tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 5, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
-- poorest. the secret things that escape and that is because so many people have access to them. that is one point i think we're trying to make and when people talk about the use the word catastrophe or the fact that there's been this catastrophic loss, people compared it with mclean and burgess, philby, all kinds of things. that was done to the original beat and that was the 29 year-old who was one of hundreds of thousands of people had access to information and i'm sure that something that everyone must now be considered what to do about it. >> in respect to what was said to her sister committee the intelligence and security committee, you were criticized. your newspaper was and the decision you took by the heads of the security services, and this is your opportunity to answer them. mr. andrew parker described what you and your newspaper did as a
gift that our enemies needed to evade us and to strike us at will. and i'm sure you've heard this phrase before. john's lawyers, the head of mi6, said that our adversaries were rubbing their hands with glee. all heads of the secure the services were very clear in their evidence to the intelligence and security committee that you have damaged this country as a result of what you have done. clearly other editors took the decision as well. we know it's been in the "the new york times" and the "washington post," el pais, le monde and other newspapers but they're not be forced today. be recognized what you have done? d. except that this has damaged the country? that this is a very criticism that i haven't seen before from head of our security services? >> i think it is important context that editors of probably the world's leading newspapers in america, the "washington post" and "the new york times"
took virtually identical decisions so this is not a rogue newspaper. it is cities new papers have long dealing with national security. the problem is they tend to be very vague and they are not rooted in the specific stories. you have quoted to you. i would like to quote for people back at you have told you personally that has been no damage or cannot seem to get evidence i think leslie from norman baker, the current home office minister. he said he'd seen no damage. >> yes, that's right. >> the second person we've consulted as a member of the senate intelligence community, so somebody was sitting in oversight of all the intelligence has seen it all. said to us, he asked not to be named, we asked him because we want to know this, and have you seen anything "the guardian" has published that is caused damage? and he said, i have been incredibly impressed by what you've done, how should have done. you have written about the scope
and the skill. i have seen nothing that has done this -- i have seen nothing that you've done has caused damage. a senior administration official in the current obama administration told us last week, he said i've been incredibly impressed by the judgment and care that you would expect from a great news organization. and, finally, a senior whitehall official at the heart of these stories on september 9, i have not seen anything you have published to date which is risked lives. so there are different views about this and i listened with respect to the give you have given, but i don't -- >> but you disagree with an? >> it's not that i disagree. it's impossible to assess because no one is give me specific evidence. >> the real criticism is that the information you contains the names of individual sector the officers and this has been sent around the world, sometimes pay for by "the guardian," and these names are of our security officers, people who were there
to protect our country. that's what you damaged the country, because others who don't have security clearance have been able to read these names, know who they are, possibly know where they live. that is the damage that they allege you have done. >> we have never used a single name. that i think is the crucial bit. we publish no names and we have lost control of no names. it is never been a secret of these documents containing names. a lot of them are powerpoint presentations given by named individual. from the beginning of june when they published the first presentation we redacted name of somebody. but it was apparent that these documents had names, and when the material was seized off david miranda under the terror laws, it's apparent from the witness statement that the government knew then or i would say they knew already that we discussed the use of names with a cabinet secretary when he
visited us in mid-june. so it's been six months when it was apparent that have been names in these documents. i told the cabinet secretary personally we are sharing this material with "the new york times." on july 22 i did the editor of "the new york times" phone number, e-mail address and stephen engelbert from propublica. not once in six months -- >> you can guarantee and often a difficult you can guarantee you're telling this committee you can guarantee the security of all these names of these officers? >> your original question was the copy "the new york times" has to i believe that is being held securely, yes. >> all the copies to anything under your control. have you guaranteed that these names will not leak out? >> i can only talk about the copies under the joint control of "the guardian" and "the new york times" and i can say -- >> you can guarantee it? both the criticism -- >> i just want to add in that
six months it would have been open to anybody from her majesty's government to come and ask about the names, and that hasn't happened. >> has anyone asked you to destroy this information or handed over? >> it's a matter of public record the cabinet secretary came and asked me to destroy the entire cache of documents, so yes. >> but you haven't done so? >> no. that is also a matter of public record. >> let me ask you finally before i go to other members of this committee. some of the criticism against you and "the guardian" have been very, very personal. you and i were both born outside this country, but i love this country. you love this country? >> how do you answer that kind of question? >> we live in a democracy. most of the people working on this historic our push people who have families in this country who love this country. i'm slightly surprised to be asked the question, but yes, we are patriots and one of the
things we are patriotic about is the nature of the democracy and the nature of a free press and the fact that one can in this country discuss and report these things. >> so the reason why you've done this has not been to damage the country. it is to help the country understand what is going on as far as surveillance is concerned and? >> i think there are countries and they are not generally democracies where the press are not free to write about these things and with the security services do tell editors what to write and where politicians do censor newspapers. that's not the country that we live in in britain. it's not the country that america is, and it's one of the things i love about this country is that we have that freedom to write and to report and to think, and we have some privacy. those are the concerns that need to be balanced against national security its no one is underestimating. i can speak for the entire
guardian staff who have families who live in this country, that they want to be secure. >> thank you very much. dr. julian huppert. thank you for coming before this committee. i hope we'll have a similar cooperation from the intelligence and secret services because they would like to ask questions. it should just be the people they trust to answer questions. could also place on record with the think "the guardian" has done a great service to the public debate in this country? i have put that length elsewhere and we've had debates on it. you have published very selectively. you have taken off these documents and publish those. if you hadn't come when you're given a document should refuse and send them back, do you think -- what do you think would've happened to the information? wouldn't have been silenced or would've been published in some other mechanism? >> well, that's what a one of the initial context to be
understood. by the way, i don't think there's an editor on earth who, offered his platoon, would have sent it back and sing. most editors, we are leading editors in the world who talked with difficulty of handling secret material and they were all familiar with doing it. they all said they would've done what "the guardian" did. you look at it and you make judgments. people talk about mass dumps of data. we publish i think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 plus that we have seen. we have made very selective judgments about what to print. what would've happened if we had sent it back? that's the whole point of my initial point, that glenn greenwald have this material in rio. laura poirtras had a copy in berlin. the "washington post" had a
copy. the thought that this material wouldn't have been published is ridiculous. >> as you know there's a da-notice system in the uk which is intend to prevent people being put at risk, particularly where there's real risk to life. have had any conversations with the da-notice secretary and have they told you that the material would pose a risk to life the? >> yes, we have. out of all of the stories that we have published, i think that are about 35 of them, we have, i think we've gone back and counted it, on all the stories we have consulted with the relevant authorities. bar one, which was the first story we published specifically about gchq which i think was on june 16. and the reason i didn't consult with the da-notice committee was a fear of prior restraint, which
exists in this country but not in the united states. since the pentagon papers case in 1972 it is inconceivable that any american government would get prior restraint of a publication of this material. that reassurance doesn't exist in this country. indeed, we were directly threatened with prior restraint by the cabinet secretary and so i didn't seek the advice of a da-notice on that story. i have engaged with air vice-marshal vallance since. he would confirm we have been in touch since. there was to some extent a misunderstanding which he said extended to the prime minister. i think there was misunderstanding by the da-notice committee because the prime minister talked about threatening people with a da-notice is. that's not actually how it works. air vice-marshal vallance says the misunderstanding is that he would've kept the material
confidential from the government. so we have, in fact, collaborated with him since he's been at "the guardian" to talk to all of our reporters. >> did he give you any feedback as to whether what you are publishing posed a risk life or not? >> he was quite explicit that nothing we have seen contravened national security in terms of risking life. he was explicit about that. that's not to say that he would give us a complete bill of health on things that appear downstream, but nothing he saw had risk to life. most of the time when we run him up and put stories in, his response is, there is nothing that concerns me there. this stuff might be politically embarrassing, but there's nothing here that is risking national security. >> it seems like you followed established procedure for the vast majority of these things. you touched on issues which are
fundamental national importance. really fundamental questions about the future of surveillance, how much -- information that wasn't given to us on the committee this day to go and whole range of things about the future of privacy in the digital age. in germany there is huge interest in the subject. in the u.s. there's huge interest, armamentarium to try to revisit legislation and responses from the president. why do you think there's been so little interest your? a few of us managed to secure this one big parliamentary debate, but otherwise what we have seen, even there, was a tax on "the guardian" rather than parliament trying to work out what the rules ought to be. why do you think that is the? >> shooting the messenger is the oldest diversionary trick in the book i can explain why some people have not taken interest in this. might experience is that when you speak to people about and explained issues, a deeply interested in it. and as you say in terms of the broader debate, i can't think of a story in recent times, i don't
think of any store in times that has ricocheted around the world like this has and which has been more broadly debated in parliament, in the courts and among ngos. roll call of people who have said that there needs to be a debate about this include, i count, three presidents of nested, two vice presidents, generals, the security chiefs in the u.s. are all saying, this is a debate that inner suspect we know that we have to have. to our members of the house of lords, people who have been charged with oversight of security measures here, the former chairman of the ifc, tom kean, said this was a debate that had to be had and they had to review the laws. the director of national intelligence in the u.s. said these were conversations that needed to happen. so in terms of the public
interest, i don't think anyone is usually questioning that this leads over the hurdles of public interest. >> thank you. >> mr. rusbridger, you authorized files stolen by snowden which contained the names of intelligence staff to be key medicaid elsewhere, didn't you? yes or no? >> i think a party that without. >> would you answer my question? >> i think it has been known for six month of these documents containing names and i share them with "the new york times." >> do you except for me that if a criminal offense under section 58 of the terrorism act 2000? >> you may be a lawyer, i'm not. i will do that to you spent 50,000 plus files were sent or communicated by you as editor-in-chief of "the guardian." you cause them to be communicate it and they contain a wealth of information. it was effectively an i.t.
sharing platform between the united states and the united kingdom intelligence services, wasn't it the? >> i'll leave you to express those words. they are not my words. >> you decline to answer that. very well. but that was information which contained a wealth of data, protected data that was both sacred and even top secret under the protective classifications of this country. >> they were secret documents. >> secret and top secret documents. to you except that that information contained personal information that could lead to the identity, even the sexual orientation, of persons working with an gchq? >> the sexual orientation thing is completely new to me. if you can explain how we've done that then i'd be interested. >> in part from your own newspaper on the second of august, which is still available online, because you refer to the fact that gchq has its own
private group for staff. and i suggest to you that the data contained within the 58,000 documents also contained data that allowed your newspaper to report that information. it is, therefore, information now that is not any longer protected under the laws of this country and that jeopardizes those individuals, does it not? >> you've completely lost me. there are gay members of gchq. is that a surprise? [laughter] spent it's not amusing, mr. rusbridger. they should not be outed by you and your newspaper. >> i don't think speed is what about the fact that gchq organized a trip -- >> hold on a second. >> either you're going to answer the question or you are not spent if you let me answer, i will answer the question. >> the mention of the existence of a private group within gchq,
if you go to the stonewall website you can find the same information there. i fail to see how that touts a single member of the gchq spent you said it was news to you so you know about the stonewall website, so it is not news to you. it was in your newspaper. what about the fact that gchq organized trips to disneyland and paris? that's also been printed in a newspaper. does that mean if you knew that information including the family details of members of gchq is also within the 50,000 document, the security of which you have seriously jeopardized the? >> again, your references are lost to me. the fact that it was a family outing from gchq desisting land speed do you except these files contain methods of trapping cybercriminals like pedophiles and hackers? >> well, the only story that has been identified to us that resembles that description is the story about tor, and i would
welcome the opportunity to talk about that. >> no, i would rather you didn't. i don't see any need to further publicize the information. what about the location of safe houses and other safe locations, secret locations? 50,000 documents that contain that information? >> if you don't mind me just referring to tor, because we are in danger of having a rather analog discussion about the digital age, the point about tor is not that anybody who is interested in this would've learned nothing from "the guardian" that is not available on the tor's own website. so let's get real about this. there is nothing "the guardian" published that is endangering people in the way that you talk about that is not there already. >> it isn't only about what you have published. it's about what you have communicated. that is what amounts are tantamount to a criminal offense. you have caused the
communication of secret documents. we classify things as secret and top secret in this country for reason. not to hide them from "the guardian" to hide them from those who are out to hamas. you have communicated those documents. >> mr. ellis, is that a question? >> if you would note about the enigma code during world war ii we just transmitted that information to the nasty? >> that is a well-worn red herring, if you don't mind me saying so. i think most chose to make a distinction between the kind of thing that you talk about the enigma code of the kabul on the troop ships. this i is very well won the cup has been built with by the supreme court and that you learn when you do your in cpj course. i can make those distinctions. thank you. [inaudible] the law may have been broken? >> no. >> have you been told by members of the board of "the guardian"
newspaper that your job is on the line enacted with a spare? >> i think you are under some misapprehension. >> i'm asking you a question. >> the board of "the guardian" newspaper if you understood the structure of "the guardian," has no jurisdiction over the editor of "the guardian"'s pick i think needs to be your final question spent know, i think it is less than six minutes spent mr. ellis, order. i am chairing this thing. this is your final question. >> this is not a labour of love in, mr. rusbridger, and i'm asking questions i think he thiu should edge. did "the guardian" pay for flights by david miranda to courier secret files of? >> we paid for his flights. he was acting as intermediary between -- >> so you did pay for those flights? have you been accounted for as a business expense, those flights? is the uk taxpayer funding a tax break for the transfer of stolen files a?
>> you may not be fully with the tax laws, so i think we'll move on to our next question or. spent i don't think why you should move on. >> order, mr. ellis. mr. winnick. >> perhaps you're fortunate not to be in a moscow courtroom in the 1930s, mr. rusbridger. were you surprised at the amount of intelligence gathering which was revealed as result of what snowden gave to your newspaper and other media outlets? >> i think many people are staggered by the amount of speed you yourself, if i may interrupt. were you staggered and surprised? >> i was staggered. i think we all knew that the intelligence agencies collected a lot of data, and people are still trying to make out as though nothing has changed in the last 15 years since the laws
were passed. we have a lot of analog laws that deal with the digital world. i think the last series law that was passed about any of this matter was 2000, which was at a time when facebook hadn't been invented and when google+ to doing its initial funding round, and were pretending that the laws that covered really crocodile clips on copper wires are stretchable to do with the collection of maybe 3 billion phone events and the metadata around those a day. so yes, i think there is a staggering amount of information being collected which is a surprise even those who pass the laws that apparently, apparently i say, authorized the collecti collection. >> would b it be right to sentee the reports have occurred, while some senior american politicians in congress denounce, as one would expect, snowden as a
trader, others have expressed surprise that their own country has been involved in such intelligeintellige nce gathering on the sort of extensive scale a snowden has revealed a? >> the people who are most disturbed by the revelations include the people who passed the laws that are being used to justify it. so congressman sensenbrenner who is a white ring -- white wing republican who drafted and passed the patriot act gives the first person out of the stock to say that he was appalled that the patriot act that he drafted was being used to justify what he regarded as un-american. come to your question, mr. chairman, about patriotism. he was appalled. he said this is not what i intended by the patriot act, and there are currently three bills in congress which are being proposed to limit --
>> arising from stoughton? >> arising from snowden and arising from snowden through newspapers and through our publication, which are being used to limit, and these are cross party bills, to limit what's going on. you are quite right to say that people have been extreme surprise at what's been going on and in congress, at least, there is meaningful oversight where people are now trying to place some limits on what has been going on. >> coming to her own country, which is it is change the course of the day, whether the oversight insufficient, and the subject of course of the recent public session of the intelligence and security committee? i'm sure we were all impressed by the robust questioning which took place there at the time, but do you feel that it has changed the course of this particular debate how far parliament is inadequate at this stage to deal with such a vast amount of intelligence gathering
involving many people who are not public figures? >> i think it's absolutely impacted on that debate. i think there are many parliamentarians who are anxious, for instance, about what they were told during the passage of the data communications bill and the so-called capability gap, and were rather appalled to learn -- appalled to learn that stuff that they were being asked to pass were already done and that this information wasn't shared with him at the time. i think it comes to the heart of parliamentary oversight and whether what it is done in the name of parliamentary oversight is remotely adequate at the moment or whether it is well resourced enough of whether they have the technological expertise. i would just like to quote one little section from -- we've now spent about 10 minutes in this committee discussing leaks that didn't happen. a catastrophic leak that did happen was dealt with by the isc
with the following exchange. chairman, can we assume you're having discussions with your american colleagues about the hundreds of thousands of people who appear to have access to your information? head of mi5. off we both were involved in those discussions. thank you very much. [laughter] that is the only question that has been asked in parliament about the loss of 50,000 documents through a data sharing scheme between gchq and nsa. if that amounts to oversight, the amount of oversight, the budget for oversight even now is 1.3 million pounds, supposedly a secret incidentally, which is i think about a third of the amount that the council spends on car parts. >> the prime minister in the chamber said that he wants to reach agreement, or words to that effect, with "the guardian" that if "the guardian" is not willing to see the point of view of the authorities then, with
reluctance, other measures may be taken. presumably he's referring to the notices and the rest. can ask you this question? how far do you feel that there is a threat to the newspaper if you continue to publish revelations from snowden lex do you feel under pressure? >> things have happened in this country which would be inconceivable in europe or -- parts of europe and in america. they include prior restraint. they included a senior whitehall official going to see an edit to say, there's been enough debate now. they include asking for the destruction of our discs. they include mps calling for the police to prosecute an editor. so there are things that are inconceivable in america under the first amendment. >> are you under pressure yourself? you feel this pressure from the
government? >> i feel that some of this activity has been designed to intimidate "the guardian," yes spent thinking. we must move on but before we do are you telling this committee that as a result of parliaments go to oversee the security services and the failure to have the necessary expertise and good to have a sufficient budget, that's what you are obliged to publish because had you not done so, nobody would've found out about this? >> the only way any of this admin has come into the public domain is through the press. >> we should look at our structures better? >> we should and america is. when senator dianne feinstein who is the malcolm rivkin equivalent in america, who has been supporting the nsa for about three months, the merkel telephone call happens. they didn't know about that, and she said at that point, it's abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary. so that was the oversight
committee saying, we had no idea what was going on, and that must be true of our own -- >> i'm sorry. in respect of our inquiry you think would be good if this committee looked at the structures of oversight as part of a counterterrorism structured? >> absolutely. .. roughly the same time we were doing that at the capitol
secretary have contacted her. >> you referred earlier to material given to the "washington post" and material with "the new york times." to that remained of your control? >> yes. the material was given to bart gellman. material at "the new york times" is a joint patrol with myself in the editor of "the new york times." >> when you say you lost control of the data, does not include the period one the data was with fedex? you admitted to using that to transfer information. >> no data was lost. we lost no control of no data. no names were leaked. >> previously used that i was sort of naturally refer to material while it was under my
control. is that what you're saying? >> said we have at last control. the reporting of setbacks transition was perfectly exaggerated. it was reported that tens of thousands of documents, including my five and mic files. it was a small amount of material relating to one story that was anchored to to arrive safely. >> you referred earlier to the information having commenced at the guardian, the washington post, in germany. are you saying that all 53,000 files begin with each of those four places? >> can you repeat the question? >> the guardian, the "washington post," rio and great world has
heard it in each of those four plays this? i'm wondering, are you saying that all of the 53,000 files had started in each of those places? feedback i don't think we know exactly who has what. i'm the only person who has that. >> was there any information which you had at the guard and the great world had? the night i don't know who that was in the initial -- >> why did "the guardian" transfer information at all? >> well, i don't want to get too drawn into the methodology of how we work.
>> how you communicate this information. >> yeah. i cannot be entirely sure what mr. greenwald had separately from us, what is encrypted in different ways, what is held in what ways, what he has or not. i've seen him on the public records say they have complete set, but i don't know that to be true. >> have you not been a public record that the files are sent via that "the guardian" shared with "the new york times" were a set of documents "the guardian" have and you did not? >> i don't want to repeat myself too much. i know that mr. greenwald has material that was given to him directly. i can't tell you exactly what we gave him that he didn't have already.
>> do you consider that you have communicated information on the identity on the house adjourned diction -- [inaudible] >> well, i'm trying to make myself clearly. i think it is unknown to the government, apparent to the government for many months that the material that mr. snowed in leaked included a good many documents they had names of security people working for both the nsa and gq. as i said and i will say it again, i told the cabinet secretary in mid-july that we were sharing this with "the new york times." >> which you would expect
constitutes sharing. >> a work in new york, yes. >> one of the reasons i brought this book along with me today. should be familiar with this. the people who remember the mid-80s on a cabinet secretary traveling to australia to try and suppress this book, which was written by a former mi-5 agent. we had this ridiculous sight of the british government secretary trying to top the public from publishing something in that authority been published in australia. it was very much in my mind was the ridiculous situation we would even if "the guardian" was the only publication in the world that was not able to publish the material that was being published in rio or germany or around the world. >> final question. you have a thing, mr. rusbridger, a history of criminal offense. do you consider that it would not be in the public interest
that they get to prosecute? >> i think it depends on the idea of free press really. and america, the attorney general, eric holder, came out within the last two weeks and set on what he had seen so far, yet no intention of prosecuting glenn greenwald. his attorney general at the u.s. he won't prosecute any journalists doing their duty. in new york, within the last month, and i debated the general counsel at the nsa, stewart baker. he said he makes absolute tension between what snowden did and what journalists did. that is protected material and the guidelines here they down during the levinson process will
weigh very and highly in any deliberations he takes. >> and resolve can also make a distinction between journalism and what he was engaged in and that "the guardian" was doing the distribution when trafficking across international borders of that information. >> for sharing that with journalistic colleagues at "the new york times" in order to stimulate a debate, which president and legislators around the world think is vital. thank you. >> just to clarify, if they were investigation into "the guardian," i don't know. nobody has communicated with you are asked to any questions about this. i have seen scotland yard say they are holding an investigation into the matters. no one has told us whether that
includes "the guardian" or not. just for your own records in the public record, the committee has decided to call andrew parker, the head of trent by in open session next year. >> did you have advance notice of the questions were asking me today? [laughter] >> i was told the general areas of can turn that might come out. >> we are having an open meeting of the intelligent and security with their carefully manicured question and rehearsed answers. to a committee that is accused of being a poodle to the government, do you think this raises the question that the scrutiny provided by the committee is inadequate and we need to reform? >> well, as i said, i have lots
of people, including former chairs has been we need to relook at the oversight. he himself said he wants to look into his own committee. so i hope this will be an opportunity for people to talk about how it can be improved. there's no question that it should be. >> united kingdom government said it's very different from any government. thankfully the united nations repertoire and you pay the government responses i quote, unacceptable in a democratic society in "the new york times" that the u.k. government is challenging the idea that a free, inquisitive press. isn't that true? >> i think what has been going on in the united kingdom the last six months has dismayed
many people who could care about free speech and free press and that includes ngos. it includes at least two u.n. special rapporteur's. it includes many editors around the world. >> is the fact that a 29-year-old liar, 360,000 other people can access information suggests a potential enemies have access to it, to? >> it is in the witness statement that the national security advisor has been working on that assumption since snowden disappeared with the material. >> were you shocked by the revelation of the surveillance of allies by this country in places like the g20 01?
>> again, the question of the public interest, the fact that president obama effectively had to concede that his country has been again president merkel, notes a mile from australia but they were intercepting heat in his life. that was the thing that led senator frank to say she had to review what was going on with that knowledge. and then you're a member of the united states came out and said, okay, we will stop bugging these gatherings of the ims, the european parliament. we don't know. there is some specific organization. the bridge gilding and
peacemaking. after the world war, the united states that we won't debugging anymore,, which to me is an implicit admission that they were. >> due to the reaction that it has a new security and what to do with the fact that we traditionally have been secretly quite >> the committee were talking about earlier had just published their last meeting in november. so that's the press side and the official site. the vice chairman of that body, important to distinguish routine embarrassment and general concern. the vice chairman -- a lot of this is embarrassing because it's come into the public domain rather than national security. >> would you agree you performed
the legislatures of everyone out? a difficult question. >> there is no doubt in my mind. it's not blowing my own trumpet. >> please do. >> this has been a coalition of newspapers, including newspapers in europe. this is material. it's so obvious it is self-evident. the president of the united states calls a review of everything to do with intelligence and not information only came into the public through newspapers. then the newspapers have done some thing, which oversight else to do. that is served this country in the united states. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rusbridger, i'm interested
to understand when you came into possession of documents of this nature, which clearly indicates this worry for you, but also contain national security material. how do you go about judging what you can publish and what you can publish? >> i don't know of an editor in the world who doesn't agonize about these decisions in the way he would ask fact. we touched on it earlier. we all care about security. >> how is this case? >> i discussed this with colleagues who are some of the most asked eeriest colleague in terms of dealing with this kind of material. in the last six months there's spent more than 100 contacts with the official site of things. and america with the white house
and the national intelligence that the fbi with the nsa, the national security council and the pentagon. it is this country that is included to street, the cabinet office, national security adviser. so we have consulted on more than 100 times with the agencies . >> have you gone through the 53,000 documents and will they not be appearing to the publication? >> as i said, we have in terms published documents. i think we've published 26. and we've published a few more individual pages, which have been good. i would not be inspecting a to
be published in a huge more amount of documents. >> and what about the ones which have been communicated to the united states? i understand some of the names of the redact did in some of it hasn't. how did you go about deciding which aims to be redacted? let's be clear about this. "the guardian" has not use names. there's the rare occasion where we use individual flag from documents, which has names on it. we absolutely redact today. it has been said we use names. we didn't use names. >> i asked when you communicated that document in the united states and in some cases and documents you did redacted names in other cases you didn't. how did you decide?
>> iran. >> we have not used any names. >> the documents of other papers. >> yes, you're quite right. >> what issue is she right about, confused? >> at the risk of repeating myself, there remains in this document. the government has been aware of that. those documents were shared with the new your >> did you redact any of those names? he left those names as they were out of the country? >> did not use any names, either. >> did you have an agreement before used the document? and what about web the "washington post"? >> the "washington post" with the materials. >> okay, but you're working -- >> we are not working them. the only people we are working within america --
[inaudible] which is paul steiger who's got eckstein to his name and extremely experienced. the mac did you send documents to handle? >> i told you earlier, one story, it all number of documents. i gave the cabinet secretary his name. >> thank you. >> a quick question mr. reckless. >> why you didn't redact those names before "the new york times"? >> there were 58,000 documents. >> so in the public interest defense is not actually journalism, that he didn't have the time or resources going through them. >> there were conversations at the cabinet after terry, which
led me to think that it was wise to share this material. they attended by herself. how many people read their? >> i think two or three from "the guardian." >> you just broke up, is that right? >> it's harder to smash up a computer you might be. the food mixers -- [inaudible] >> if you have the documents anyway to publish them. >> well, it goes back to spy catcher. i was completely clear what the
cabinet secretary that there were copies elsewhere and that the destruction of these computers does not plan to stop reporting. i think that they still had with her instructions. i think that i accept this as a hard choice for the government. i think they were balancing a free press for security. i understand the nature, but the point was i think the alternative to having newspapers , you can criminalize newspapers that you like. the next edward snowden, the next chelsea manning will coach newspapers. >> it was just a public relations exercise. >> i wouldn't say that, but i was say their aim was to stop publication and to have a
dialogue with the sort we were having. mr. robbins witness statement makes it reasonable they didn't go for an injunction because we behave responsibly with the loss of control that document. >> thank you, mr. chairman. from what you said this afternoon, isn't the case case that you say that what you published or the newspaper published would not have caused any harm to any intelligence tests, nor put into the next and intelligence operations issues? >> well, i don't know. they would have come to me and said the specific harm that you have done. i've seen lots of people who have dealt with security agencies and seen the formal chancellor -- foreign office ministers, paddy ashdown who is a former royal marine. i think evildoers serious
figures, who had dealt with the agencies, who say we should always treat the claims of national security with proper. the only story which is a member of parliament has directly referred to was the so-called deacon net, which i'm happy to talk about if anyone's interested. >> thank you. second question is stay in anniston, the u.s. repertoire and counterterrorism just announced will be looking into this whole issue of intelligent and information given by the u.s. and the u.k. -underscore december said. they hold the government to account and some on suggestions from the tories and the investigation on the tabloid newspapers joining not.
are you welcoming the u.n. investigation into this issue about the whole issue about getting an offer of information to the extent that? >> absolutely. we just had a long debate about levin said. during that debate, we heard repeated assurances from all party theaters that the competitions for not interfering the press. and i seems to me a very close hurdle parliament is in danger of farming. as i say, i put earlier that the general counsel of the nsa, so this is not necessarily a friend of all journalists. he is a full-time bureaucrat. saying of course we didn't know this is public demand. i understand why intelligence agencies want to keep all this
stuff secret. but once it is in the hands of the prize, the nsa says the press must be given that it's a wonderful thing about america and a lesson which we are still learning in the country. >> my question in relation is they have been asked in the newspaper and others have expressed at times in the chair alluded to this about the question of the extent to parliamentary working of the security agency. indian parliament will not make its own division. you had on suggestions to a possible way parliament can in fact improve or have more oversight on what security agencies are doing? >> well, somebody has to hold the ring between this conflict in debates. we are not talking about on public interest here.
security is a very great public interest. notice contradict or not. as a public interest in privacy and the economic health of the economic basis of the digital economy in this country. it is dirty 6 billion is the likely damage to u.s. and u.k. companies because people are not going to trust these companies on the basis of some of the stories that have come into the domain. so i think oversight has to include people who need a privacy advocate. you need somebody asked turn all who has the technical knowledge, which i doubt many in the committee have. i have a small budget, 1.3 million i think there's all kinds of questions that parliamentarians have started back about whether it is right for this not to be a full select committee of the house, whether it is right that the chair
should be a former person who is dealing with intelligence communities and responsibilities for them and whether they have enough resource and so on and so forth. i'm hearing very helpful suggestions, interest and suggestions about how the ioc might be reformed as a result of newspaper coverage. >> thank you. thank you, mr. rusbridger. what is the sort appointed principal? is obvious is it that all government will govern intelligence and sort of keep that information secret. i think i saw truly that you're better place to judge what information should become public and say al qaeda is having a field day to help reagan's enemies feared the mac i'm not
claiming to be better placed than the security agencies. i'm just saying there's a broader debate on just security in the democracy i want to live in. the national security has been used to say i'm sorry, you can publish anything else because national security is going to trump all that. >> i'm not suggesting that people who are set of expert and trying to protect us all say this is stuff that shouldn't be in the public domain. how can you argue that you are the colleagues are better able to make a judgment on that, which obviously you do. >> well, let's talk about the toll story. a system of communicating encrypted for it was built at the u.s. navy and the senate
today by the state department. so that dissidents in old world countries. it's also used if we publish a story of the white house for three weeks to say this is a network among which still seems to be safe to use, is that a good word that? >> we use our judgment and come back to the earlier -- >> is one thing to report it to say this information is being guided in some report facts that this is happening. that's one thing. it's something very different to then transfer the information in a risky way, in an insecure way, which could put at risk, you
know, security personnel. these are two very different things. i'm not worried if the americans are embarrassed. you know, reporting findings and the way you manage it. >> exit your question to be the judgment of security, but you're making a different point now. >> well, all i can say is material we can talk endlessly about how the material held it. the only time the material has leaked has been from the nsa. you understand that point. >> what were some of those to duck it? i'm not clear why some of the names and some of the information was redacted and some other wasn't. is it because you didn't know what was the knowledge that?
>> redaction was of any documents that we publish that might have had a name on it. we have not used any names. in redaction, i'm talking about publish materials. >> and what was transmitted -- >> we did some cleanup, but we did not clean up every one of the 58,000 documents. >> i don't know. i don't know. >> i mean, you don't know -- i mean it was encrypted with the passwords to unencrypted on doesn't strike me as being the best sort of way of looking after secure information.
>> what you're saying is actually not quite right. >> if you read his witness statement, it's not quite right. what he talks about is the password file, which is a kind of index to other files. if you read the 11 days after the material was seized, it is apparent the encryption has not been broken and given some time later in which the case they make retaining the files is complete encryption that is being used. >> was any information taken home? >> on wikileaks come he says he took documents and you're absolutely certain good
>> we were not lined to the sensitivity of this material underwent more proportion than any other story we've ever had. this is not being carried around in that way. >> were any other questions towards publication. he said that there was one story -- or was that something else? >> no, that was the story come which follows under the category of national embarrassment than a of the g20 meeting. >> thank you. in your formal lecture in november 2011 company set out a number of criteria that
journalists must follow if they get called to increase behavior. "the guardian" has been commended by this than others. do you think what you have done means those five tests in regards to sufficient cause the integrity of motives and methods used that there is proper authority under reasonable prospect of success, have they met that? the night we met that this week. i think they're very good test. [laughter] >> versus, a dority, proportionality. 1%, not all of it. one of the things i had his were not going to use this for stories. there is stuff in there about iraq, dan. we're not going to look at it. that's not what edward snowden was doing when he went to responsible journalist to go to
this material. >> are you in touch personally with mr. snowden? i'm not. >> some analysis on your behalf like >> not since mr. greenwald left "the guardian." we will contact. >> you've indicated one question. we have the commissioner coming in. i'd like mr. rusbridger to rise for any reason that i don't like anything's going to. but we have another session on the cabinet here. >> there are many entries deemed -- the result of fundamental problem with the security system was day trust a problem but we can't prove it to you. there is simply no way to restore that process. my colleague earlier she do
anything to solve it. this is to argue for further legislation. what is the solution? how can we agree with the position where there's no way to establish it because we need to have that. how can we break that gap? >> well as quickly as possible -- [inaudible] in the real world, this is going to come back to parliament and congress, all countries with security will work out this question of oversight. but those committees, is means to me, must contain a technological challenge and civil society who can represent the public interest in things which are not purely security. >> thank you.
>> we return to this document called top-secret documents back to his flat, as mr. austin has pointed out here. in an online interview on its feet with the noranda come he said one of your stockers at "the guardian" was due to take stone files and got cold feet and was sent by federal express. did you know the federal express conditions of carriage include a section is a section 16 but that would be an unauthorized thing. my question to you quite frankly is buried in all of that in mind, do not accept that you have been at the very least woefully irresponsible this secret information and thereby people five? >> it is about wikileaks, not about this story at all. nothing to do at this story. i know i don't affect your
premise. >> the situation we go from here. the prime minister does not know directly in the house. some may dislike the intimidation. was "the guardian" published despite all the revelations from snowden? >> we have been working slowly and responsibly through this material is not the best journalists in the world. 100 contact with governments and agencies will continue to cover, but we are not going to be put off by intimidation, but nor are we going to behave reckless way. >> were question this committee should ask her bavarian and mankiw might the question. >> well, the question that
mr. huppert races at the end is a crucial one. you know, i've met most of the heads of agencies and i know that various people who think about these things, but equally it is apparent that intelligence services speaking generally have been a bit out of control that early because they would not be under the control of people who should have known about it. that is a dangerous state of affairs and it is true america is to some extent true here because the relationship between nsa. selecting the question ahead of mi-5 is what was raised. what of the four in which this can be meaningfully overseen with people who have understanding of technology you, adequately resourced and you understand the broader question
in the broader public interest of civil society, which earned a shred these questions. >> and you're quite satisfied that those who protect our country by gathering information, dealing with touristy denunciations that al qaeda, al-shabaab and other organizations have not been undermined by what you've done? should not feel they've been undermined at all by "the guardian"? >> the biggest trend is if you're working with situations who are trove old by what they see in troubled that the relationship to work out of in what engineers can i do, with president obama said they can do is supposed to but they should do. as long as you've got people amongst us hundreds of thousands of people who are so troubled that delete these massive databases to what the president says is necessary, then you got the security.
we're in danger of the world but there's no privacy in the security. they are conversations to be had as a result of what's been published. >> is to rusbridger, thank you for coming. >> order. can i have the commissioner, please? >> from "the associated press" this afternoon, the white house is pushing to extend jobless benefits to long-term unemployed american spirit of benefits under renewed red end of the month, more than a million people lose the assistance, which will slow economic growth. the congressional budget office says that would cost an estimated $25 billion. but estimates they would also stimulate the economy and create jobs earlier today, the house democratic steering committee
held a jobless benefits running out. here is a look. >> i have worked my entire adult life, having had three jobs my whole career and i have never been unemployed until now. as soon as i lost my job, i immediately became a serious search for employment and begin navigator the world of online is, job words and diligently networking. my goal was to place my resume in the hands of every one nightingale. i have spent the majority of my waking hours looking for work. during this time, i was able to support myself because i received those vital unemployment insurance benefits. i not only was looking for jobs
in my field or only for jobs at the same salary level. i am smart enough to know that most likely i would be changing careers and taking a pay cut. i applied for everything and anything. eventually, i began applying for entry level call center jobs. jobs that would have resulted in a $30,000 a year pay cut. or to put this another way, a 42% reduction in my pad. that was monday of this week. in a box on the floor by my desk, i have a stack of job application receipt, job descriptions, research and various, various forms of my resume and cover letters.
this stack is two feet tall. and i know because i measured it. in addition, my online network connections have literally gone viral. my regular state unemployment benefit and aired in early november and i immediately began receiving federal the unemployment compensation i wouldn't have been able to pay my mortgage and i would have been at risk of losing my beloved little house. i was raised by my mother, a single parent. we never owned a home. we lived in apartments. so i am especially proud of my home and i know that my deceased
mother would have been proud to know that she raised me right. i am somebody. i own a home. now, in the eighth month of my job search, i am happy to say that i have secured a job just three days ago. [applause] again, that was monday. and although my new job pays much, much less than what i was making, it is a good job with a livable wage and for that i am very grateful. without unemployment insurance and the federal emergency benefits, i would've not been able to sustain myself in my job search. so for me, these programs have
done what they are supposed to do. they kept me in my home. i could still buy groceries and pay my bills. my anxiety was kept to a manageable level and i was able to keep sending out applications and going on interviews. if i had not been fortunate in finding this job, i would have faced the year-end cut off a federal the unemployment compensation benefits absent congressional action. for millions, that would be devastating. for me, it could have meant the loss of my beloved home. i am so relieved and grateful
that i won't have to face that now. but i know millions of others are at the same risk i was just two days ago. again, monday. i am here on their behalf, pleading with congress to renew this federal emergency unemployment compensation program for 2014. and please give the other 1.3 million american a fighting chance to become roy. i am an emergency unemployment compensation success story. won't you please allow this to be america's story. thank you. [applause]
the mac you can see that meeting in its entirety at c-span.org. live pictures this afternoon at the museum in washington d.c. where we're expecting remarks from vermont senator patrick leahy who chairs the judiciary committee. he'll be talking about human rights as of the 2013 human rights summit hosted by the group human rights first. >> to be friends in washington today. i didn't say was easy. i just said it's possible. but it is a special honor to introduce senator leahy because he is a real, honest-to-goodness, champ enough the cause i think that brings all of us here today. and that is human rights for everyone, everywhere. in fact, i think without reservation and i suspect everyone in this room will agree, that there is no greater champion for human rights in u.s. congress and our friend, pat leahy. he has determined and indeed
historic and heroic work to advance human rights is frankly too expensive for me to sit here in detail and give him a chance to talk also. i will talk a little bit about two or three of his large publicly aware accomplishments. however before i do that, i want to mention that i had an opportunity at the personal level to see his work up close. i senator leahy does, those senate has to keep an ion these guys. i can tell you is commissioner of the ins, if you choose to ignore pat leahy on its immigration issue, you do it at your peril. senator leahy does a lot of things that are below are screamed that make a good difference in the lives of a lot of people who would otherwise fall through the cracks.
she is not a show horse. he is a workhorse. pat leahy has been a long-time leader in the international campaign against land mines. in fact, in 1992, he offered the first bill of any government anywhere to be on the export of these very horrible weapons. in fact come he spearheaded the effort in congress to aid the guns of landmine by creating a special fund known as the leahy were picked and signed. that fund has now on an annual basis provide about $12 million of aid to the victims of these horrible bombs. in 1997, senator leahy sponsored historic legislation appropriately known as the leahy law, which prohibits u.s. department of state and department of defense for military from police forces to
engage. there's something essential to our mission at human rights first denies refugee protection. the chief sponsor of the akamai which would eliminate useless hurdles that prevent persecuted refugees from safe havens. at human rights first, we also teamed up with senator leahy to fight for counterterrorism problems -- counterterrorism is that respect human rights. in fact, in 2090 called for the creation of an independent commission to investigate our governments use of torture in the post-9/11 era. unfortunately, that hasn't come to pass yet. senator leahy has a strong record of success because he spoke a determined pragmatist and an idealist who is less interested in making it apemen
than in making change. frankly, he is willing and able to work with republicans on human rights and a whole bunch of other issues here for example, he and senator rubio is a process right now of trying to get the reauthorization of the trafficking victims protection act. i want to close by sharing a little secret with you. pat leahy is now the longest-serving u.s. senator and his president pro tem of the senate. however, don't tell him not because he thinks, and i think all of us in this room know that it's true that he is just getting started. ladies and gentlemen, i hope you will give a warm welcome to our keynotes beaker, the honorable patrick leahy. [applause]
be thank you. she is, thank you for that wonderful am not totally deserved introduction, but i'll accept it. jim zigler is one of the finest public servants in either party. i told him it's he came in here, when he was searching arms of the senate, he set the gold standard for everybody else to follow after that in doing it in the best interest of the senate. we saw, it's always great to see you. we have a chance to get caught up not only in our connections to vermont, but more people don't realize that they might
patrick leahy. my mother is first-generation italian-american, so we can pair for some of our relatives are from. of course, human rights board members made all this possible. i think what you're doing is so important. in some ways we preach to the converted here. but i've long been at tired and human rights to the lawyers committee for human rights before that. what you do every day helps all of us. your research and advocacy has certainly been extremely important in some of the legislation i try to pass. let me talk on a few topics. partly encouraging you don't stop. keep doing what you're doing. it may seem obvious that this is
central to the summit, that needs to be set. we are here because each of us feels, each of us feels a responsibility to defend the fundamental freedoms and principles that define our humanity and we regard as universal, but which are often violated or denied by the governments whose responsibility it is to protect them. now we know that in the history of the united states, we've seen the groundbreaking human rights leadership. we've also seen some tragic failures. certainly, the bill of rights, what a monumental achievement. the freedoms we find even today many countries constitutions. as we've seen the rights of people at disabilities, women,
lgbt community, immigrants, examples of what we can accomplish if we persevere what is often long-standing prejudices. i am encouraged by recent efforts in congress. to support those with the improvements we've made to the violence against women act, the trafficking terms and what we've accomplished so far in the senate and a good immigration reform. i might say talking about the settlement. i'm so pleased he will be honoring my friend, rob dole this evening. i was there at the time when bob was a republican leader in the senate, a man of integrity and his leadership in passage of the american logistics disability act more than two decades ago. this would not have happened without senator dole's
leadership. he's a great milestone in our human rights history. his tireless efforts to see the united states ratified the convention of the rights of persons with disabilities deserves our gratitude and praise. frankly, if we had our leaders like senator dole, leaders who are willing to put aside any kind of petty political difference is and try to find common ground for the best in the nation, then we'd all be better off. frankly, i misleaders like that in both the senate and the house. but let's not forget a lot of examples where the united states fall short of the ideas we saw the declaration of independence. internment, japanese citizens during world war ii. that is really something. or the segregation laws are
upheld for years by aaron u.s. supreme court with the fact we've been unable to close guantánamo were to end mass incarceration. these are not the bright lights of our history. few days go by we are not confronted by significant challenges to her standing as the global leader in human rights. some of these charges are due to external forces the night knowledge that. some unfortunately due to our own doing and our own mistakes. 1997 i wrote what became known as the leahy law. at that time i had no idea what impact it might have. i tried to explain it. i thought, will see. he was right. i did know we should no longer provide training and equipment to foreign security forces and accused of murder innocent
civilians. this is something we can easily all agree upon us americans. it happened many times where we had given aid to our country to murder and torture their own citizens. that was wrong. it contradicted everything this country stands for. but it also undermined our understanding of the global defender of human rights, where people can fail at what your aid is doing in this country. so under the leahy law, which would cut off that aid, perhaps the most effect of tool we have for drawing a clear line between the united states and those who commit atrocities, but also providing an incentive for foreign governments to hold abusive military and police officers accountable. but it has been in law for a decade and a half. some officials in our embassies have not enforced vigorously.
vietnam for any other country, were persecuted for peaceful association, or their religious beliefs. these are rights that we americans take for granted. the rights in which we take great pride. we shouldn't hesitate to speak out when those rights are violated anywhere, in our country or anywhere else. i've met some activists as many of you have, who have been subjected to brutality, isolation, torture. i've got to tell you, i am in awe from the courage. i admire the grateful spear. i am awed by this fact -- unaffected never give a. we have a responsibility. to support them. democrats and republicans set aside party labels, join together and work for the release. and here at home, we have yet to fully recover from the effects of the 9/11 attacks.
we continue to mourn the horrific losses of innocent lives on that day. we do remain vigilant against the threat of future attacks. but as americans we should not ignore the damage done by some of the ill-conceived practices and policies put in place after 9/11. before 9/11, i doubt if any of us could have imagined the torture, something that members of congress in both parties have condemned, when used by repressive governments, would be defended by top u.s. officials as a legitimate practice of the 21st century. we must never again allow torture by our country, enclosed in euphemisms like enhanced interrogation techniques, or justifiable twisted and legal analysis that goes totally
contrary to the moral core of our country. and we should put an end to the indefinite detention of suspected enemy combatants, and the use of flawed military commissions and open ended ill defined global war on terrorism. we have spoken out so many times about in determined detention in other countries. how can we justify it in our own? frankly, there is no justification. [applause] >> i feel, i've said this diverse presidents, ma that the indefinite detention of prisoners at guantánamo -- contradicts our most basic presence of justice. integrated our international standing as a changing of human rights, and rather than helping our national security, it has actually harmed it.
countries that respect the rule of law and human rights do not walk a -- do not block away prisoners indefinitely without trial and without charge. we condemn those countries that do it. we should not authorize it in our own country. so i am heartened by the incremental this much, positive changes this year's -- defense authorization bill. we have to do more to ensure that guantánamo is closed. i greatly appreciate human rights first advocacy to close guantánamo. let's remove this blight your let's remove this blight. [applause] >> and continue work on the question of drones. i think drones could be used in armed conflict but only in accordance with international humanitarian laws.
the united states for his conducted lethal operations using drones in pakistan, afghanistan, yemen. some of which have killed or wounded innocent civilians and inflames the population. i remain very concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding these operations. the alleged use of signature strikes, they race versus question whether drones comply with international humanitarian law that we joined. if you continue this precedent, for the rest of the world, including other countries that have terrible human rights records, we out to be as transparent as possible, and whether they are used following international law. in fact, i would suggest here today that maybe it's time to
look again at international law in this area. maybe it's time to have some tightening of it and some changes in a. i, for one, would like to see that. so, you know, i never hesitate to criticize foreign governments that allow heinous crimes to go unpunished, or to punish other fundamental rights. so, too, i criticize my own government for it fails to live up to the stairs we demand of others and what others expect of us. let me use one example. i think of the international treaty banning landmines. i think of the continuing trend of innocent civilians becoming victims of war, because the vastly to the people who are harmed, injured, killed by landmines are not combatants. they are innocent civilians, children, parents, others.
every single native country save one has signed. and that one, the most powerful nation on earth, the united states. that's not the leadership i expect of my government. the clinton and george w. bush and the obama administration have not joined, have not joined. they have isolated the united states on this issue. i ask what kind of message this sends to the rest of the world in this lack of leadership here we ought to just sign it. we spend hundreds of millions of dollars removing landmines around the world. we use the leahy war victims fund to help landmine victims around the world. what are we afraid of? we have another leahy law says
we cannot export landmines? let's show the courage. it only takes a little bit to go for it and sign the treaty, like every one of our allies has done. is that so difficult? now, in conclusion let me tell you, on november 22, remember the great loss this country suffered 50 years ago when president kennedy was assassinated. i remember my wife and i, as a long -- a young law student stand right here on this corner watching them go down. hundreds of thousands industry. you could hear the drums when they left the white house. that far away. you could actually hear the click in the street lights as they changed, and you could hear the horses and the drums as they came up pennsylvania avenue.
and i've been thinking about that a lot in the last few days. we talked about it a lot and what it felt like to two young youngsters standing there. and i thought of one of the many remarks president kennedy said, remember the inaugural address. he spoke of the unwillingness to witness or permit the slow undoing, those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today and around the world. this was john kennedy who said that in his inaugural address. it's been 53 years since then. i think those words are more relevant today. i would argue the most important things we could do for our country, if as he asked us to be back then, was to continue to reaffirm and uphold that commitment, and doing so help
the rest of the world. frankly, the american people expect no less. my children and grandchildren expect no less. keep on working on this, and i'll be there to fight with you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much, senator leahy. for that inspiration, constant inspiration to now, i want everybody to stay seated. you heard i mentioned earlier ae moderated for the last panel -- >> if you missed any of senator leahy's remarks you can see it again anytime on a website. go to c-span.org. earlier today on washington is
congressman randy neugebauer a member of the house agriculture committee he doesn't update on the status of the farm bill. here's what he had to say. >> the odds that he forgot his best? >> i think they're pretty good. i don't think they'll get past before december 31. that's unfortunate by think we are closing in on out and i think we should begin to get a framework over the holidays begin to get the language drafted and hopefully come back after the first of the year and it pashtun and gets the bill passed. >> host: so you're going to go pastor deadline? >> guest: the farm bill has expired. it expires september 30. so right now we're operating under an expired farm bill. the good news is all of the crop programs or this current year are covered. so producers are covered. food stands, people are getting the benefits. what happens particularly of the first of the year, farmers and ranchers across the country will begin to plan for next years crop. they need to know what the rules of the game are going to be.
>> host: that brings up commodity groups. there was a store and political recently by david rogers that there has been intense lobbying threatening the farm bill. the commodity group, the corn growers, soybean folks, sugar folks all sort of wording -- warring against each other. is one quote from congressman colin peace and calm a democrat of minnesota. this is not helping to get a farm bill. i didn't have this in 2008 when he was the chairman. the attitude among the commodity group this time seems to be lined up and shoot. >> guest: i think one of things everybody is concerned that is make ensure we get a farm bill that covers all of the various crops, that we grow this year. and that's what chairman lucas, has been my goal for the whole process is, we can have a farm bill for some farmers. we need a farm bill for all farmers. >> host: explain what's going on for people who don't know. who wants what? >> guest: some groups when you look at this new safety net, we
are doing away with direct payments which is a major reform -- >> host: to farmers? >> guest: to farmers. we're going to more of an insurance like scenario. so what do people want to make sure of is that this new safety net is going to provide an actual safety net for them. so some people want the safety net to be based on income. some people want that safety net to be based on price of the commodity. and so what we've been working to do is to try to put something together that meets everybody's needs. i will be everybody is to be happy but generally, a good bill is when everybody's -- nutty buddy felt like i got the way. but obama is that we did get a good safety net. >> host: this is a key sticking point for negotiation. explain to people who don't know foreign language how much this means and taxpayer dollars. >> guest: the commodity portion is about 200 -- a
conversation and commodity i think it's about 20% of the farm bill. the food stamps is about 80% of the farm bill. and so this farm bill over a ten-year period is nearly a trillion dollars. so we're talking about summer in the neighborhood of about $200 billion over a 10 year period or about $20 billion a year for the next 10 years. >> friday on c-span, "washington journal" looks at the nation and all of the national institutes of health. starting line at 7:30 a.m. eastern with direct us -- with director francis collins.
all with your calls and comments live on c-span. >> coming up next to me hearing of the house energy and commerce subcommittee on the impact of the health care law on the medicare advantage broke ran. medicare beneficiaries have until december 7 to change their health plans part of their annual enrollment opportunity. this is about two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations]
>> if you will take your cities, the subcommittee will come to order. the chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. the medicare advantage, in a program, an alternative to the original medicare fee-for-service, ffs program provides health care coverage to medicare beneficiaries through private health plans. offered by organizations under contract with the centers for medicare and medicaid services. cms. in a plans may offer additional benefits not provided under medicare ffs such as reduced cost-sharing for vision and dental coverage. they also generally have a high rate of satisfaction and satisfa approximately 20% of medicare28c beneficiaries have chosen toarpa pursue state andrt medicare mede advantage. the affordable care act, aca, as noted in a july 24, 2012 congressional budget office, cbe
report, cut $716 billion from bn medicare. including 308 million from medicare advantage a loan. load. in april of 2010, the medicare1, actuary projected that the. >> that's what result in an enrollment decreased in the m.ae program of as much as 50%. the aca also required cms toefce effect a genuine, 2012, to provide quality bonus payments, the m.a. plans that achieve four, 4.5 and five stars on a five star quality rating system developed by cms. rather than implement the bonus structure, laid out in the law d which would have led to these cuts going into effect in 2012, cms announced in november oft wt 2010 that it will conduct a nationwide demonstration. the mti.a. quality bonus payment demonstration, from 2012-2014,
to test an alternative method for calculating and awarding w thnuses.s. the general accounting office,he ese gao, in response to a r request by senator orrin hatch,y noted that the demonstration projec projects designetsd made quote e unlikely that the demonstration would produce meaningful resultn in the quote. and recommended that hhs canceled the demonstration. gao also stated quote we remaine concerned about the agency's legal legal authority to undertake the demonstration with a p authoritys until
next year. a recent report by the kaiser family fountion wned tha report plan or return to the fee-for-service medicare in 2014 as a result of the aca. in addition to the plant availability, questions are being raised about the possibility of rising costs and limited provider networks in the future as more aca mandated cuts go into effect. i would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and i look forward to the testimony regarding how the aca will impact of the medicare advantage p. thank you and a yield the remainder of my time to representative burgess. >> i think the chairman for the recognition they also want to thank the chairman for calling this ring this morning. we see the headlines and we see
everything that's going wrong in health care. sometimes we forget that there are some things that actual are going okay. there are things this committee and previous congresses have worked on to fix. that's when the things we'll be discussing this morning but sometimes we're so busy triaging we don't allow ourselves the luxury of examining those things that are working as intended. my opinion is medicare advantage is working and it's important to hold hearings like this to learn from those successes. see where we can build upon the successes and where the potential threats that argument the benefits and services that now over 25% of seniors are experiencing and how those may be threatened. medicare advantage of integrated care coordination that this committee has sought to bring into fee-for-service medicare. medicare advantage plans are lowering cost. they are bringing greater
disease management and care coordination to patients allies. they're encouraging wellness activities and actually using physicians to the max with ability of their license rather than always referring to a specialist. there are those conditions that can be satisfactorily managed by general entrance to family practice physician and ought to encourage that. and not punish it. but as money is taken out of the system and eliminate services that made such a good deal for surface -- seniors can we have to watch people. we are altering about people wanting to be able to keep their doctor. with the cuts in the affordable care act pose a real danger to seniors keeping the doctors and the benefits that they not a medicare advantage. the harm of these cuts as compound with the money is not being invested in the medicare program. we have heard that before. you can't double counted with each day count of medicare and count that again as he savings when you're not reinvesting the money in part a or part b. one small change that is been
partisan, mr. gonzalez views be a part of this committee champion when he was on the committee to allow -- offered a bill that would allow seniors to switch plans between m.a. plans during the first three months of the year. rideout the open a moment. that was a resources section of his at the time and one that i think the committee could support. mr. chairman, i would also like -- i time to go to the archives and i encountered a very brilliant and insightful opinion piece that was printed in the "washington times" june 6, 2012 and i would like to offer it for the record. >> without objection, so order ordered. the gentleman yields back and now the chair recognizes ranking member of the health subcommittee for five minutes for an opening statement spent thank you, chairman pitts, and thank you to our witnesses for
being here to share your expertise. today i'm pleased we have the opportunity to talk about medicare and a positive reforms introduced by the affordable care act, medicare advantage. while the majority of medicare's 52 million beneficiaries are in the traditional federally ministered program, medicare advantage or in a offers beneficiaries an alternative option to receive the medicare benefits through private health plans. 15 million people are 29% of all medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in m.a. plans as of september 2013, an increase of 30% since 2010. the aca included reforms to medicare advantage payments policies and added a number of benefits and protection for beneficiaries, both through in may and traditional medicare. for example, medicare must cover wellness visits and preventive services with no copayment or coinsurance. the ac also ensures that m.a. plans beginning in 2014 spend at least 85 cents of every dollar
received in premiums on actual care. beneficiaries will also receive discounts for the aca on the medication when the reach a coverage gap or don't at all and medicare part d. these discounts will grow over the next several years until the gap is closed. in addition the aca aims to provide a quality of m.a. plans, to improve the quality of any plans by rewarding plans to deliver high quality care with bonus payments. incentivizing quality patient care over quantity of services provided is key to improving health care outcomes and reducing ways and the rising cost of health care. the aca will also bring in the payments more in line with traditional medicare payments. on average medicare has been paying more per annually to these private m.a. plans than the cost of care for those on traditional medicare. by reducing m.a. payments over time, there will be greater parity between m.a. and traditional medicare payments resulting in savings that will benefit enrollees and help
secure the solvency of the medicare trust fund for a longer period of time. critics of these payment reforms predicted that m.a. cost for enrollees would rise, that the provider networks for plan choices would decrease, and it may involve would drop. changes in provider participation pricing and coverage occur every year as an inherent part of insurers business decision-making, including long before the passage of the aca and that's why we're provided tools to seem as to ensure that seniors are protected from potential changes that private plans may make. in addition seniors continue to have a choice that best suits their individual needs and every year continued to maintain the ability to pick a new plan or traditional medicare. so i look for during more of from our witnesses on recent trends in medicare advantage. i think we can agree our work as a committee needs to continue beyond the improvements we made in the aca. clear guidance today on ways to
continue to strengthen the program for our seniors is critical. we can't return to the ways before the affordable care act. we must move our health care system to one of quality and efficiency in all of medicare. so thank you again, mr. chairman. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. now recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. up and for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. everyday we are hearing from folks in families across the country about how the president's health care bill has rate has gone on health care coverage with millions receiving cancellation notices, millions more facing premium rate shock. and others to left one if the application on healthcare.gov for even successful. this morning we'll focus on how to health care of our nation seniors and disabled could be affected by the changes to the presence health care plan. president's health care law cut over $700 billion from the
already struggling to medicare program to help fund a flawed new entitlement. included in the cuts were over 300 billion in direct and indirect reductions to the medicare advantage program, and many of these cuts will start in 2014. medicare has managed care program also managed care program also known as medicare advantage kind of provides coverage for more than 14 million americans over a corner of all medicare beneficiaries. these patients choose medicare advantage plans over traditional medicare for a variety of reasons including improved cost-sharing come in his benefits, medicare coordination, and, in fact, higher quality of care. for millions of americans, especially those with lower incomes, medicare advantage is a better option for delivering their care and, frankly, their choice. while medicare advantage continues to grow, the cost made in health care law threatens the future of the government -- excuse me, future of the program. someone may say the government, and could put coverage at risk
for thousands of beneficiaries in 2014 and many more in the future. according to a report by the kaiser family foundation, more than half a million beneficiaries may lose their existing medicare advantage plan next year which would then force those seniors and disabled americans to switch their current plan a return to a traditional fee-for-service plan. more than 100,000 fisheries enrolled in medicare advantage plan in 2013 will not be able to enroll in a medicare advantage plan at all. in 2014. likewise for thousands of americans most vulnerable, if you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor is sadly another broken promise. reports confirm that many medicare advantage enrollees will see a change in the provider networks next year as a result of the new law. so empty promises may be a little concerned for some, but they have real consequences for the americans who expect us to do no harm.
americans deserve to know why their existing coverage is changing when they're promised otherwise, and this morning think will be an important opportunity to get some answers from a number of good experts. we appreciate you being here and i yield to dr. cassidy spent thank you. over 37,000 of my constituents in louisiana are enrolled in medicare advantage programs, m.a. plans offer higher quality care and additional benefits more so than offered and traditional medicare. despite in a spot to become m.a. has challenges. the presence health care law cuts in medicare advantage by over $200 billion. on a doctor. when i see that these people who comes to having this much, this many cuts in programs that cover them, intuitively commonsense tells you they will have increased problems finding a doctor, higher premiums, higher co-pay, fewer benefits and plan choices. even now with only 20% of these
cuts implemented, there are reports of these problems already. i along with congressman burrell and 60 other members of congress have signed a letter opposing other cuts to the m.a. program. i urge my colleagues on the committee to make the same commitment to their constituents who have come to rely upon medicare advantage. i yield. >> i yield by time back to the chairman. >> fred? >> yield to mr. shimkus. spent did you yield to me? i thank the chairman. i thank the chairman for yielding. look, medicare advantage has been around since what? the late '80s? it was all medicare plus choice, then it was medicare advantage. but the word advantage just means exactly what it says, it's an advantage. it's kind of interesting that th