tv Washington This Week CSPAN July 21, 2013 1:00am-6:01am EDT
commitment to a new nonracial democratic south africa. a better world for a freedom- seeking people of the world over. this was such a special time. this was such a special time. people, for all of them, wish to say on this day, happy birthday, madiba. your life, your legacy will be a beacon for all times for freedom seeking people to struggle towards. especially in the hearts and minds of so many. thank you. [applause]
>> the free south africa movement represents the collective strength of all of the people who took the immortal words of frederick douglass to heart. all those people who believe that where there is no struggle, there is no progress, took action wherever they were, inspired by the people of southern africa, and the imprisonment of leaders like nelson mandela, all of us everywhere, doing what they could. we picketed in bad weather. we filed legal briefs. we packed supplies for refugees. we drafted legislative language. many of us, like many in south africa did not live to see a free south africa. many more did not live to see this day. i would like to ask you on their
behalf to take a moment of silence, for those we lost are too many to name here. all of them are remembered. thank you. in the spirit of our common ancestors, and our future descendents, we thank you in this emancipation hall. we thank president mandela, and the people of southern africa, for bringing us together, reminding us of our common humanity, and teaching us to say the struggle continues. [applause] >> i let bill have my glasses. what i'm going to do is tell you two stories.
happy birthday president mandela. he would understand why i am telling you these stories. and what they mean. the first is that when we, randall and i we went out to talk to the press, and they left us in there. when we kept having a frank exchange of views as it were, with the ambassador, and then looked at each other and said to him, we are not leaving, i may say, we are not leaving. we are not leaving until you free -- call them and tell them to -- to free nelson mandela. and all the people who have been
detained. we are not leaving. he looked at us and he berated me and said how can you be at a civil rights commissioner and telling me we are not leaving. >> i just told you. he said, you're a congressman. he didn't say that to randall. i don't know what he thought. he said, i'm having you arrested. i guess he thought we were going to be scared. randall looked at me, and we just laughed. then he had us arrested. the rest of that story is history. we did not know the importance. we didn't know whether this was going to work. we had no idea whether it would work at all. we tried to be strategic, and we
try to play, but we didn't know what was going to happen. we did it because -- those of us who did it to free africa from racism and apartheid. the whole story max told you. about the history of the whole thing. we did it because it was right. it took off all over this country. people all over this country joined us. for almost two years, since we have told you with the ordinary people do, they want to get arrested. so many people, my goodness. we could not imagine. we met every day at my house in the morning for almost two years to plot and plan the day.
the smithsonian museum says they want my table that we sat around. erwill give it to them aft i'm dead. [laughter] every day for almost two years. but it worked. we got sanctions. i'm telling you that story. the second story, president mandela would tell the story, we tried to go on occasion after sanctions were passed. to see what was going on. needless to say, they would not give us a visa. we couldn't go. we could go for this, we could go for that. finally, we decided some of us to tell them that if we went there and things were better, we would announce publicly that
things were better. they believed us. [laughter] we got visas. we went to south africa. we raised hell all over south africa. [applause] we said free nelson mandela. when we finally got to cape town, we went to a hotel and we got a call one night. the ministry said, you can stop raising hell. he is coming out tomorrow. [applause] so, we told all the people who were working in the hotel, and work stop. there was dancing and singing, may spread the message. the streets were full.
we partied on my long when we waiting for long nelson to get out of jail. the next morning, i went over to the mayor's office where he was to be brought, and waited for him there. then finally, after all those years, of marching and singing, and even before that, i spent my whole life saying free nelson mandela, and apartheid, the door open, and this man came in looking like he looks, vibrant. not debilitated. we all worried about him. he came in, and he walked up and he hugged each one of us, and thanked us. we sat down, and we sat on the floor around him. we talked about the struggle.
what had been done. finally, he just said, this is only the beginning. then he went out to speak to the people. some of us climbed up in the windows in the mayor's office to look out the window behind him, so we could be behind him looking down while he was speaking. i climbed up in the window and hung out the window. he spoke. then, shortly after that, that same day, i had reason to come back to the united states. i had classes to teach. the enormity of what had happened, those two years, the people, all over the country, it didn't hit me until i was -- i have been so exhilarated by this working together on the
struggle. i hadn't thought what amounts. i was in the transit lounge on my way back, and the tv was on. i hadn't seen him come out of jail. we did have a tv in the mayor's office. it was playing. i wanted to see him walk down the street, holding hands. on the screen, he was walking down the street, holding hands. i started to cry, and i couldn't stop. people thought i was crazy. but it hit me. what this meant was this, the power of nonviolence can lead -- can make what seems impossible possible. that evil will triumph over
he opened his speech with words, it is a fact of the human condition that each shows a brief passing moment in space, across the human stage, and passes through existence. i do not often say that of nelson mandela, but he was wrong. he will not simply pass out of existence. even today, as the angels wrestle with his soul, he refuses to pass simply out of human existence. is it is reported that he is watching television with headphones on. [applause] he is also thinking that
generations will allow him to pass out of existence, because for as long as their struggle in the world, for as long as this country has the absence of peace, for as long as people are made to feel inferior, nelson mandela, his legacy and his life will not pass out of existence. [applause] if nelson mandela could see what is happening in congress today, he will know that he can not pass out of existence. if he knows that over this time, people are gathering to celebrate his values, then he will know that he is not going to pass out of existence.
all over the world, people need his values, and his legacy, not as a museum piece, but as something real and living that we can use in our everyday lives. i have come to give thanks. i want to thank the leaders of the house and the leaders of the senate for putting together the celebration of the life legacy, and values, of nelson mandela. i want to thank you. as congress, welcoming him in 1990 when he still was on your books as a terrorist. i want to thank you -- [applause] for the congressional medal of honor that you have this code -- bestowed on him when he was a prisoner.
i want to thank you in 2008 for the removal of nelson mandela from the terrorist watch list. [applause] i want to thank you, and single out in 1986 the late congressman rondell ends -- ron dowland's for the comprehensive apartheid act. against great odds, overriding the veto of the white house, in saying that your house beats where the ordinary citizens, i want to thank you for that act of courage, because
only four years later, nelson mandela walked out of prison. eight years later, we had the first democratically elected presidency. thank you for what you have done. [applause] i have to thank you for other pieces of legislation that you have passed through these houses. the african opportunities act has kick started south africa on the brink of prosperity. today, you do nelson mandela, you do south africa, and you do the african continent great honor by reverberating it's worth in these houses. by making the african drums sounding as wonderful as they
are in africa, and bring the great jazz music into your houses today. i want to thank a group who cap the umbilical cord going from the days of slavery to the times of segregation and the civil rights struggle, through the anti-apartheid struggle, to every instance of racism and injustice, every instance of inequality. they shine the light. thank you very much for your commitment. [applause] i believe that none of those instances where he was welcomed into this house would have been possible if there are not been a conscience call the congressional black caucus.
i also want to thank the african diplomatic corps. [applause] you represented the people of south africa where the official -- thank you very much for being a clear voice to all of us. i also think that we must thank the people of the united states of america. we have heard from some of them today that i think that will we have seen is an energy, and most important way, the conscience that transcends notions, consonants, color, every difference that is possible in
the world. i end by quoting from nelson mandela, the second time he spoke in these houses. he received the congressional medal of honor on the 23rd of september, 1998. nelson mandela said, "honorable members, i do not expect to be grounded -- granted the privilege of addressing the representatives of the united states of america again. i am grateful to have been allowed to do so in the last months of my public life. we face the future with confidence. we do so because despite the difficulties, and attentions that confronts us, the e's and -- ease in all of us, the capacities to touch one another's heart across oceans, thank you americans for allowing
nelson mandela to touch your heart across oceans and continents. [applause] >> as you're standing, we invite you to join us in singing happy birthday. we want to lift our voices of -- so he can hear us across the ocean. this is a song stevie wonder wrote during a time when we were trying to get martin luther king holiday pass. happy birthday to you. ♪ ♪ happy birthday to ya' happy birthday to ya' happy birthday.
birthday of madiba.lord, we are mandell for and for his willingness to serve his generation, and your purposes, by striving to create a just society, moving his nation from rancor to reconciliation. as we receive inspiration from his exemplary life, remind us that what we do for the lost, lonely, the last thomas and the -- the last, and the least, we do for you. use us to hasten the day when
justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. bless him, keep him. touch them even now with your healing hand. let your face shine upon him. be gracious on to him. lift the light of your countenance and give him your peace. we pray in the name of him who declare you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free, amen. ♪
[applause] >> president obama honors former president george h.w. bush. then policies with a representative camp and senator baucus. after that, a discussion on immigration. of the houserat energy and commerce ranking member representative henry waxman. he talks about the president's climate change and the status of the keystone pipeline. on sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern.
>> good afternoon everybody. on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. 23 years ago, president george h -- h.w. bush began a tradition. he knew that across the country, every day, americans were finding ways to serve each other, and give back to their communities. often with few resources, and little recognition. president bush knew that their good works were valuable. the people they helped. he created an award, the daily
point of light award, to recognize americans to serve their neighbors and communities in innovative ways that inspire us all. for the rest of his presidency, nearly every single day, president bush gave someone a daily point of light award. after he left the white house, he kept going and going. in between skydiving and other activities. he kept going. [laughter] it should come as no surprise. we are talking about somebody who has served his country in such extraordinary ways. when you do a parachute jump at the age of 85, not just a parachute jump, but another parachute jump, this is somebody was not going to slow down anytime soon. today, we are extraordinarily honored to be joined by the
family that helps build the points of light foundation into the largest organization that is dedicated to volunteer service. president bush, mrs. bush, we want to welcome you and recognize michelle nunn. the ceo of points of light. applause here. [applause] this is not the first time he and i have come together for an event like this. four years ago i went down to texas a&m, to help celebrate the 20th anniversary of points of light. i appreciated the warm welcome by which i mean, the loud howdy i received. [laughter]
i was impressed by how invested the students are in community service. most of all, i was moved by how much they loved president bush. we have come together to mark another milestone. as of this minute, 4,999 points of light awards have been presented to individuals and organizations across the country. i have the honor of joining president bush in presenting number 5000. [applause] about 10 years ago, they had been farming for years. then their friend told them of a special place they should visit along the way.
it sounded like a detour. when they arrived, the country was in a brutal drought. people were starving. many were children. having seen this, kathy and floyd had to do something about that. the vision of a leisurely retirement was replaced by new vision of fighting global hunger. today, they have distributed free meals to hungry children in more than 15 countries worldwide. more than 233 million meals. this work is the most rewarding thing they have ever done. i have to say, having just been
to tanzania, we can attest to how important this kind of work is. how it changes lives. it is a fitting that later this week, people around the world will celebrate the legacy of the magnificent public servant of nelson mandela. people look for examples, outreach, provides a demonstration of how service lights people's lives. if the purpose of this award is to celebrate americans who work to make americans lives better places, i cannot think of anyone more deserving than kathy hamilton and floyd hamilton. before we actually present this award, i would be remiss if i didn't take an honor to honor the man that made this all
personal -- -- to take an opportunity to honor the man that made this possible. i'm not sure he appreciates how much she has done to help the service. he championed and signed the national community service act. by washington standards, it was a modest law. it involved little money. looking back, we see that it has sparked a national movement by laying the groundwork for the community service. it gave tens of millions of americans meaningful opportunities to serve. today, thanks to those programs and others like them, and thanks to the passion of leaders like president bush, a volunteerism has gone from something some people do some of the time to something lots of people do as a regular part of their lives.
since 1989, the number of americans who volunteer has grown by more than 25 million. service is up across age groups and regions. it is now a graduation requirement in many and colleges. it is embedded in the culture large and small. speaking for my family, volunteering has brought joy and meaning to michelle and me and our doctors over the years. i know that is the case for many of your families, too. this may seem ordinary too many americans, especially those who grew up during this. period.g this we can say we are a stronger force for good because more and more of our people serve. for that, we have to thank president bush and his better half, barbara, who is just as committed as her husband to service and dedicated her life
to it as well. [applause] the presidents who followed president bush had a good sense to continue this work and not just because one of them calls him dad. [laughter] even after leaving office, president clinton and both president bushes have come together to help people affected by national disasters here at home and around of the world. a reminder that services not a democratic or republican value, but a core part of being american. at the white house today, we are proud to carry forward of that legacy. i created the office of innovation and civic participation to find new ways to use innovation to strengthen service.
we expanded the office of neighborhood partnerships originally created by george w bush which works closely with community organizations across the country to help americans in need. today i want to announce a new task force with representatives from cabinet agencies across the government to take a fresh look at how we can better support services, in particular on some of our most important national priorities. improving schools, recovering from disasters, remembering our kids. this'll be led by my team here at the white house along with wendy spencer who is here. she previously led the group in florida for jeb bush. we have the whole family working. [laughter] in times of tight budgets there are very tough problems. we know that the resource we have is limitless energy. when we harness that energy and create more opportunities for americans to serve, we pay tribute to the extraordinary
examples set by bush. to close on a personal note, i am one of millions of people who have been inspired by your passion and commitment. you have helped so many americans discover they have something to contribute. that they, too, have the power to make a difference. you described those points of light. the people who are spread out across the country who are like stars brightening the lights around them. given the humility that has defined your life, i suspect it is harder for you to see something that is clear for everyone else around you and that is how bright a light you shine. how your vision and example have eliminated the path for so many --have illuminated teh pa the path for so many others. how your love of service has kindled a love in the hearts of millions here at home and around
the world. and, frankly, just the fact that you are such a gentleman, a good and kind person, helps to reinforce that spirit of service. on behalf of all of us, let me just say that we are surely a kinder and gentler nation because of you and we cannot thank you enough. [applause] it is now my great pleasure to join president bush and all of you in presenting this extraordinary award to an extraordinary couple who have done so much for so many people. we are grateful to them. will you please step up and receive your award? [applause]
chosen as the 5000 daily point of light. not in our wildest dreams did we ever plan to be here or even imagined receiving this award. in fact, after being in business for 34 years, he was relaxing and sailing around the world. in 2003, he was asked to build a hospital. that changed everything. when we got there, we saw children dying of starvation. there was no food and no money. three little boys who were scavenging for food ate something which was poisonous and that they died. we left for home, overwhelmed by the need and by our need to do something about it.
we knew we had to send food to help the people of the village. we packed our first 2000 meals with volunteers. we discovered that people loved to help and to give and to pack meals. we started an organization called outreach. each day we took another step toward a bigger operation. one day, we had no intention of -- but which we were compelled to expand. we had to help and others were eager to help us. each labor day volunteers all
over iowa helped pack 4 million meals. in the united states and canada, tens of thousands of volunteers of all ages and nationalities have helped us to pack a total 232 million meals so far. [applause] as we have seen time and time again, when people give of themselves, when they share the burden and they share the task of solving it, like shines. -- light shines. love grows. all over the world and here at home. thank you so much. [applause]
>> now i think we will have neil come up. >> my remarks are to say something nice about neil. [laughter] it is not hard to do. he has been very active helping others. it is my privilege to introduce neil. i thank the president and mrs. obama for this wonderful hospitality. it is like coming home for barbara and me. for the rest of you, it is like
i do not know if you have noticed the socks, but gq men were calling him. [laughter] you have said if one wants to pursue a life of meaning and adventure, the weight to do so is to find the dignity and goodness in every person. to to help others in need and to become part of something bigger than ourselves. you and mom have lived an incredibly meaningful and adventurous lives. thank you for inspiring so many. that is an applause line. [applause] on behalf of the entire bush family, a special thank you for inviting us to this most special place. and for your outstanding work to promote movement as a national priority.
you understand and you spoke of the fact that services is one of the things that truly brings our nation together. it transcends all it takes. it addresses problems that government alone cannot solve. we are so blessed to have two to have have you and to points in your own ways. we thank you for your leadership in this area. [applause] today we are celebrating the 5000 daily points of light that represent the 65 million americans who engage their cells in the lives of others every year. these are what my dad calls the soul of america. years ago, dad asked us to imagine what would happen up all the points of light award winners decided to leave their hometowns and move together into one place in america.
i imagine if she used her retirement funds to start a brilliant -- and taught the children computer skills. and the pro football player got them all reading books. and kathy helped feed and nurture the young people. intervene with trouble youth and teach for america arrives and corporations faith, use, senior groups, organize volunteers to work with charities to tutor, to clean, to mentor and serve as points of light. regardless of its problems, a community like this, one where every person gave even a small part of their time and service to others would be truly and utterly transformed. that is our mission. too deepen the culture of -- to deepen the culture of service that drives
change. that is the power of the daily point of light program. before you left the white house you spoke to all of the award winners and said, if i could leave but one legacy to this country, you brought up the l word which he never does in private. it would not be in treaties signed or wars won. it could be a return to the moral compass that once drove the country. a respect for goodness that makes this country great. a rekindling of that light as lit from within. to remake america as it truly is, a country with millions of points of light. thank you to all of you in this room. i could go on, but dad told me to keep it short. i won't. [laughter] thank you to all of you who are points of light. those who we recognize with the daily point of light award and
who have not found recognition but are solving the biggest challenges facing our nation. to all of them, we say thank you. [applause] you are cutting into my time. mom is looking at me. stop the applause. [laughter] now it is my pleasure and i'm truly honored to serve with such an astounding board, to introduce the ceo of points of light. a true leader. >> thank you for your boundless optimism and you're incredibly gracious spirit and leadership.
i think we share a number of things in common. one of them is that we have no- nonsense mothers. thank you for your lives of service. we are so proud to carry on your legacy and proud to continue to give out this award that you created to showcase the power of people to create change. the daily points of light gathered here today, i think are a beautiful tribute to your lives and your work. thank you to president and mrs. obama for sustaining and dramatically growing national and community service. you carry on a tradition of leadership, calling on americans to use our compassion and ingenuity to put them to work and serve our nation. over the past three decades, our presidents have shown us how we can work together through service.
they have literally rolled up their sleeves and called the nation's volunteers. from building houses with habitat for humanity to rebuilding after disasters to joining hands to support our veterans. i believe it is in these humble acts of serving others that are president, the most powerful individuals on earth, have demonstrated america's true strengths. they have made it clear that when there are people in need, americans come together across all that divides us to help. when there is a job to do, to clean up the mississippi river or rebuild after a super storm, we do not ask about political parties or fate or income. income.ith or when it comes to ensuring that people get food and shelter and a helping hand, we get together and we get busy. the daily points of light award
calls the nation back to an essential understanding of who we are as americans. it was resident bush's genius to genius tont bush's put a daily spotlight on these individuals and actions that embody the very best of our nation. the award is the antidote to the cynicism that often pervades our news and our discourse. it reminds us that people care and that hope is the true story of america. for 24 years, 5000 points of light have shown us that we can create a better future together. i want to introduce you to two points of light. can you stand? [applause] a few years ago, he broke his glasses and while he was waiting
for a new pair, he realized how hard it was to learn anything without being able to see. he discovered how many kids cannot afford glasses at all. so he started a project called sight learning which has collected and distributed more than $350,000 worth of used eyeglasses to students in half a dozen countries around the world. thank you. [applause] darius, can you stand? [applause] like so many points of light, he has transformed personal tragedy into a platform for serving others. he was four years old when his father was murdered. he spent 11 years in foster care without encouragement. and then in high school a biology teacher told him that he had great potential and that he believed in him. one caring adult who believed sparked him to pursue
scholarships and grants. not satisfied with his own personal success, darius wrote a book and in just one year, he helped thousands of students get the scholarship that they need. congratulations. [applause] i would like to invite all of the points of light award winners who are with us today to stand so we can recognize you and celebrate your contributions. [applause] thank you, all.
you and so many others across the nation are examples of america's greatness. you show us that we can create an impact at a scale and speed that was formerly unimaginable. the future of service is individuals have more power to create change than they ever have. and each new points of light will make that future brighter still. it is for that reason that i am thrilled to announce today that disney is making a significant investment to help ensure that we are able to lift up the next 1000 points of light. [applause] so, president and mrs. bush, we can hardly imagine the transforming changes in these next points of light will bring. but i know they will illuminate our task, they will carry or word your spirit and they will reflect on your legacy of service.
they will show and live out your example and your words, president bush. they will show us not only what is best in your heritage but what all of us are called to become. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, michelle, for your outstanding work to all the points of light recipients. we are proud of you. congratulations. keep up the great work. you inspire us and make us want to do that much more, especially when you see young people who are already making such a difference. it gives you enormous confidence that america, for all of its challenges will always me to them because we have this incredible character.
with that, i want to once again thank president and mrs. bush for their outstanding leadership. we are so grateful to both of you. i want to thank neil for his leadership and i want to make sure that everybody enjoys a reception. i suspect the food may be pretty good. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated until the official parties have departed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> on the next "washington journal" we will talk news and public cosi on the white house and capitol hill. our roundtable guests are robert raven and brian walsh. then a discussion about race in america with the nation institute michael denzil smith and rated tv talkshow host and columnist armstrong williams. "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> on monday, the carnegie endowment on international peace discusses the israeli- palestinian conflict. they include former u.s. president jimmy carter, former resident of finland, and they former foreign minister to algeria and special envoy to
syria. this is the elders first public event in washington. you can watch a live starting at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span two. i decided that he was the subject for a biography when it on don made that he had been not only at abraham lincoln's dead site uniquely after his assassination, but also at the bedside of william mckinley and 1901. i thought who could this fellow be? of course, when i opened the archives, i realize what a rare subject it was. his life really has two bookends at either end of his biographical show. it is lincoln on one end. he was president lincoln's personal secretary, private herbert cemetery.
he lived in the white house for four years. and on the other end of his life, he served not only under mckinley, but after mckinley's assassination, he was the secretary of state for teddy roosevelt durin. so you have these wonderful iconic bookends of american history. then you realize that all the chapters in between that in american history, from the civil war to the beginning of the 20th century, he is a presence in every one of those chapters. his fingerprints are on all those pages. in many cases, he has written those chapters in american history. >> john oliver on the life of on c-ay sunday at 8:00 span skew and eight. .- on c-span's q&a >> and now i talk on tax policy. bys is part of an effort the to committee leaders to get support for updating the u.s.
tax code and one of many planned events around the country. from the economic club, this is 45 minutes. >> for those that are still eating, do it quietly. the chairmen of the economics committee in washington, i would like to introduce those that might not be familiar, senator baucus is from montana.
he is a native of montana, and educated at stanford and a law degree, going back after he got his law degree. he announced not long ago that he will not run for a seventh term. i think he will feel the joys of liberation at that point. the chairman of the finance committee is now in the middle of all the things we will talk about today. congressmen camp is from michigan and represents the fourth district of michigan. he has been a member of the house of representatives for several terms since 2011.
when he first became the chairman, is that correct? he will serve through the end of this congress. there is a term limit for leadership in the house ways and means committee. he would be serving as the chairman of the ways and means committee unless there is a change at the end of this congress. and returning after law school to michigan. both of you gentlemen are doing something very unusual in washington, getting together with both parties.
a bipartisan -- if there is any chance that the democrats and republicans can get a comprehensive tax reform? >> it has not been brought up everyone knows that the code is dated. 15,000 changes to the code since then. there are a lot of provisions and it is compared to other we have to be much more competitive with respect to
the code. other countries have modernized the bears. i think people are extremely -- 90% of americans want to fill out their tax returns with turbotax. beyond that, here we are. republicans and democrats. it was different and it was very political. >> if you were a betting man, would use a 50-50? 80-20? >> i would say about above 50%.
>> the chance of getting something through the committee in the house of representatives. >> that is indefensible. people do have the sense that if they knew somebody in washington, they would be paying a lower rate. there is a real sense of unfairness and people are getting a special deal. all the changes the last few years and the other reasons, we have not seen -- there really is this need for growth, and the complexity is enormous. people are afraid they are going to get audited and of a very well may be. but the concern is that people have this huge stack of papers. even small businesses.
there was a man come in with one retail store and he was $9,000 in tax preparations. the cost of compliance is enormous. there is a huge sort of complexity laid over the nation's that is really unproductive. it is really important we look at this. i do think it is over 50%. i know there are a lot of businesses -- there is probably a center working together that is important. -- senator working together that's important. they are excited about doing it and i think they believe that this country needs this. i think if we can get the economy growing, it is among young people and very high.
many of us have kids in the age group. you don't get hired. to give people the ability to start and get on the road to prosperity or success, i think that is important. >> tax reform is corporate and individual. you're talking comprehensive. some people think tax reform means raising revenue and others think it means revenue neutral. >> both. >> ok. [laughter] both, okay. same bill. [laughter]
>> both. >> democrats generally would like to raise revenue, is often said. republicans often say, over my dead body. how're you going to deal with the gap between revenue and no revenue? >> we meet weekly. working together on this, it is a great reduction. the bill will probably have some revenue. the house probably will not. we meet, have a conference --
>> let me ask you about the process you just mentioned. revenue-raising bills are supposed to go first from the house, and that would mean the house bill would pay us first. it might be politically difficult, is that going to be hard to do? >> we meet regularly and are both graduates of the super committee. we have been talking about these for a long time. we think it is regular order. we both have been meeting regularly and i met with every member of the ways and means committee. lots of listening sessions and the members from off of the committee and on the committee. i think together we have had more than 15 hearings.
in 17 years, between the senate finance and ways and means committee. how do we get the policy right? how can we develop the policy along the way? in that area, a lot of this is not as hard as you might think. it is not about how we figure out how to make that happen. >> do you agree that the house will have to go first? >> you don't agree? [laughter] >> we agree on a result. the revenue bill, i think it makes sense for us to look at that.
will that help the bill's success? >> you can argue about the affordable care act. >> we both agree that whatever avenue it takes to get this done, we are willing to try. i really like tax reform and i want a revenue neutral bill. >> this is different from 86. president reagan was a big driver of tax reform.
president obama is not pushing as strongly. >> if president obama were to be out in front -- and i think it is good that he is aware it is. they have done it frequently. >> they let you move forward, they won't send a bill. are you planning to have more grass-roots hearings around the country? >> yes. >> any place? >> next we will go to philadelphia.
>> who testifies? any citizen? >> they are not formal hearings. our approach is to do things a bit differently. we want to talk to the country, not just regular garden variety hearings. we're going around the country as well. the twin cities, 3m, a larger company and another smaller company. we will talk to somebody that sent us a very interesting
submission. >> in washington, we call them tax expenditures. the biggest expenditures are mortgage interest deductions or charitable interest deductions or municipal bond deductions. those are the big four. which of those are going to go away? [laughter] >> do you have a preference? [laughter] >> i have some, but to be serious, you probably can't eliminate all of them. should the pain be shared on all of those? will it likely go more than one? >> not to cause nervousness in the room, but not everything is a tax expenditure. we both agreed to not take the
current code and the clean slate >> in your respective committees, giving you ideas of what they want to see or not see. how was i going? >> not only are dave and by working together, but the ranking republican and i are working together. let's get rid of all tax expenditures, roughly $12 trillion over 10 years. start there, what's that used for? rate reduction? revenue reduction? almost entirely rate reduction.
i have asked for submissions that they are starting to do that now. i expect i will get them near the end of this month. senator hatch and i are working together. and we are keeping them confidential because we want to encourage candid conversation with our members. >> they will make time for the bill? >> he says, max, tell me what you want me to do. how can i help you? >> people talk about the value- added tax, something we don't have in this country. is that something you would even consider?
is that not in the ballpark? >> there was a senate vote on that. if there is another type of taxation, or some of these other ideas that are out there, as long as the joint committee on taxation scores this, and it meets the benchmarks, we will consider that in the committee. we have done a process different than the senate. we have had 1300 submissions on that. we've compiled that in a joint committee report. >> there is so interest to do
what you just suggested. part of it is getting down the members and find out how much support there might be. >> in the last congress the congress agreed to increase the capital gains rate to 20% read 20%. is it likely that we'll ever go up again in this reform bill? could it go down? [laughter] would you like to say it is not likely to be changed? [laughter] i can try. >> marginal rates could go up? >> everything is on the table. >> i'm not going to get meeting specific pre->> growth and simplicity, and revenue neutrality, those are the things that are the benchmarks we're
trying to look less -- look at. >> let's look the affordable care act. your committee is done with that. the president is going to postpone implementation for one year. does that concern you? >> we just had votes on this yesterday. there was a part of this and -- a bipartisan vote to repeal the individual mandate. i think there is a lot of concern. i think there are some a democrat supporting the individual side. i think even though we had assurances that this would be implemented on time, it is not moving on time. there are problems with it. i think this is clearly an indication. basically, this is going to destroy the ability of working americans to have health care.
i think that these problems have to be admitted. we need to look at it. gilly bill that reduce premiums the only bill that reduces, how to get premiums down. >> medicare is said to be one of the biggest problems the federal government budget because it is growing at a large rate. are you planning to do anything on medicare in this congress in terms of dealing with the problems there. >> amiga back to the last question. david and i are on track with tax reform. we have a different view on the affordable care act. i believe that it was hopper for the ministration to delay it for one year the employer mandate.
it is a big ask. i support the bill strongly. a couple of years work to get past. individual mandate is morbid interval part -- more of an integral part of the statue. it is important that young males sign up, so that health care is provided for everybody. i have spent a lot of time on implementation. i want this bill to be implemented correctly. it is here. it is not going to be repealed. let's make it work the best we possibly can. that is the course we should take. >> on medicare? as are any solution to that in this congress? >> we announced a series of hearings on entitlements. there was a discussion draft on
the ideas that are out there. social security, and a lot of this has been discussed for many years. bowles-simpson, cantor, i supercommittee. a lot of ideas are there. now we need to set the committee structure that will deal with the background for that. i think there is different views on how to approach that. clearly that needs to be part of the discussion. those are going to have to be resolved. those might have an opportunity to come forward to help us resolve those issues. >> it is not too difficult conceptually. we have been on other efforts. bowles-simpson, supercommittee.
this is an interesting point. those efforts failed in part because two thirds of the members have no knowledge of the subject. they were not on corporations committees. they are not on the ways and means committee. two thirds of the time was educating members of the committee as to our appropriations provisions. we have had these meetings now. it is -- we tend to know what the major pieces are. if there is a role there, back to me put together pretty quickly important point is that the committees of jurisdiction are involved.
they are the committees that do now the ins and outs that are involved. >> both of you have served in the supercommittee. since they cannot come to an agreement, sequestration way into effect. do you think of the supercommittee, do think they would try to come up with a solution, with a, but the same solution? >> it is interesting. two thirds of the way through the supercommittee, we were getting very far. one of the cochairs didn't -- they had never met each other. that is part of the problem here. they don't work together very much. it is a process.
i'm encouraging all of us to talk to everybody. i am eating every single senator on tax reform. we put together burgers and beer twice a month. just get to know each other and talk. my point is that in the supercommittee, things get bogged down. the committee says, let them do it. they turned it over to us. we sat down, mccain up with the solution. it was not for drilling -- not $4 trillion. but we then had resistance. ?> other people in the congress
>> that this small group of people impose something on the rest of the congress is not going to work. i think one of the things that was important to do. to really involve members. this is something -- i do not think a reconvening would be helpful. that dynamic, that is why on the piece you're mentioning, we're doing hearings, putting out tax so that this is a possibility. it doesn't mean you're going to succeed. your chances are better if you have that process. you rebuild from the ground up. you get people involved. more and poorly, have interesting parties who are part of this. >> that is a good point. we get weekly members only to go to different parts of the code. because so many are new, or because -- it is a wonderful learning process. as a double-edged sword.
the good side is they don't know much. when we explain different parts of the code, we are mutually searching together to try to get the facts. it is bringing us together psychologically. we're building trust together. as dave's point says, the more it is going to help her. >> most numbers no -- know the provisions that is important to their state. no one is an expert on the entire tax code. it is important to have those opportunities to work through it, as opposed to imposing the solution. >> would you have the same view on bowles-simpson at the commission had been adopted by the congress?
>> many people -- it was a trophic service. bipartisan, address the debt problems. but it has changed a lot over time. there are different versions. many members of congress, they passed not knowing what was in bowles-simpson. if they knew the details, they would get hung up. i believe that we cannot just layer it on top of all we're doing. there was a lot of valuable work. does the committees of jurisdiction. they want to be involved. i think that is the process we're undertaking.
what has a better chance. >> when you join the senate in 1978, the chairman of the senate finance committee was russell long. how did the committee -- how is congress different than when you first came? is it much more rewarding question mark >> the committee is such the same. we work well together. that has not changed much. it is the congress and the town that has changed. that has some influence on the committee. basically, we are working together. we're trying to figure out how to put those pieces together, as
opposed to the judiciary committees and constitutional issues. >> when you came to congress, did they talk together more? is that a myth? >> it is not a myth. we talked more. i arrived, there was a room where senators only dined. only senators. it was a wonderful place to go just to see who was going to be in there. you would meet other senators that would meet. it is empty now. nobody goes there anymore. why? they are doing other things. they are going all to these lunches. were having lunch together saying all those people down the hall they are terrible.
and fundraising. fundraising pulls us apart. it is symbolic of how we just don't talk enough. >> it is not a big a deal because -- >> is it much partisan than you possibly could imagine when you join? wax obviously, the biggest difference is that i got on the committee in the minority. now i am in the majority. it was not exactly bipartisan. the chairman had proxy voting. was able to throw the president of the room and go back and write the bills.
it was a very different time. i do think that there was more discussion. a democrat was always very friendly to me. over time, there was less of that. that is why there was a ticket response to my my members on the bipartisan working groups. they were scheduled to meet. they actually, they enjoyed working together. i do think we need to get back to that rate over time, that has eroded. the houses more one-party rule in the the senate. that is the way that this whole government was structured in terms of that. i think that given that there is a republican house and a democratic senate, able to to be signed is going to bipartisan. it doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. that is what i think is important on this. we have had seven bipartisan trade bills signed into law. they were closely on those. i think that as a model of how
we could do these other things. >> our member, in the 1980 elections, the senate which republican. somebody said you're going to be chairman of the -- but was would tell russell long? the fact that both of you, unless there is waiver in the house, neither of you will be in the current position in the next congress. doesn't make it easier for you to get tax reform through? >> easy. i have much more time to devote to it. not campaigning. don't have to go out there with the 10 cup. -- tin cup. i'm doing what i came in to do. legislate. it is helping a lot.
>> when you retire at the end of the congress, do you intend to teach? go back to montana? what would you like to do? >> nice try. i do not know yet. >> you do run marathons. >> i only do 50. >> are you interested in having a waiver, or would use think of running for the open senate seat in michigan? >> we have two-year cycles all the time. there is no guarantee you're going to know the majority after two years.
after the house, make the most of the two years that you have. >> let's talk about trey for a moment. the administration would like to get the trade agreement and asia. it needs to do that that fast track authority. even you can get that through? >> yes. i do. we are going to see a bill by the end of the month. we talked about this just yesterday. our staffs, we made on issues relevant to our committees. this is clearly one. we are close to getting an agreement. >> we will work on it. it will get done. >> is the chairman of the finance committee, you meet lots
of people. business people come in. what is usually a persuasive argument to something? what you find this persuasive when you are people talk? >> like anything else, the truth. is it right? does it make sense? is it considered relevant? -- is it thoughtful? >> i think both were pretty and spyro we saw. -- pretty inspired by what we saw. we saw an incredible innovation, and the great things americans were doing. we heard about how the cold was making harder for them to do that. going to the bakery, for generations running the bakery, and how they been able to innovate.
when you can take the issue, and personalize it to make it understandable, those are the important meetings. that happens in meetings. you can get a picture of that as well. that is the trips that we're going to take going up. >> i was struck. 10,000 harvard business school grads. they said that the primary problem they have is u.s. tax codes. people around the world, it is a complexity. it is our higher rates. the most difficult problem they have is their tax code. >> let me address that issue. right now, some come to congress and say let's bring cash back overseas because we will have more cash in united states. let's have it brought back at a lower tax rate. the joint revenue committee says this money is going to come back
at a 35% tax rate. is it there it is going to come back? you are assuming it is coming back. it probably will never come back. you're never going to get this money. how do you solve that problem? >> in the house, i put discussion drafts out. i think it is critical that on a regular basis, companies bring back those dollars that they have earned overseas without a double tax. that is one of the areas where we are not competitive. we need to do that in a regular basis. it is out there. there is an ability to do that. we are obviously working through that. we have a lot of the back out there. it is an area that is very complicated. it is essential for us to compete in the world.
they think it is now almost $2 trillion. how can we get that investment here in the u.s.? we want these large multinational company's platform any edits its -- i've formed any night it states -- platformed in >>e united states. we are on the same page on that one. >> do you have a view on whether qe3 was a good thing? give a view on whether ben bernanke should have another term. >> that is up to ben bernanke. i think he has an a good job. i think quantitative easing has been helpful.it has been helpfu.
and european banks. we are concerned that potential long-term inflation, but i think he is on a super job. my understanding he is he would rather not have another term. the president asked him, he might have another term. i think he is in a good job. he makes the point that is valid, he is doing the best he can with monetary policy. >> what is your view of ben bernanke? >> i think a little differently. i think the concern about inflation and the printing of money is a fairly significant one.
again, it is not a total picture. we have a lot of work to do in the house in terms of the budget and the deficits, trying to get programs. as you look at that, tax reform is so important. if we get economic growth, we get jobs that will need more revenue. having gpd lesson two percent is -- having gdp less than 2% is completely unacceptable. we have a lot of quantitative easing. some was necessary. we're at a point where i'm concerned about the long-term aspects. >> if people are watching on c- span, and they're interested in tax reform, what is the best way to communicate with you and your staffs about the things you would change our ad? what is the best way to communicate with you. >> we have a website, tax reform.gov.
we are accessible. >> that is probably the easiest way. >> you celebrate your 60th birthday last week. >> thank you for reminding everyone. >> when you turn 60 years old, people, you all the time and say you look good today. you had a health issue a while ago. people would be interested to know, you doubtless non- hodgkin's lymphoma. >> thank you for asking. completed treatment, obviously there are many different kinds. the one i had was very treatable. the trip was successfully completed.
i had a lot of encouragement and support. if you know anybody who is going through something like that, don't hesitate. right then that card. it does help you if you're going to that you know that there are people thinking about you. >> you have served as distinguished careers in the senate and the house. knowing everything you know about what is to be a member of congress, would you have decided to do this with your career? is it where you're happy with? what has been the most frustrating thing about having this job? >> i when i have any other way. it is the best job in the world. i feel so lucky. trying to make a difference, there are frustrations obviously. the rewards, they have outweighed the frustrations.
i recommend it for anybody. >> but you have had your last election. >> i have had my last election. i'm looking at my next chapter. i wouldn't change anything. >> i may not have had my last election, so i'm may look at it a little differently. the thing that is most interesting is the quality of people, and the things they are doing. where you are exposed to so many different industries, and people from different walks of life. you come away with this huge respect for the freedom the country offers people, and what they're able to do with it. we have a lot of needs. not everybody is successful. i don't come from a wealthy district. it is important to see what this country can offer. i come back with a great respect for americans. most are not in the u.s. congress.
you do get an opportunity to -- >> we are the americans. we take that for granted. we are so incredibly lucky. ignacio people -- you do not see people in other countries. we are really lucky. in scripture, to those who have been given much, much less be given. as much must be given. americans, we have been given so much and we have an obligation to give back good and it is wonderful giving back. >> thank you for your years of service. thank you for what you're doing. thank you for being here today. [applause]
>> next, immigration policy with chicago mayor rahm emanuel and americans for tax reform grover norquist. later, washington journal live with your calls, tweets and e- mails. >> on the next "washington talk aboute will news, politics and more. our guest will be robert raven and brian walsh. then a discussion about race in america with michael denzil
and armstrong williams. washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span. the top democrat on the house energy and commerce committee henry waxman is our guest this week on "newsmakers." nine he talks about the employer man -- he talks about the employer mandates and the new health care law and the status of the keystone xl pipeline. watch sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> jackie was raised as her mother was raised. she was the same kind of wife and hostess. the home, the children, the entertaining with style and nash. that was her heritage and she did it again in the white house. ,ight after her administration during the johnson years, the
whole world erupted like volcanoes. we had the women who went to work and got divorces and demanded equal rights. we had flower children and we had free love and free sex. boy, oh, boy, was agreed to be young. i missed all that. [laughter] but the whole world changed and became a whole new concept of women. and i think mrs. clinton today represents the new woman. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, the to show bald was -- leticia baldrige, secretary to [indiscernible] monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> next, conversation on immigration policy with chicago mayor rahm emanuel and americans for tax reform president grover norquist.
this is about 55 minutes. >> thank you for being here. i have a privilege to engage in conversation with two people that are extensively to of -- ostensibly two of the most powerful political leaders. it is slightly an out of body experience. i did not know whether to sit here and have grover and rahm right next to each other. rahm, former white house chief of staff, three term member of congress, and now mayor of chicago. we do not do advocacy, but if you look at cities and their mayors and what kind of aims the chief executive -- kinds of things the chief executive of the city does -- what rahm emanuel has been doing, synthesizing the equation of what you're city will look like, it is an impressive arena.
of course, we have grover norquist, president of the americans for tax, encouraged by ronald reagan. i do not know whose idea the old was, but it worked -- both was, but it worked. i was with amy klobuchar recently. we interviewed her and she was telling us how grover was now getting hate mail by some of his own base because of committee testimony he provided on the joint economic committee that was very positive. i thought today "crossfire" is coming back on cnn. you have people with differences that bash each other without thinking. i thought today we would have a conversation. >> i am out of here. [laughter] >> rahm, forget your white house
role, but we are in chicago, thinking about how the equation with immigrants. as a mayor, how are you trying to change the game customer works a couple of the -- gain -- change the game? >> a couple of things that are fact, in the city of chicago, about 50% of all new business applications for licenses are by immigrants. that is why you cannot be pro- small business and anti- immigrant. they go hand-in-hand. we have cut our licenses denials by 60%, making it much easier to start a business -- 50%, making it easier to start a business card nearly -- business. nearly 50% of all new startups are by immigrants.
those of you who know chicago, you know the magnificent mile. the hispanic area, 26th street, the two magnificent miles, i call it, it produces the second- most amount of sales tax revenue for the city of chicago and the state of illinois. outside of michigan avenue, when you pull out high-end shopping, the most productive area from a sales tax revenue is 26th street, and it has people from all over the midwest that come in. on the weekend you cannot find parking in the city of chicago near or around 26th street because from as far as minneapolis, minnesota, to columbia, ohio, people come in on the weekend to get things they cannot get in their
respective community. those material fact in terms of what is happening in the city -- today, we send an executive order, creating what i call citizenship corners in every neighborhood library in the city of chicago. librarians are being trained to help people get their citizenship. we have kits that they can take home to promote the effort.
none of that takes place image -- a grand jury context. the fourth amendment applies to foreign countries, two of the american protections under the bill of rights apply, such as the second amendment? >> not necessarily. the fourth amendment applies to u.s. persons outside of the u.s., but it is not applied -- does not apply to non-us persons outside of the u.s. >> for the benefit of the uninformed, described for the committee the makeup of the fisa court, who sits on it, how it operates. >> the fisa court is made up of judges, article three judges, who have been nominated by the
president. they cover any number of different administrations. they have been confirmed in the senate for life appointments. they have their regular duties as district court judges. they are appointed by the chief justice of the united states to serve a term on the fisa court. there are 11 of them at any given time. each of them serves for a week at a time. they do not take care of their other core duties back in their home districts. they come and serve on the fisa court for that week, handling the applications. there is a staff as well that helps them. it goes through it. legal research assistants and clerks in this matter. these last four term of seven years that each judge can sit on a court. or one of theou members of the panel may have ,ndicated this, to some extent
there is confusion as to the number. there has been criticism leveled at the court indicating very few denials. earlieryou address that -- addressed that earlier. of denials is very similar to the same level of denials which is small for normal title iii. wiretap applications that are made to judges in regular courts. these are also done in chambers and with one party. the reason that the number is so low, first of all, under fisa. you have to have either the attorney general or myself or the assistant attorney general for the national security division sign off on the application. a very high-ranking officials in the department. those applications are done carefully. two, the court, if they
are not satisfied with an application, will tell us, and they will say, you need more information. you need more restrictions. you need more requirements. we will respond to that. unless we satisfy them on all of their requirements, they will not sign it. more often than not, we can go back and find the additional information that they will need. there is something of a process, but it is not unlike what goes on with the normal court every day in the title iii or the wiretap process. >> i see my amber light. i want to make one final statement. esther chairman, at some point, i would like to know the cost that has been expended in implementing this matter. if you would concur with that, i would pursue that at a later date. >> i do concur with that. that is a very important piece of information to have. i believe that is classified. a subsequentil
hearing that i anticipate we will have been classified setting where we can get answers to questions. >> good to have you with us. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> mr. cole, did i understand you to say that you did -- that you do not have an expectation of privacy? ruled thateme court you do not have a sufficient expectation of privacy in phone records. >> mr. douglas, you indicated you get the numbers, not the names. if the numbers are relevant under whatever standard you are using, why are not the names equally relevant? the names are can -- are not connected in the metadata. >> where is the limitation? >> we can through other legal processes. that is what the f the i will do.
-- the fbi will do. >> why don't you get it all at once? >> if i can answer the question, this indicates the fact that the deputy attorney general said, that this program is set up in such a manner to minimize the invasion of privacy. >> where is the statutory limitation? >> it is the fact that the collection is very limited. the access is very limited. up -- that isde because you made up the program. i asked you a specific row graham -- question. where is the statute of limitation? you are making it up as you go along. >> we are not making it up. we are seeking the approval of the court. this section has been repeatedly approved by numerous judges at the fisa court, found to be in compliance with the statute. >> once you get the information,
we know through the recent case on dna, once you get dna from somebody, you can use it in ways that you could have not obtained the information, but you can run it through with no probable cause or anything through the database. where is the limitation on what you can use it for? >> it is in the court's order. >> where is the statutory limitation? >> the limitation says we can acquire the information as ordered by the court. the court sets limits on what we can do. we adhere to those limits. a limit in criminal investigations or an exception for criminal investigations. probable cause? once you got the metadata, can you run on -- the criminal investigation without probable cause? be usedetadata can only in pursuit of a terrorism investigation, and the only thing that is done without his
telephone numbers are generated out of that for further investigations. it cannot be used for an investigation unrelated to terrorism. -- are youinute talking about minimization> >> the court's order provides that we can only use this data for purposes of a terrorism investigation. >> how does the court -- why is the court required to place the limitation? >> because the court looks at the application that we are submitting and determines that with all the restrictions imposed, this is a reasonable method of collecting this information and that it complies with both the statute and the fourth amendment. onis there an exception minimization for criminal investigations? g, minimization 2c, it says,
procedures that allowed for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of being, that has been, is or is about to be committed is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes or exempted from the minimization requirements. tothe procedures applicable this kind of collection allow it only to be used on the terms specified by the court, and that is limited -- minimization exception for criminal investigations does not apply? crimes --p over some >> we are not allowed to use this database for a criminal investigation unrelated to terrorism. >> mr. scott, i think -- >> that is not what the code section says. if that is what you want, maybe we need to change it. does the exclusionary rule
applied? if you trip over crimes and try to use it, including the principle of the poisoned tree, does that apply? to those exclusions apply to stuff you may trip over that you've gotten through this? >> we do not have the ability to trip over it. all of this data is is a series of telephone numbers and other identifiers. the only thing we can use this data for is to submit to the pool of data a telephone number or other identifier that we have reason to believe, based on articulable facts, is associated with terrorism. if we can say, what number has not number been in contact with, any further investigation has to be done under some other authority. chairman,gize, mr. but the minimization exception for criminal investigations -- when i asked the attorney general about what you could use this information for, he
specifically indicated criminal investigations -- section on the minimization procedures -- he's cynically said you could run a criminal investigation without the necessity of probable cause that you usually need to do to get information. thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemangnize the from alabama, mr. bacchus. >> thank you. let me start by saying i am satisfied at least from what limited knowledge i have that the motivation behind this was legitimate and necessary for our national security. to start this process.
of a court.hment testimony, you have apparently not abused individual right, and you have been effective for terrorism. my concern is this could evolve into something that is quite different. in england, the star chamber started out as a very good, very popular with the people -- it allowed people to get justice that otherwise would not. time into aver powerful weapon for political richard duchenne by the king. -- i was reading that said, iturt
symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. they talked about actually the right against self- incrimination. a direct result of what happened in england. when this court evolved into something quite different from what it was intended to do. my first question to all of you this from we keep weapon, annto a unchecked weapon by the government to violate people's constitutional rights? i am more concerned about americans rights. >> i think to raise an excellent point. the way this is designed to make sure that all three branches of government were involved, that -- are involved, that this is not just an executive branch doing it, this is something that is done with permission of the court and supervision of the court with rules begun by the court to make sure it comports with the constitution and the
privacy rights of u.s. citizens. it is done through statutes that are passed by this body where we report back to this body and tell you what we have done with it. know what problems we have had and how we fixed them. it is also done with a lot of oversight within the executive branch, with inspectors general, a number of different executive branch agencies that audit and oversee exactly how it is done and make sure it is done right. i think that is how. >> if i can emphasize one point on that, this committee has very important roles in ensuring that these authorities are not abused. we are required to report extensively on all activities under fisa to the intelligence and judiciary committees of both houses. required to provide copies of all significant opinions. we are required to provide reports about how these activities are carried out. we welcome your participation in that oversight to ensure that we
do not cross the bounds that the people want us to adhere to. anyone else? >> when i learned about this, i was not aware of it at all. i think the original response was that 14 members of congress knew something about this. were those reports erroneous? whatcannot speak to members actually knew. i could tell you what we did to inform members. the time when this legislation was first up for renewal in 2009, 2010, we provided a classified letter to the intelligence committees that described this program in great detail. >> how about judiciary? >> the letter was provided to the intelligence committee. the intelligence committee sent in all member letter saying, this available to all members.
we also offer classified briefings to members of this committee. i remember her dissipating in one of those briefings. -- participating in one of those briefings. by aetter was referenced member on the floor. we were not trying to hide this. >> do you have any objection to the court opinions and periodic reports being made available to all members of congress? i think we would have to take that back. probably know, but i think we would have to think about the implications. >> i think that is what my response would be. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. septemberking back to 11th, one of the worst days i
have ever spent in the congress, remembering that that weekend after the attacks, members of the white house, the intelligence community, members of this committee and our staff sat at that table. we sat around the table and worked together to craft the patriot act. that theth remembering original act was passed unanimously by the house judiciary. it had the balance that we thought was important to protect the country but also looking forward, to protect the rights of americans under the constitution. expressed byoncern mr. sensenbrenner that things have gone off in a different direction. has indicatede from alabama, i do not question
your motivation, which is to keep america safe and i know that that is what you are trying to do. certainly we all want that. statuteern is that the that we crafted so carefully may not be being adhered to as envisioned by us. i want to say this -- yes, we have a system where there are checks and balances, but part of legislative the branch needs to have understanding of what the executive ranch and what judicial branch is doing. we cannot do that without permission. it has been discussed that we get these ample reports. reviewed thely annual report on section 215. is it true, mr. cole, or isn't it true that the annual 215 reports to the committee is less
than a single page and not more than eight sentences? >> i think that the 215 annual reports are quite a bit less than the 702 annual reports. >> is that about the size, of your recollection? >> i would have to go back. report ofrue that the the number of applications really gives the committee information as to the amount of records and the number of entities impacted? the number of applications, is there a direct correlation between the number of entities impacted by those applications or the number of records? >> the number of entities will depend on how many phone calls. >> it would have no relationship to the amount of records actually acquired? >> it would not necessarily. >> thank you very much.
i'm looking at this letter that was sent to mr. sensenbrenner. i think him for sending it out. either way, he and i have sent a letter to attorney general holder and to director clapper asking that u.s. companies be authorized to publish information regarding the government request for user data under fisa. i think it is terribly unfair that these companies that are being discussed around the world have no capacity legally to say what has been asked of them. i know the letter was just sent. i would ask that you respond to that as promptly as possible. just out of basic fairness to the company's involved. -- companies involved. it seems to me, if you take a look at page 2 of the letter, it is the second paragraph -- it indicates that nsa has reported in the last calendar year fewer than 300 unique identifiers.
this means that only a small fraction of the records is ever reviewed by any person and is actually relevant to the records. indicates that getting all of the data is clearly not relevant to a specific inquiry. then if you go onto the next page -- this gets to my question , and you referred to it in the testimony as well -- the consistency allegedly with the constitution -- it is true that the constitution in the smith is nondicated that there expectation of reasonable -- reasonable expectation of privacy with information held by a third party. that that position constitutional provision trumps the statute? can the congress say, the constitution would allow you to capture every phone record,
every photograph taken of an american at an atm machine, because that is in plain sight, and that that constitutional provision would trump the ability of congress to say, no, we are going to authorize less? >> know, as long as whatever congress does is consistent within the bounds of the constitutional provisions. >> i would like to say, as to the fisa court -- i'm sure the judges take their obligation as seriously as you do -- the whole system of our justice system is set up in an adversarial way. when you have only one party, you do not have a party making the case before the court. that our system inl work well as it does other environments i think is misplaced. i share with mr. sensenbrenner the belief that this could not
be sustained. i look forward to our classified briefing, but i think very clearly that this program has gone off the tracks legally and needs to be reined in. i think the chairman for yielding to me. >> the chair thanks the gentlewoman and recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. i do not want to scream at you or you let you. we've got a lot of people across the country that would like to do that. the reason this room is packed so much today and people are waiting in long lines is not just about this program. they feel their country is shifting. long -- orightly are wrongly that this administration has adopted the philosophy that somehow the and justifies the means. -- the end justifies the means. they feel that this is an administration that has used tactical resources to avenue -- to advocate political agendas.
an administration that has decided which laws they want today, once they want to rewrite. they feel like more than any nation in history, this is an administration that is used its enormous power to permit agents to oppress and harass u.s. citizens. like we have seen with the irs. see this administration using this unprecedented amount of data collection, first in their campaigns, and then in government. every time they see benghazi, they do not know how many boards they are going to pull up. they do not know another one that i might see. there are other data programs do not know which -- no about. -- know about. over and over again, we hear the administration coming here and saying this to us -- they say, this is not illegal, and you
need to change the law. we need to emphasize, part of this committee, just because something is not illegal, it doesn't mean that it is not wrong. we look at something, you cannot come in here and explain what this program does. you cannot tell us how many people are involved with it. you cannot tell us with a court is saying. this my question for you, there has to be an in normalcy -- in enormously large amount of people administering this program. can you tell us something that has not been disclosed to the congress or the american people question mark -- people? it is hard to believe that there has not been some abuses. what is your process for collecting that information and making sure that abuses do not
take place? has anyone ever been disciplined for using that information? if anyone has that information, i would love for you to offer it to us. >> the questions, i think it is important to note that this program has gone on across a number of administrations. it is not unique to this administrations. it has happened in prior administrations. it is done not in a roadway -- rogue manner. it has been scrutinized. we know of no one who has ever intentionally, or in any kind of wrongful way, abused this.
there may have been technical problems. no one has abused this in a way that would be worthy of or cause disciplined. everything that is done is documented and reviewed. they want to make sure nobody has done the things that you are concerned about happening. these are valid concerns. this has to do with both the court and congress to make sure that these things do not happen. we have not, to my knowledge, discipline anybody for that. we make sure that this does not happen. we look for it. we look for it hard. >> i concur with mr. cole's remarks. there have been no abuses of 215.
in the summer of 2012, a report said that they had detected no willful abuse of the program. they will be identified in the same way that mr. cole talked about. not just at nsa, but between nsa and the department of justice. there were a number of opportunities to look at the misappropriation of the resources to this program. would people who abuse this program be disciplined? absolutely. >> i thought mr. snowden abused it pretty badly. i would love to have your responses, for the record. i do not want to abuse other people's time.
i yield back. >> can you respond to the gentleman from virginia's comment on mr. snowden? >> he may have abused his trust, in disclosing classified details of the program. >> with all due respect, that is what the american people are worried about. people are getting data and using it to disclose. for the life of me, i do not see how you parse this issue. that is what is infuriating the american people. they do not understand that if you collect this data, it can be used to harm them. that is what's concerning them. i hope we can get a more
elaborate or sponsor the record record.nse for the >> those of us who represent americans appreciate what the intelligence community does. the idea that the chairman and ranking members have held this hearing, the issue is that we have to do something. we have to do more to ensure the trust of the american people. one point that a ranking member made was that if we cannot prove the necessity of the metadata collection, why are we doing it? we must have the premise and respect for the civil liberties of the american people.
i pose the first question that deals with the idea that witnesses have testified that phone record data was recorded 300 times last year. how do you define necessity? someone wanted me to rephrase this. how do you define queries and justified that gathering? >> we have procedures, reasonable articulations standard. that is what we described earlier. the court also approves -- >> is approved based on permission of the fisa court? >> yes ma'am. >> the query is made without a
warrant? the preliminary oversight, if you will. >> that is correct. it gives us the power to do first analysis and, from those numbers, go out. that second connection of interest came across the federal bureau of investigation to uncover information for terrorist activity. >> once you do the query, what is the next step? >> there could be a second or a third query. that information is reviewed by an analyst and disseminated to
federal bureau of investigation. if they see something that is of interest to them. in many cases, nothing of interest comes up. >> the fbi is the investigatory arm. what is the oversight role, more specifically? i have introduced bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue of the fisa court. specifically, the release and reporting of nonclassified opinions. that would help the trust of the american people. will the justice department consider that? >> thank you.
certainly, we will consider that. our involvement is to make sure that the provisions of the statue meet the standards that have been set out. we are in the process of the application and making sure that the standards are passed by congress. we engage the court. what kind of oversight will be done? what kind of limitations will be done? we end up with a court-authorize system. that is where we go and have nsa make that determination. these determinations are done on a random basis to make sure that they are in compliance with what the court has ordered. if they are not in compliance,
we will report that to the courts. we will fix those compliance issues to make sure that they do compliant. -- comply. >> we have had a release of data and we have an individual who is traveling around the world. he is at a dastardly impact. can you speak to the impact. can you express the reason for contractors? i am asking for a study. >> i would say, the impact associated with mr. snowden's disclosures could be very
harmful. it is too early to tell. he could have given them a playbook on how to avoid intelligence organizations. we are concerned about that. >> on contractors, is important to differentiate between two different types of contractors. when lockheed martin builds a satellite for us, does the contract. i do not know the number offhand, but i will assume it is accurate. there is another category of contractors called for contractors. we have been working hard to reduce the number of core contractors.
as a result of what has happened recently, we are looking to reduce the usage of contractors. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to get that done. >> the time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> i appreciate this hearing. i remember, in your opening statement, you may mention that there was not a restriction on foreign intelligence surveillance prior to 1978. >> there was no judicial involvement. every nation that i know of does foreign surveillance. i do not know of other nations that have judicial interference with surveillance. are you aware of any?
>> other nations do not have their courts involved in intelligence activity. >> we are unique in that. why would be concerned about the manufactured constitutional rights of foreign persons in four countries communications with other form persons in foreign countries. if there is a nexus in the united states, would you agree that? >> from the point of view of the constitution, it is correct that for nurse -- foreigners are not protected. we do not go out indiscriminately. >> i understand the decency of the american people, but don't
we -- >> the operation of fisa has allowed us to collect the intelligence that we need. >> another way of asking questions about that, the phone company collects data for five years. if an agreement could be reached with the phone companies for a five-year timeframe, wouldn't that be a firewall that is more reliable than having a facility to store all that data? >> that is a reasonable question. the companies collect that data for their own business purposes. there would have to be a basis
in which you could compel them. >> a contractual agreement? >> liability protection. i'll leave the statute of to those who do that. if you had multiple providers, more than two, you would run pillar to post -- >> take a careful look at that and get back to me. you give me a good answer so far. >> yes, sir, i will. i would be happy to provide those -- >> let's check in with you mr. english. i'll point out this way, let's go to the list.
do we have the ability to, not this early listen in, tracked every phone call in the united states? do we have the ability to attract any e-mail and the united states? to have the ability to track website activity in the united states? do we have the ability to enter into active chat rooms and real- time monitor? do we have the ability to track any electronic credit or debit transactions? do we have the ability to locate cell phones that are active? do we have the ability to track gps locators on vehicles or other devices? and, i know my clock is running down, i want to put a little more and.
the obama campaign used data from voter suppression. the irs is targeting the president's political enemies. all these things are happening. if the answer is generally yes, i would charge that it is impossible to drive from bangor -- maine to los angeles without leaving a data trail. all of these things can be justified by statute and case law. >> if the predicate is, in the u.s., the answer would be no. is it technically possible to do those things, i would say no. the national security agency lacks the authority and collection to do the things that
you are talking about. >> i thank you and i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. >> eyelid to make a point -- i would like to make a point. this administration has used the ends justifying the means in said.reas.that is what he i believe you said that this administration is not different from the bush and administration. >> yes. >> the irs has looked at tea party and liberal groups that they felt was more than 50% political. it is wrong to question the president on those issues once
the facts have come out that it was not partisan. i take umbrage, on behalf of the administration. let me ask you this, mr. snowden, what security status did he have. he could see anything that you wanted to? was he limited in access? >> he had top-secret clearance. that is standard in the intelligence community. he had a system administrator privilege. if you go through information systems. he can move data around. >> generally, how many people are at the same level he was? >> i'll be general, tens of
thousands. >> tens of thousands of people could have done what edward snowden did? >> no, sir, i would say probably hundreds. like any organization, the nsa has a side of its architecture that makes information available. there is a free exchange of information. the production size is rigorously controlled. mr. snowden took ruthless advantage of the former. he did not have access to the latter, except in limited circumstances in the training. >> i asked, in a letter, about the background of mr. stone. --
of mr. snowden. i was concerned that a high school dropout -- not that there can't be great high school dropouts -- that's this guy, who wouldn't jump through hoops, was put into that kind of security level. i think that is questionable. is any of the work of the associate director contracted out? is that done by government employees? >> it is an inherently governmental function. determination of the facts and circumstances are such that some of that would be contracted out. we can provide the details -- >> doesn't concern you at all -- should it be contracted out? >> it should be retained inside
the government. production of information, in terms of conducting interviews and investigations, it can be conjured out to want to have higher trust. >> how did mr. snowden take this data with him? >> i do not know, precisely, how he did this. in due course, we will know. >> some type of a disk? >> i'd be speculating. >> should be changes in the procedures to make sure that people do not leave secured facilities? >> there are controls in the system. >> the judges come from
different administrations. would it surprise you to know that 10 of the 11 judges are all from republican presidents. >> it wouldn't surprise me either way. >> the chief justice is a republican appointee. he picked 10 of the 11 justices. go back over history. the same number of years. he chose republicans. do you think there should be some change to make sure that there is an ideological balance? >> if you answer the question.-- you can answer the question. >> we tried to take partisan politics out of the process. >> i think the panel. -- thank the panel. >> i thank the gentleman from
the volunteer state. >> thank you for being here. the chairman just mentioned the judge. i spent 22 years at the criminal courthouse in houston. i do not like criminals, at all. i have looked at the constitution and i have read it. the fourth amendment. the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. no warrant shall issue, except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be seized and the person or place to be seized. generally speaking, warrants are
brought to judges by law enforcement and the judge signs it or does sign the wards issuing the paper to go out and sees that person in that specific place. i have read that numerous times. i do not see in here, anywhere, an exception for national security. do any of you see a national security exemption to the fourth amendment? >> there is not a national security exemption, but, several courts have held that there is a -- that the warrent reuirement -- requirement of the fourth amendment does not extend to foreign intelligence. >> i understand your answer.
when i talk about foreign intelligence -- we are not talking about foreign intelligence. set that aside. lets talk about searches and seizures and the united states of american citizens. is there a national security exception to the fourth amendment that comes to american citizens in the united states? do any of you see that in the fourth amendment? >> again, there's not a national security exception. it is possible to have foreign intelligence collection against americans. i offered you a situation where an american was a spy for russia. we could be collecting valid foreign intelligence. there is word requirements for electronic surveillance.
with due respect, there are cases that say there are an exception. >> ok. we can argue until the sun goes down. the fourth amendment does not have a national security exception. that has been expanded because of fisa and court rulings. that is not the fourth amendment. i think that we should remember that the fourth amendment was written because of what was going on with king george the third and he was going into people's homes in the united states, the colonies in those days, and seizing things without a warrant. that is the basis of it. that is why we do not want to get to the points in this country, in the name of national security, that we hurt the fourth amendment. >> will the gentleman yield?
>> i won't, sorry. the former soviet union, when it was communist, i was he there. the actions of the citizens were constantly under surveillance. anything that was done, the government would say that they are doing it for national security reasons. because of those bad old americans. we go it's your home. we bruise the concept of rights in the name of national people who have their
have aolated -- do they a governmentainst the for improper seizures of their records? >> you may answer the judge's question. >> it depends. if it comes from a third-party, it is not their record. the phone company could challenge the subpoena. they would be in a position to thatenge that abuse.-- use. >> i thank the chairman. i have another question that i would like to submit to the record. >> i'm confident that one of your colleagues will you you time. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> to follow-up on the the principles that you were just
talking about, are you familiar of the case -- with the case of smith versus maryland? it has to do a telephone records. >> that is correct. the question is, is there a fourth amendment privacy interest in telephone records. how did the court rule? >> the court ruled that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, because they belonged to the telephone company, not the individual. >> is that case of applicable to the issue of collection of metadata? >> yes, sir, it is. >> is the collection of
metadata, domestic to domestic metadata, not content but, metadata, domestic to domestic and foreign to domestic. that is the program that edward snowden revealed? >> that is correct. >> he also revealed the prism program. it was a program that enabled the collection of internet metadata, not content. >> that is not correct. >> explain it to me -- >> i could refer to some of my
colleagues, prism allows the collection of content. it is only content of non-us persons who we reasonably believe to be outside of the united states. >> so, that is the prism program. it collects data, including content, from foreign communications. there is a minimalization effort to limit foreign to domestic communications that were not relevant to national security. >> that is generally correct. generally, that is correct. >> that program, certainly, we do not want our adversaries to know what we are doing.
to watch them. to surveil them. we need that to be secret. with respect to data collection of domestic to domestic metadata, why is it necessary that the american people not know of that program? why does that program have to be confidential, classified, secret? >> i can give speculation. the more people know about the way we go about identifying terrorist networks, the more they will avoid the kinds of ways that we used to do that.
they may avoid communicating through phones. >> if they cannot communicate through phones and the internet, what will they do? take a can and attach a string and attach another can? >> they may find other ways or mechanisms >> it will be a cat and mouse game. >> that is correct. >> the american people should know the activities that affect them. the collection of telephone metadata, the government is collecting this information creating a database with which it can use to investigate information that is acquired
from foreign sources related to national security, terrorist acts. the american people may conclude that they want the government to collect the data. if they do not know that the government is collecting the data and they find out after it is leaked by someone who thinks it is illegal, they find out and that way and then they lose confidence in their government. is that the situation that we find ourselves in today? anyone? >> time is expired. >> by the way, i am a former jurist, too. -- judge, too.
>> please except my apologies, >> i think that is always the kind of issue we wrestle with, try to balance the need to protect the secrecy of some of these programs so they will be effective with the need to be as transparent as we can about it because that is the kind of society we live in where people participate in the decisions of government. it's a difficult balance to find. that is the one we're trying to find right now. >> the chair recommend -- recognizes the gentleman from idaho. >> more important than balancing those needs is balancing our liberties with our security. that is what we are all secured concerned about. we are creating a system that allows the government to collect everybody's metadata.