum. Tweetsyour calls and regarding the National Museum of civil war medicine. Part of our memorial day weekend on cspan3. Writes a busy day in the u. S. House. Members passed a defense programs though. It provides 80 billion for afghanistan and iraq. Lawmakers also passed a measure that would change the National Security agencys process for collecting telephone records. The houses done for the week. Members now head home for the day recess. With on the senate side of the servicesarmed Committee Leaders completed the markup of the Senate Version of the defense bill. They spoke with reporters on capitol hill about some of the provisions of the bill. This is 35 minutes. Good afternoon. The committee worked through a number of very difficult issues without a single partyline vote. I want to thank senator in half and his staff and all the members of our committee and all the staff including mine for their hard work in this process. The committees highest priority was to help the department of defense get through a difficult time of tight budgets while minimizing damage to National Security, and that required us to make some very difficult funding decisions. The bill we reported sticks to the 500 14 billion funding level in the president s budget. Fund the programs by cutting into readiness programming as requested by the department of defense or by putting them into a budget that does not exist. We did not try to retain personnel benefits without paying for them. Overall, we retain the level of operation and maintenance that is the key to restoring readiness that we have lost in recent months due to sequestration. Also includes a Senate Resolution which calls on the anate to develop comprehensive, bipartisan approach as a substitute for sequestration. Among the difficult decisions the committee made were the following. On the administrations compensation proposals, the bill includes the departments a pay raisencerning to one percent rather than 1. 8 under current law. Housing allowance proposal, which means we allow an increase in basic allowance for housing, but at a rate below have increasedwe pharmacy copays for prescriptions filled outside military treatment facilities. Bill does not include the departments proposals to establish enrollment fees for ,ricare for life beneficiaries it does not include reorganization of the tricare program. We did not cut the commissary subsidy, although we do authorize commissaries to purchase and sell generic items. We concluded that these proposals that would make structural changes to benefit programs should be reviewed by the entire meant commission that is going to report to us in early next year before we take them up. The personnel provisions included in our bill will save nearly 1. 8 billion in fiscal is most of the savings that the president had almost 30et, and billion over the future years defense program, which is also most of the savings in the president s budget. The department of Defense Acquisition Program allows the navy to move forward with its plans to lay up cruisers for overhaul. We allow the army to move forward with its proposed aviation restructure, including the retirement of a large number of helicopters. The bill allows the department to move forward, shifts money from the global hawk to the u2, which has a better performance capability but does not require or prohibit the retirement of either aircraft. The bill does not follow the department of defenses recommendations in a few care key few key areas. We included funding to keep the a10 aircraft which are less flying forrnatives another year at least. For this. Fsets we did not pay for the acquisition of new wings for the a10s. That issue will have to await a decision next year. On Aircraft Carrier refueling, we concluded it would be wasteful to retire a multibilliondollar ship that has still 25 years of useful life ahead of it. We were not able to pay for all of the refueling out right that we did ask the secretary of the 600 50draw up to million from other programs and to use that money to keep the carrier alive. We believe that the money will be there to do just that. Have enough money to fund the aircraft needed to keep the Assembly Line running but we did set aside 100 million to help preserve options in case additional money can be found in the future. In the area of sexual assault, we included a number of provisions including the mccaskill bill that the senate adopted earlier this year but that did not become law, a bill which will inform victims of pursue aice to civilian remedy instead of a military channel. That channel exists already, but this would require that the advisor to the victim must inform the victim of that civilian option, and also the mccaskill provision provides for a data bank help identify serial offenders. Guantanamo, the bill includes a provision that would authorize the secretary of defense to move guantanamo detainees to the once the president provides congress with a plan and subject to stringent security measures and legal protections. An committee adopted amendment unanimously which will give congress the opportunity to the to disapprove president s plan to bring detainees to the United States. Of course, such a measure, if passed by congress, would be subject to a veto by the president and that would require a two thirds vote overwrite. Senator made off. Thank you. I think he neglected to mention the most important part of this bill. This is the carl levin bill. Thehat was a 251 vote, by way. Guess who the one was . This is really meaningful because i have served here for a long time on a number of. Ifferent committees while there are disagreements occasionally on issues, it is always the most friendly disagreement. These guys are in charge of all of the staff that put this together. Our jobs are easy compared to their jobs. Together all the amendments, going back and forth, and we came to agreements that in any other committee would have been violent partisanship. Any other model wouldve been used by the other committees. I think we have covered things pretty well. There are a couple of things that are meaningful to me and way. A different we did stay within the budget caps and fully funded the readiness needs. Readiness was a concern. If you look at charts, you can see where we have problems with what i have referred to, in not a friendly way, as the disarming of america. Readiness is the target. Readiness means lives. We did a good job of enhancing that. Missile defense. A fully funds our missile toense and adds 30 million enhance that. In addition, our support of israel, 100 75 million in support of their nuclear program. All familiarre with the issue of the fact that we have not modernized our. Uclear weapons we have language in there that will be very helpful for that. Additional planning for the icbm and summary and launch ballistic missiles. This is something i disagreed with there was disagreement within the committee and with the military. Since been my experience 1988 that one thing that is certain is that for the first two or three years, brack loses money. If there is ever a time where we cannot afford to lose money unnecessarily, it is now. We are going to be proposing another round. You covered the hawk and the u2. I was very involved in starting africa on. We added 6 million. I think we all recognize now that the continent of africa is very, very significant, and we are now looking at what happened over in nigeria, and we are concerned about that. We have some people that are going to go to chad to try to resolve the problem. This is not going to be combat operations, but using drones to find out where these girls are and what we can do about it. We continue with our lra program. The Lords Resistance Army is one i have then concerned about since discovering who they were in northern uganda. We now will continue that program. Pleased with was is we are now enhancing our 1206 and 12 away programs. 1208 programs. This is something that has been kind of a personal project of mine. To get no amendments are certainly not to my satisfaction. Gitmoget mo that amendment is not to my satisfaction. We have the amendment the chairman referred to that would give us the opportunity to oppose something that they would if we attempted to close gitmo. On sexual assault, we had 14 provisions. Think we address it. It is a serious problem. I think we all address that. , the c130 j is very important. You might remember the Modernization Program for the c130 h. There is a change of support in terms of the aircraft that might affect the national guard. Additionalve additional blackhawks replacing with his currently there. To bek were going looking very carefully at what is cost competitive if they are attempting to use the military as a function that i think the department of energy should be performing. Those arethe what we had. There are a number of projects approved that we would be valuable to the marines if they are relocated. There are a number of things you preserved in your that will create an expense down the road. Have you thought about the cost built over time . I said we succeeded in marking up the bill. I did not have a chance to go beyond that. Would you mind going through the numbers again on discretionary funding . Also, the agreement you have on , can you giveuard us a little more detail . We authorized a proposal to continue on the swap of the apaches. The commission, nonetheless, will be able to meet. We appoint the commission that until thedelay that commission reports. There are other parts of the commissions responsibility besides that to proceed. The top line numbers, discretionary spending. There is no oh co. Money. There is no local money in the budget. We use the same topline we got before. I should have mentioned when we were talking about the a10 the similar thing we are doing with a yaxis. Its now at with a wax. Its now at 31, down by seven. You heard the generals commitment to that. The eyes and ears of the air. Right now, we actually need more. We are retaining when otherwise we would have lost. Reichs [indiscernible] a lot of funding came from a determination that there was under execution and military personnel accounts. In other words, the size of our itary has becoming down been coming down fast. That was one of the sources. You mentioned very strongly retaking the reins on this account. Described today as a calculated risk to take the money out of readiness in order andreserve Structure Modernization because somebody is going to come and stave off sequestration. You are taking the opposite approach, it seems. Youre wanting to cut other places to preserve readiness. The implication is youre not holding your breath for sequestration to go away. Do you meet somewhere in the middle . That is what conferences are all about. [laughter] how do we expect to meet in the middle . We work hard at working out differences. We dont need in the middle on every issue. There are 50 differences, 100 differences, and we work through them. Its not like sequestration where you cut every difference in half. We use the budget. We did not cut the president s president s budget on readiness. That is where we have been hit hard, on readiness, and we are not going to add to that taking the risk. Maybe in the future we will be able to make up for readiness losses. That was a risk taken in the last two years and it turned out we did not have the funds to make up the losses, so we are not going to add to that problem. Are you both comfortable with the administrations approach at this point . About enormoused pressure in the next couple of weeks to keep involvement in nigeria . I would say we are comfortable with it. There is not a lot of. Isagreement you heard me say after her rack was over that one of the mistakes we made was we could have stayed after iraq was over that one of the mistakes we made was that we could have stayed there and enhance our capability. I think we are learning from that experience and we will be enhancing in nigeria. [indiscernible] do have more public pressure. We want to be more deeply involved in nigeria. Thats a whole point. We dont want boots on the people going to nigeria do not want to be using creditors or nextdoor. Do we want greater action . Yes. We have seen it from the administration and i welcome it. I think the u. S. Public would allome military involvement a seal team no, i dont think they would welcome seal team boots on the ground. But there is more we can do and now the president has done. Can you talk about the , which seemscision to be a change. It is a significant change, and what we have done is created a path two on him oh. We also made sure that if the president gives us to close guantanamo. We also made sure that if the president gives us a plan we will have an opportunity to say no to that plan and he will have an opportunity to say no to our resolution of disapproval. It is something called an expedited process used in the congress to make sure you can get to a vote so you can get by a filibuster. That is what will be used in the tont that there is a plan close guantanamo or at least it is available to be used. That it will be used but it is available to be used. And if the congress in both houses voted against the president s decision to close will mo, then code ann the president will have opportunity to veto the joint disapproval. Tos not an unusual approach have a resolution of disapproval that is a joint disapproval joint resolution. Have anident must opportunity to veto a congressional action. Want to ask you about the army guard. Another member of your Committee Told us a few hours ago that the proposal would allow the guard to get rid of most of the apaches. You just said i think the opposite of that, so i want to clarify. You have to keep in mind they will be replacing a lot of them with black hawks and there will be changes. We cannot be all that detailed. But i would disagree with your other source. We allow them to begin to transfer apaches to active duty. I cannot tell you how many that would be. Black hawks would then take the place of those put on active duty. Would you say you are keeping some of the apaches or they are all transferring . Thee allow them to transfer apaches to active duty. We dont put a limit on how many. It is not a limit that will slow down the army. How many . That is only until the commissioner reports. We dont expect that many would be transferred in any event. The house bill includes language. Do you add anything like that in your bill . No. Can you address the question of the Navy Seahawks . We have a provision on the Navy Seahawks . No. Nothing where we have not gone before. Anything in immigration language . No. Any sort of timeline you would like to see . The earlier the better. When is that . The week after next. I did not get into that with senator reid. There are so many collocated issues on scheduling anything in the senate these days that there manyot even so complicated issues on scheduling anything the senate these days but i did not even get into that. We had a good markup, a strong bipartisan vote and we hope to get this to the floor as soon as possible. Is there a restructuring of care . Restructuring, no. Restructuring we will leave to the commission. But in terms of the one area which is the copay on prescriptions for the prescriptions which are outside of the hospitals, military hospitals, which i think are , if they are purchased at a pharmacy, there is a copay, and if they are purchased through the mail there is a smaller copay. Haven that one piece, we excepted partially a recommendation of the administration. In terms of the structure of tricare, in other words, the hospitals and the heirs, we did not touch that structure. You mentioned its the speed with which the size of the military has been reduced. [indiscernible] no. Yes. Did you maintain earlier funding restrictions . I think those are retained. Let me look at staff. They are retained. Ok, round two. The question on the personnel number, how much did you actually save on that, and the other question is, you speak in terms of underperforming programs. Under executed. Can you explain what that means and how firm those numbers are . Does dod agree with that decision . I was afraid you were going to ask the first question because i dont know the dollar answer on that. On the second question, did we work with dod on execution . Gao. Anyone who has not had a chance yet . This is a process question, senator. Every year and closed markup, asks youing committee to open it up. This is your sixth year as chairman. What, to you, is the value of the closed setting . The value is that we deal at times and without warning with classified information and we cannot go in and out of session and clear the room and then go through the process again of making sure the room is ok to discuss classified information. It is a very practical matter. They came up twice this year again, classified information. It came up last year at least twice as i remember. We have to be able to function. Take the time of going out of the room, clearing the rim and coming back. We dont have that kind of time and its not practical. Answer in addition to that. This may shock you, but there is a propensity of elect did elected officials to elaborate and roar on nonessentials when you guys are not around. Are around. Guys slightly different answers. Ofdid you find any sort [indiscernible] we just did not make a decision. We dont require nor do we prohibit. [indiscernible] funding,e shifted the but we dont tell them they must retire. In terms of additional funding for the Armored Vehicles , did they get that again . What, how much . Do we know offhand . A small amount, apparently, a fairly small amount. For critical parts. Critical parts. Has anyone not had a shot at us yet . Ok, go ahead. [inaudible] asked. You i almost included that in my Opening Statement but i cut it wert. Here is what we did. Have a provision in the bill that authorizes keyword, authorizes the department of defense to train and equip carefully vetted elements of the Syrian Opposition so that they protect the Syrian People from the kind of horrific attacks we have seen from the includedre is also certain kinds of equipment, authorization for certain kinds of equipment as well as training. The equipment part specifies certain types of the event which we are authorizing, not requiring, not mandating. I finally did