we will make a deal with them to get bing on your wireless device will be cheaper and if the go that far. and also prevent them from blocking the competitive applications to their own services to the use of the protection provision of the rule would prevent verizon wireless or at&t from blocking skype let's say that they could block an application which they do not compete and we feel protecting competition is important but some one protecting innovation and expression that doesn't fit into the bucket and a category which the carriers are providing service. >> you think congress has a role in this? >> certainly congress can come in and changed law and hold oversight hearings as markham suggested earlier. weakens a rattling the fcc can't do this is not the same thing is coming in and actually doing the work to change the law so if congress wants to come back and revise the rules that is within the prerogative and nobody would say they can't do that. we feel the fcc has a role to play and to bring the current law and carrying out its duties not to regulate the internet but

the access and make sure people have open access to content on the internet. >> prior to december 21st meeting, you expect changes in with the chairman has laid down? >> there will be some changes. my organization as you pointed out said we were disappointed when we started in some respects and i guess my concern of the changes will not be enough to make us strong as we would like to be but that is left to the commissioners to negotiate and as you noted it's not all the time that people would be at the fcc the next couple of weeks and so and sunshine period comes and we can't bother them anymore. >> matthew wood is the associate director of the media access project. and you for being on "the communicators." as this issue plays out, "the communicators" will follow it. thanks for joining us.

president obama today previewed what issues he is likely to address in his state of the union speech next year. speaking at a community college in north carolina mr. obama said he would oppose efforts to deal with the national debt at the expense of education and infrastructure. this is 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] [cheering]

thank you so much. thank you, everybody. thank you so much. thank you so much. everybody, please come have a seat. it is good to be backed in north carolina. [applause] i love north carolina. although i have to say i came down here for slightly warmer weather. [laughter] what is snowing on the ground in north carolina? come on now. anyway, it is a great honor to be with you at forsyth technical community college. there is a few people will want to acknowledge who are doing outstanding work. first of all you are incredibly important impressive college

president gary green. [applause] you're wonderful governor, bev perdue is in the house. [applause] your senators, richard burr -- [applause] and the better looking one, kay hagan. [applause] to hard working congressman, mel watt and brad miller are here. [applause] we've got secretary of state elaine marshall in the house. [applause] and mayor allen joins is here. [applause] well, it's been about a month now since the midterm elections, and in washington much of the

chapter is still about the political implications of those elections, with the results mean for democrats and republicans, and already we are hearing what this means for the next election and i have to tell you i came to winston-salem because i believe that right now there are bigger issues at stake for our country than politics. [applause] these issues call on us to respond, as partisans but as americans. at this moment, we are still emerging from a once in a lifetime recession that has taken a terrible toll on millions of families. many here in north carolina who have lost their jobs or their businesses and their sense of security and. unfortunately, we have seen some

encouraging signs that recovery is beginning to take hold. an economy that has been shrinking for nearly a year has now grown. after nearly two years of job loss, our economy has added over 1 million private sector jobs in 2010. i was just talking to -- [applause] just talking to bev perdue and she is venturing we've seen 50,000 new jobs here in north carolina. [applause] and after teetering on the brink of liquidation not to years ago our although industry is posting healthy who gains. so we are seeing progress across the country but as we also saw in november as job report, recovery is simply not happening fast enough. plenty of americans are still

without work. plenty of americans are still without work and our challenge now to do whatever it takes to the accelerate job creation and economic growth. not in the short term that means preventing the middle class tax increase this currently scheduled for january 1st. right now democrats and republicans in congress are working through difference is to try to get this done. and there are some serious debates still taking place. republicans want to make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i have argued that we can't afford it right now. [applause] but what i've also said as we've got to find consensus here because a middle class tax hike would be very tough, not only on working families but also a drag on our economy at this point.

so i believe we should keep in place tax cuts for workers and small business is set to expire. we've got to make sure we are coming up with a solution. even if it's not 100% of what i want or what the republicans want. there's no reason that ordinary americans should see their taxes go up next year. we should also extend unemployment insurance for workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. that is a priority. [applause] and i should mention that's not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do because millions of americans who aren't getting unemployment benefits stop spending money, that slows down businesses. that slows down hiring. it slows down our recovery. now, even if we take these and

other steps to boost our recovery in the short term, we are also going to have to make some serious decisions about the economy in the long run. we've got to look ahead, not just to the next year but the next ten years, the next 20 years and we've got to ask ourselves where will the new jobs come from? what will take to get them? and what will it take to keep the american dream alive for our children and grandchildren? think about north carolina. obviously, this recession has a devastating effect like a did everywhere else, but the trend, the trends have been going on for quite some time. i was just visiting with president green with some of the students here in the biotech field, wonderful people, from every walk of life gotten out of

high school and folks who work midlife and had been laid off from a manufacturing job and had come here to retrain. but a bunch of them mentioned well, lead off because the textile industries moved away in north carolina. on was laid off because the furniture industry has moved away here in north carolina. those were long-term trends, and that means we have to have a long-term vision about where we want to be ten years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now. [applause] just like past generations did, we must be prepared to answer these questions in our time. over the next several weeks i'm going to be meeting with my economic team, with business leaders and others to develop specific policies and budget recommendations for the coming year. today i want to outline a broad vision that i believe should guide these policies.

and it's a vision that will keep our economy strong and growing and competitive in the 21st century. and that vision begins with a recognition of how our economy has changed over time. when forsyth technical opened 50 years ago it was known as forsyth county industrial education center, right? that is a mouthful. [laughter] machine shops and automotive mechanics were some of the first class's you could take. of course back then you didn't even need a degree to earn a decent living. you could get a job at the local tobacco or textile plant and still be able to provide for yourself and your family. that world has changed. in the last few decades, revolutions of communications, revolutions and technology have made business is mobile and have made commerce global.

so today company can set up shop, hire workers and sell their products wherever there is an internet connection. that is a transformation that is touched on a fierce competition among the nation's for the jobs and the industries in the future. some of you know i travelled through asia was several weeks ago. you've got a billion people in india who are suddenly plugged into the world economy. you've got over a billion people in china who are suddenly put it to the global economy, and that means competition is going to be much more fierce and the winners of the competition will be the countries that have the most educated workers, serious commitment to research and technology and access to call the infrastructure like roads and airports and high-speed rail and high-speed internet. those are the seeds of economic

growth from the 21st century. where they are planted, the most jobs and businesses will take root. the last century america was that place where innovation happened in the jobs and industrial waste recruit -- took root. our economic leadership in the world went unmatched. now it's up to was to make sure that we maintain that leadership in this century. at this moment, the most important contest we face is not between democrats and republicans, it's between america and our economic competitors of one of the world. that's the competition we have to spend time thinking about to get [applause] malae have no doubt we can win this competition.

we are the home of the world's best universities, the best research facility, the most brilliant sciences, the brightest mind, some of the hardest working and most entrepreneurial people on earth right here in america. it's in our dna. think about it. people came from all over the world to live here in the united states. that's been our history. and those were the go getters, the risk takers who came here. the folks who didn't want to take risk stand back home. right? so there's no doubt we are well equipped to win, but as it stands right now, the hard truth of this, in the race for the future, america is majorly falling behind. that's just the truth. and if you hear a politician say it's not -- they are not paying

attention, in a generation we have fallen from first place to ninth place in the proportion of young people with college degrees. when it comes to high school graduation rates we are ranked 18th of 24 industrial nations. 18th. we are 27th in the proportion of science and engineering degrees. we lag behind other nations in the quality of our math and science education. when global firms were asked a few years back when they plan on building new research and demint facilities, nearly 80% said either china or india. because those countries are focused on math and science and they are focused on training and educating their work force. i sat down with president lee of

south korea and asked him what's the biggest problem you have an education? he said these parents come to me and they are constantly pressuring me to wonder kids to learn so fast, so much they are even making me import english-speaking teachers because they want first graders to know english. i asked about investment or research and develop and yet he said we are putting aside 5% for gross domestic product in research and indolent to read 3% in clean energy. you go to shanghai, china, and they felt more high-speed rail in the last year than we've the last 30. the largest private solar research diplomat facility in the world has recently opened in china by an american company. today china has the fastest trains and fastest supercomputer in the world.

in 1957 just before this, which opened, the soviet union beat us in space by launching a satellite known as sputnik, and there was a wake-up call because the united states to boost our investment in innovation and education particularly in math and science. and as a result once we put our mind to it, once we got a focus, once we got unified, while only did we surpassed the soviets, we developed new technologies, industries and jobs. so 50 years later, our generation's sputnik moment is back. this is our moment. if the recession has taught us anything it's that we can not collect in economy driven to much spending, too much borrowing, running up credit cards, taking out a lot of, equity loans, pay for profits

that are built on financial speculation, we've got to rebuild on the new and stronger foundation for economic growth. we need to do with america has always been known for, building, in a feeding, educating, making things. we don't want to be a nation that simply buys and consumer products from other countries. we want to create and sell products all over the world understand with three simple words, quote koop made in america." that is our goal. [applause] [cheering] so i came to forsyth today because you've shown what the future come quick. half a century and later you are still giving students the skills and training they need to get good jobs. but of course, courses and

machine shops and car mechanics have broadened to the degrees in mechanical engineering technology and minow technology and biotechnology, and then file to the come in while your unique partnerships that you are building with advanced manufacturing and buy new technology firms will ensure the businesses in the future lowercase here, they stay here, the higher your right here in winston-salem. [applause] as a national leader in bioscience and innovation north carolina is the country's third largest employer in biotechnology. [applause] and when caterpillar recently decided to build a plant in this community, they told president green one of the main reasons was the work convinced forsyth

tech had the capability of providing them with the technical work force that they need. [applause] that's something everybody in this room should be very proud of and i know that business leaders from throughout the community have looked intensively with president green have others to help make this happen, and i know that your congressional delegation as well as your governor have worked hard to make this happen. now none of this progress had been by itself and had links to the hard work of students here at forsyth. commitment of local leaders local business leaders, most importantly it happened because there was a decision made to invest in the collective future of this community. it happened because there was a decision in this called leche and there were loans, scholarships that made it affordable to go here.

to invest in the basic research and development that helped jump-start north carolina's buy utech industry, to invest in new buildings and laboratories research facilities that meet your work possible. these are the kind of investments we need to keep making in communities across america. investments that will grow our economy and help us stay competitive in the 21st century. now i want to emphasize, i say this knowing full well we face a very difficult fiscal situation, and i'm looking at the books back in a washington, and folks weren't doing a real good job with their math for the last decade. [applause] so now that the threat of a depression has passed and a recovery is beginning to take

hold, reducing our long-term deficit has to be a priority, and in the long run we won't be able to compete with countries like china if we keep borrowing from countries like china not to the [applause] we won't be able to do it. [applause] so we've already started making some tough decisions and they are unpopular and people get mad but we've got to make some decisions to the proposed a three-year freeze on all spending that doesn't have to do with national security, and i proposed a two-year freeze in the pay for federal workers. that's why we are currently studying the recommendations of the of bipartisan that of reduction panel that i commissioned. we have to be bold and courageous and eliminating spending programs we don't need and can't afford. but here's where there's clean to be a debate in washington over the next year and the next couple years and maybe the next five years. because i will argue and insist that we cannot cut back on those

investments that had the biggest and act on our economic growth because -- [applause] i was talking with president green, and he said much of the command here would not be here if it hadn't been for the assistance of the recovery act, the assistance of the department of labor. [applause] all this stuff we've done the last couple years, the people were questioning. you can see it translated in the classrooms right here. the work that we are doing on student loans and pell grants, you can see it in the students who are able to finance right here. [applause] so we can't stop making those investments. the best anecdote to a growing deficit by the way is a growing economy.

to borrow an anthology, cutting the deficit by cutting investments in areas like education, areas like innovation, that's like trying to reduce the weight of an overloaded aircraft by removing the engine. it's not a good idea. [applause] there may be -- [applause] there may be some things you need to get rid of that you've got to keep the engine. [laughter] that's why even as we scoured the budget for the cuts and savings in the months ahead, i will continue to fight for those investments that will help america win the race for the jobs and industry for future and that means investment in education and infrastructure. i will be fighting for that. [applause] in an era where most new jobs will require some kind of higher

education, we have to keep investing in the skills and education of how workers, and that's why we are going -- we are well on our way to meeting the goal i set when i took office two years ago. by 2020, america will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. that's a commitment we are making. [applause] so to get there we are making college more affordable for millions of students. we've made an unprecedented investment and community colleges just like this one and just like forsyth, we've launched a nationwide initiative to connect graduates the needed jobs with businesses that need their skills. we are reforming k-12 education, not from the top down from the bottom-up. instead of pouring money into a system that's not working, we are challenging schools and states to compete with each other to see who can come up

with reforms that raise standards that recruit and retain good teachers. raise student achievement, especially in math and science. we call that race to the top where you get more funding, where you get more funding if you shall more results. ..

>> we have to boost our recovery, and i proposed all american businesses should be allowed to write off all the investments they do in 2011. we want a jump start starting next year plants, equipment, and every one all across the united states of america. [applause] to encourage home grown american innovation, we should make it easier to patent a new idea or a new invention. if you want to know one reason why more companies are choosing to do their research in china and india it's because the united states ranks 24th out of 38th country in the generosity in the tax incentives we provide in research and development. i proposed a bigger, permanent

tax credit for companies for all the research and innovation they do right here in america. all of it. [applause] now, what's also true is a lot of companies don't invest in basic research because it doesn't pay off right away, but that doesn't mean it's not essential to our economic future. 40 years ago it probably didn't seem sensible to increase the capacity of integrated circuits. 40 years later, i'm still not sure what that means. [laughter] what i do know is the discoveries in integrated sir cults made back then led to the ipod and cell phones and gps and ct scans, products that led to new companies and countless new jobs in manufacturing and retail and other sectors. that's why i set a goal of investing a full 3%, not 2%, not

2.5%, a full 3% of the our full gross domestic research product. that has to be a priority. [applause] if this is truly going to be our moment, we need a commitment to innovation that we have not seen since president kennedy challenging us to go to the moon, and we're directing that research into economic growth and job creation, and that's in green energy technology. [applause] i don't want to see new solar pams or electric cars or advanced batteries manufactured in europe or in asia. i want to see them made right here in american by american businesses and american workers. [applause] i also want to make it easier for our businesses and workers to sell their products all over

the world. the more we export abroad, the more jobs we support at home. we've got to change the form mullah. we got to flip the script because what's been happening is we've been doing all the buying, somebody else is doing all the selling. [applause] we got to start selling and have them do some buying, and that's why we set a goal of doubling u.s. exports in five years. [applause] that's why i'm pleased that last week we came closer to meeting that goal by finalizing a trade agreement with our allies south creigh, ya a nation that offers one of the fastest growing markets for american goods. here in north carolina and all across the trade, trade, we're note sure that helps us, but maybe hurts us in areas like furniture. the status quo now a south korea

is selling a bunch of stuff here, and we're not selling 5 bit. the current deal is not a good one for us. there's a lot of hyundais on the road, but there are not a lot of fords in seoul because the formula has been let's find my trade agreement or cut any deal without thinking ahead how it impacts america. what this deal does is boosts our exports to south korea by $11 billion supporting at least 70,000 american jobs. [applause] now, the final area where greater investment leads to more jobs and economic growth is in america's infrastructure, our roads, railways, runways, our information superhighways, over

the last two years, our investment in infrastructure projects, yes through the recovery act, have led to thousands of good private sector jobs and improved infrastructure here in north carolina and all across the country, but we have a long way to go. there is no reason that over 90% of the homes in south korea have broad band internet access, and only 65% of american households do. think about that. there's no reason why china should have nearly 10,000 miles of high speed rail by 2020, and america has 400. think about that number. they got 10,000. we've got 400. they've got trains that operate at speeds of over 200 miles per hour, and i don't know how fast our trains are going.

[laughter] we're the nation that built the transcontinental railroad. we're the nation that took the first airplane into flight. we constructed a massive interstate highway system. we introduced the world to the internet. america's always been built to compete. if we want to atrack the best jobs and businesses to our shores, we have to be that nation again. throughout history, the investments i've talked about in education, innovation, and infrastructure have historically commanded the support from both democratics and republicans. it was abraham lincoln who launched the transcontinental railroad and opened the national academy of sciences.

he did it in the middle of war, by the way, but he knew this was so important we had to make the investments for future generations. divide eisenhower helped build our highways. republican members of congress worked with fdr to pass the gi bill. more recently, infrastructure bills found support on both sides of the aisle. the permanent extension was proposed by both bill clinton and george w. bush. our education reforms are praised by both democratic and republican governors. the point is there should not be any inherent ideological differences that prevent democrats and republicans from making our economy more competitive with the rest of the world. if we are willing to put aside short term politics, if our objecteddive is not simply

winning elections but winning the future -- [applause] then we should be able to get our act together here because we are all americans, and we are in this race together. [cheers and applause] [applause] so those of us who work in washington have a choice to make in the coming weeks and months. we can focus on what's necessary for each party to win the new cycle or the next election, we can do what we've been doing, or we can do what this moment demands, and focus on what's necessary for america to win the future. for as difficult the times may be, the good news is that we

know what the future could look like for the united states. we can see it in the classrooms that are experimenting with ground breaking reforms and developing math and science skills in early ages ark see it in advanced battery plants opening all across america, and we can see it here in your laboratories and research facilities and over at the biotechnology firms turning out jobs and businesses and life saving discoveries. you see it in the faces of the young people we just visited with, dr. green and myself, some not so young faces, but people who despite layoffs, despite hardships, felt confident in their future. just the other month, i saw part of america's future during a science fair we held at the

white house. it was the first science fair we've ever held, and we talked to some of of these amazing young people. it's probably as much fun as i've had in several months, and now, that's a low bar given -- [laughter] but there was a team from tennessee that had designed a self-powered water filtration plant so homes could have access to clean water, and then there were these young people -- these are all high school, some younger than high school. there were young people who designed a way to make an entire town more energy efficient, and there were young people who had entered into rocket contests showing me all the rockets they shot up and won an international

contest explaning to me the design of these things and robots that were running around in the state dining room and bumping into things. [laughter] then the last person i spoke to was a young woman from dallas, texas, and her name was amy chow. she's 16 years old. she's child of immigrants. her parents came from china, but amy was born here. when she was a freshman in high school, she got interested in cancer research. she had studied biology, and she got interested in cancer research, so she decided, get this -- she decided to teach herself chemistry over the summer, and then she designed a device that uses light to kill hard to reach

cancer cells while leaving the healthy ones untouched. this is her summer project. [laughter] she goes in to win a science competition. she wins. now she's being approached by laboratories all across the country who want to work with her on developing this potential breakthrough cancer drug that she's designed. 16 years old. i'm talking to amy and pretending i'm understanding what she's explaning -- [laughter] and as i'm listening to her, i'm looking at the portrait of abraham lincoln that hangs over her head in the state dining room, and i remember all that we've been through and all that we've overcome, and i thought to myself, you know what? the idea of america is alive and

well. [applause] we are going to be just fine. [applause] we are going to be just fine as long as our people like amy and her parents who still want to come to this country and add to our story, as long as our people like the men and women here who are keeping us at the top of our game, as long as we are willing to look past the disagreements of the moment and focus on a future that we share, we will be fine. if we can do that, i have no doubt that this will be remembered as another american victory. we will meet that sputnik moment, but we have to do it together. thank you, everybody. god bless america. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ >> in a few moments, the head of homeland security secretary

napolitano.

>> now homeland secretary on the role of security. this is 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> well, good afternoon. good afternoon, everyone. has this been a great day one or what?

[applause] we, thank you all very much for being herement now, you know this morning when we began our conference, we talked about the theme of the conference, but we also talked about some of the subthemes of our conference. one or two of those subthemes being the importance of partnerships in our field, and the importance of putting states and locals first. putting state, local, triable justices at the center of everything we do in order to be successful. through our work, as i mentioned to you earlier, working with department of security and others, we have seen that both of these things, partnerships and state and locals firsts, are more than a theme at the department of homeland security, and this has been no accident. this is the result of leadership from the top of the organization

as i talk to you about today at the department and leadership from the secretary, janet napolitano. her background made her the perfect choice for this, the u.s. attorney in arizona during the clinton administration, the attorney general of the state of arizona, and the two-term governor of arizona, and being named one of the top five governors by "time" magazine. she is engaged, engages, and she gets it, and we're grateful for her time here today. please join me in welcoming secretary for department of homeland security, janet napolitano. [applause] >> well, thank you, and good afternoon, and i want to say how

grateful i am for this invitation, for that kind introduction, and to all of the partnerships we have with many of the groups represented here today particularly with the office of justice programs and with the department of justice. i am formally of the department of justice. i was the u.s. attorney in arizona for a little over 4 years. after that, the attorney general, and then the governor, so i do come to my current position as a secretary of homeland security with a keen appreciation for the role of the homeland and the importance of states and localities and nongovernmental entities and the private sector, the whole range of partnerships that go into really creating a homeland

security architecture. now, let me begin by saying that i know that those of you here today have a lot on your plates. you are in these tough budget times being asked to do more with less, and the demands on law enforcement and for security have never been greater. with the budgets of our states, counties, and cities being under stress, many of them have been cut, and many of them i can think about will be cut some more, so the ability to work together and to use that cliche about leveraging resources becomes not just a cliche, but a

necessity in these times, so, you know, wherever we can, the deep and growing relationships we have in our building with the dog, through ojp, through the justice assistance, through the cop's office with the fbi and elsewhere, that's what we are going to do because we recognize the life motif at issue here, and that is that no one department can go it alone, that we all need each other if we are going to be successful. now, as i said, we have a number of things we are working on together. i'd be remiss if i didn't recognize the hard work of doj's global justice advisory committee and the criminal intelligence accord enating counsel --

coordinating counsel, both of which have been instrumental at ground level, sharing information to the department and our own counsel, so if you are a member of one of those groups, that's a shoutout for you. thank you very much, but i'd also be remiss if i didn't talk about the other kinds of progress and partnerships we've achieved over the past year despite budget challenges, and there has been significant progress, and if these were ordinary times, i would say that we could be patting ourselves on the back and saying we've done a all. we've reached the end goal. we got it all down, but these are not ordinary times, and the threat picture that we deal with is not static.

it is ever-evolving, and that means that we can't be static. we have to continue to evolve. we have to continue to adapt. we have to continue to be not just reactive, but proactive, and if you thought that i was incorrectly stating the status of where we are, i would say just look at the past several weeks in the past several weeks we had seen terrorists affiliated with al-qaeda in aqap trying to exploit national aviation and shipping by discoveries guying -- disguying pieces of cargo. we have seen other home grown domestic violence and extreme ism with the recent arrest of an

oregon individual, and also right here in the washington, d.c. area, and we've seen other attempts or other things as well so let me begin my substance of the talk by sharing with you about the fundamental premise, and that is that we operate under the premise that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist attacks are in this country. most of them terrorist acts committed in the name of islam, but they are in this country, and that they are prepared to carry out further acts of terrorism with little or no warning, so we also believe that this has implications for all

americans, not just those who happen to live in the beltway. it means that we all need to give some thought that environment that we are in. we need to be speaking about this at our homes, communities, at work, and we need to be taking preparedness measures so that as a nation, we are not living in a state of fear, but in a state of awareness and a state of readiness. the implications for the premise i have stated that there are individuals prepared to carry out terrorist acts in this country, prepared to carry them out with little or no warning, this is a very significant premise in any conversation, but particularly with respect to the conversation we are having this afternoon because this threat picture is applicable not just

to threats of terrorism, but also violent crime, gang violence, smuggling, human smuggling and trafficking, and that means that you, the men and women, involved in state and local law enforcement and corrections and parole and juvenile justice are at the real front line in terms of the protection of our country and our homeland from violence in many ways are unprecedented in our nation's history. now, it also means that we need to acknowledge that while investigations and task forces are important and dhs is a partner in many such task forces, for example, next to the fbi, we are the largest

participant in jttf's across the united states. we are one of the largest participants, but it also means that traditional law enforcement methods alone are insufficient, and by traditional, i mean our traditional task forces because we know now from experience that really the most effective way of detouring and preventing criminal activity is when we employee new creative and cooperative approaches that build community trust and that empower individuals to be part of our public safety solution, to be part of our homeland security architecture, so we need to be working together to learn and share the lessons from

literally decades now of hard work and analysis. we need to learn lessons about radicalization. i mean, what causes an individual to go from a middle class or upper-middle class life here in the united states to becoming radicalized to the point of being willing to commit a suicide bombing, killing him or herself and others along with him. what are the root causes of gang violence? gang violent that i'm most concerned about now is that related to the cartels in mexico, and as we watch that violence very carefully to see that it does not spill over into the united states. what is the process in our corrections system? are we correcting, or are we simply providing locations in

which gang activities or radicalization cannot only take root, but can thrive? and how are we doing with things like community oriented policing as ways of preventing violent attacks on being successfully planned on our own soil, so we have been at dhs saying, all right, let's take this whole universe of issues of problems, of techniques, of tactics, and go back and say, well, where are we? we've been looking, for example, at the lessons learned out of the 2008 terror attacks in mumbai, india, and using them to make changes to the way our police respond to incidents. what training needs to be updated?

what tactics need to be changed? do we have the right kind of equipment in our vehicles? should we all of the sudden have to respond to a small arms terrorist attack on a target in the united states opposed to in india? that has ramifications for you all across this country we've drawn lessons from the past. for example, in 2005, the arrest of seemingly small-time criminals in california exposed the details of how inmates were being radicalize the -- radicalized in the corrections system. we need to work on that not only to prevent it, but that has ramifications for corrections and for parole. we've learned from cases in the united states where, for example, investigations into a cigarette smuggling ring and

into other individuals gave us leads into those who were smuggling precursor chemicals for meth, and that they were then turning the proceeds of that meth into fumbling resources to he has hezbollah. it went from a small case to something funding a major terrorist organization, and so all of these things show how they are interrelated. we cannot operate in nice tidy little boxes anymore. all the more reasons why our homeland security architecture has to be one that relies on information sharing, on sharings about tactics, techniques, and behaviors on trends that we have noticed nationally and share information about, but on trends that we get information about

from the homeland itself, and that puts an increased importance on state and local law enforcement. indeed there is a recent study of open source cases, and the study was done by the institute for homeland security solutions. it showed that more than 80% of terrorist plotted in the past decade were uncovered because of local law enforcement or public vigilance. open source cases over the last decade, 80% were avoided by public law enforcement or public vigilance. that brings me to really the center of this talk with you today. that is that we are, in my judgment, at a turning point in how we approach our nation's

security. the threats posed and challenges that are real, they require innovative and evidence-based responses, and here dhs and our federal partners are working hard to find new ways to inform and to em pore state -- empower state, local, and territorial communities on how to solve problems and how to prevent a violent crime which can be a terrorist agent from o -- act from occurring in your jurisdiction. now, historically, domestic terrorism matters were based on the premise, on the belief, that the united states faced its greatest risk from terrorist attacks that were planned and carried out by an individuals who would do the planning

abroad, enter the united states from abroad, and then carry out their activities, their crimes, so accordingly after 9/11, we placed a much greater emphasis on building a capacity of the intelligence community or here it's known as the ic, but the intelligence community, to encover specific plots and the identity of those doing the planning, so we assumed they were being done overseas, and people from overseas were coming here, and by the way, there were plots that were fairly sophisticated while the number of people that the ic would have the ability to find out about to infiltrate and by so doing give us the ability to prevent a crime or an act from occurring, but the events of the past two years show us that that cannot

be our sole premise, that we need to be dealing with home grown threats, planned within the united states, carried out by individuals living here, and not necessarily involving a large conspiracy or indeed a long timeline that they are very short, very few people, and they can go very, very quickly. for example, the attempted attack this past may by shahzad who was a natural u.s. citizen, he attempted to detonate a bomb in times square, and he had been successful, his act would have killed or severely injured many, many individuals.

najabal was a member of the united states planning to attack the new york city system, but his plotting was being done in colorado, and he was driving across the country in order to get to new york city to carry out his attack, and just last week over thanksgiving, we saw the arrest of a young man from somalia wanting to bomb a crowded lighting tree ceremony in portland, oregon. those are just a few of the open source examples, but many other individuals are involved in such radicalizations. they are unknown to the ic, to the intelligence community. they are unknown to federal authorities, and that means our traditional ic methods, our

traditional ic efforts and travel analysis may not by themselves be enough to identify these domestically inspired terrorist planning and their attacks, so we are therefore challenged with moving beyond the premise that we've had in the past, the premise that we've relied on, and instead, we have to gain a better understanding again of the tactics, the behaviors, the other indicators that could point to terrorist activities. that's the reality we face today, and there's no doubt that it is a big challenge. it is a challenge we are up for. let me not be too pessimistic here. we have met challenges before. we surmount those challenges, but we're not going to surmount them if we just keep doing the same ole things in the same ole way. the terrorist environment is changing.

the violent crime environment is changes. we have to change. we have to adapt, we have to be proactive as well as reactive. how are we reflecting this at the department of homeland security? going back more than five years, our friends at iacp and others in state and local law enforcement were drawing attention to a phrase that homeland security starts with hometown security. homeland security starts with hometown security. and you know what? they are exactly right. they are exactly correct. each of us has a responsibility from a local police officer or a first responder to an intelligence analyst in a fusion center to members of the public or members of the private sector, private security

professionals, each has a responsibility that is a shared responsibility because, remember, if homeland security begins with hometown security, you can't just say that one federal department owns this issue. we are an integral part of the issue, but all of us, all of us have important roles to play, so at the department, at dhs, we are constantly asking ourselves how can we do a better, smarter job of broadening the collective mission of protecting the homeland? our answer is pretty straightforward. we seize every opportunity we can to build a bigger and stronger security team. we seize every opportunity we can to equip that team to succeed over the past two years i've been secretary, i've made

one of my top priorities is for us at the department at d hrk s to get -- dhs to get information, tools, and resources out of washington, d.c., and into the hands of people such as yourselves, men and women serving on the front lines, so for example, immediately after the attempted bombing on flight 253 to detroit last christmas, our intelligence and analysis branch worked with the fbi and the ic to immediately get information out to fusion centers, to state, local, triable, territorial individuals, but also throughout the air industry as to what was going on and what we were learning even as we were uncovering the roots of that particular plot. it means that we are establishing in our fusion

centers a grass roots analytic capability across the country in all 70-plus fusion centers that enables state and local authorities to receive threat-related information from the federal government and understand its local implications, and i've been kind of a bear on this because i believe that our products have to be written in such a way that they can be operatallized, put into effect on the ground, in communities, in our neighborhoods, on our streets. that they can be communicated to police officers on changes of watch, that they can be shared with fusion centers on an immediate realtime basis, and so that the ic function becomes less a washington, d.c. unique function, but more a shared function across the united

states. it means that we have been transforming our knowledge and our basis so that front line enforcement and security personnel can work in partnership with members of the community to protect critical infrastructure from violence including terrorism related violation. that means being more closely knitted together on identifies what that infrastructure is, where it is, how it is being protected now, what are some of the ways it needs to be protected, and making sure that everyone has access to those kinds of resources, that kind of grand on the ground knowledge, and that you and your colleagues across the country in fusion centers, at our borders in major

cities and rural communities alike are all recognized as an essential part of our homeland security architecture. homeland security begins with hometown security. that means that when we think about the threats we are facing and where they are spread across the united states, and i just mentioned a few communities in these remarks. i mentioned portland. i mentioned colorado. i mentioned the dc area. i mentioned new york. i could mention many others. i could mention northern illinois. i could mention connecticut. i could mention other states in the pacific northwest. i would mention southern california. i would mention ohio. i could mention many of the communities that you come from, but i think you get the drift of what i am saying which is we

face an ever-evolving threat. we don't know where all the people are. we don't know who all the people are. the tactics being used are much more difficult to intercept and our work together therefore has to be more closely knit with each other. every single one of us has to view ourselves as a full partner in the homeland security effort, so the homeland security architecture i am talking about, and the homeland architecture we are building is one where we weave together our information sharing networks, our counterterrorism efforts, and our community policing strategies in a way that has never been done before. i'm talking about leveraging the experience of local police in se nevada or florida who might spot a potential trend. for example, abnormal purchases

a peroxide that could be used to make explosive and share that with us so that we can combine it with analysis coming in from other parts of the country, say new jersey or new york and analyze and share it right back, not just not united states, but to our allies as well, weather it needs to be -- whrfer -- whereever it needs to be shared. one of the ways we are doing that is working closely with the bureau and implementing the nation's suspicious reporting system or sar. now, as many of you know, the nationwide sar initiative creates a standard process for

law enforcement and jurisdictions across the country to identify and report suspicious activity so it can be shared nationally to help us identify broader trends. currently, 24 jurisdictions including 11 states are either fully operational or have capability under the car initiative. at dhs we are working closely with our doj colleagues to expand sar to fusion center, transit police, and other jurisdictions, and it's very important that we do so because sar is much more than just -- much more than its name portends because under the training, the curriculum for sar, how we train for it, how people are engaged

in it, built into that training is how we have a nationwide sar process that includes and embraces privacy and civil liberty protections from the get-go so that organizations like the aclu have been involved from the get-go on how we do this in the right way, and so that what we are collecting is really useful stuff that needs to be followed up on, and not simply willie-nilly suspicious reporting, but it is part of really having a strong homeland, hometown security architecture. this is very important because if we don't expand sar in the right way or deploy it in the right way, there will be those who justifiably seek to strike is down on the ground that it is

unfairly singling out a group of individuals not based on tactics, techniques and behavioral indicators and based on ethic characteristics, and as we know, under our laws, that unacceptable. sar is designed to ensure that front line officers have the most up-to-date knowledge and including an awareness of the latest trends, tactics, and craft that we are seeing nationally and internationally, and this helps us as its deployed really to field that bigger team i spoke about earlier so that we do have a broader set of trained professionals and a more expansive range of settings where greater awareness of the kinds of indicator associated with potential terrorist or criminal activity.

the other thing we are doing is making sure that those of you in law enforcement get other types of information and tools that you can use. for example, we are producing and disseminating unclassified case studies that examine recent incidents vosm -- involving home grown terrorist products that you can use for your own organization's benefits, so taking things that previously had been held at the highest classified level and putting them into an unclassed product that can then be shared on an educational basis, and we're undertaking a number of other steps to better engage and inform individuals and communities about what it is that we are doing, so over the

summer, i announced a series of new initiatives to support state and local law enforcement in identifying and reducing threats from violent crime terrorism. these initiatives themselves came from recommendations of homeland security advisory counsel. that counsel advises me. it is chaired by the former head of the fbi, george webster, including some of our finest community leaders and leaders in law enforcement, and it recommended that we adopt community oriented policing techniques as a starting point for dealing with potential terrorists here at home, and that our citizens, our community groups, and our small businesses all need to be a part of that effort. what does that mean? what that means is this. here is the question i asked. i said, what is the best way to

counter violent extremism here at home? in dc, it's called cve? what is the best way to do that here at home? the answer that came back, and that i can concur with is that we may not at dhs as part of our role have the full capability to understand why it is that somebody would become a violent extremist, a terrorist, for example, but we know what works in terms of building bridges with communities so that you in a way just by knowing what goes on in a neighborhood, knowing what happens at the street, having a degree of trust between a police officer and a neighborhood group, we know what works in terms of being an effective strategy for combating violent crime and violent extremism is a radicalized form

of violence crime, and that is community oriented policing. where properly used, done in the right way, it has been remarkably effective in helping our country bring down crime rates and keep crime rates low, even sometimes in circumstances where you would predict they would be going up, and so we have been working with doj on cop's programs with the sar initiative to link those kinds of things together and to add a third link to this chain, and that is the role of individuals, and that -- and how you empower individuals to be part of our homeland security, hometown security efforts, well, that's a hard question. i mean, how do you empower citizens to help us protect them or protect themselves?

one way that we have lighted upon is a campaign called if you see something, say something. if you see something, say something is just what its name implies. it is a campaign that particularly when unified with a sar initiative in a particular local or particular state really now gives you the building blocks of a strong hometown, homeland security effort, so we are expanding if you see something, say something all over the country. we have added it to communities like in district of columbia. we have added it to states, tennessee, i think, for example is now a see something say something state.

.. for example, the professional sports league commissioners have met with me on this. we will be meeting with the ncaa as well. but if you see something, say something. you leave this talk this afternoon, and i know you have had a day of talks. i know. i mean, i've been in your seat.

i know, but i guarantee when you leave this park you're going to remember a couple things. one commodores guinn to remember homeland security begins with hometown security. you're going to remember that we no longer can say the old methods of terrorism are the only methods and indeed we are operating under the premise there are those unknown to us in this country to but some may be u.s. persons, some may not but they are here, you're going to remember that. three, you are going to remember see something, say something and think to yourself how you can deploy some of those things in your own communities with your own efforts when you go home. and indeed, that gets me to my concluding point.

look, i can't stand in front of you and tells you that with all that we are doing that we will prevent a terrorist act from being successful in this country. i can tell you we've stopped a lot of them, but i can't tell you that there's going to be 100% protection rate here. we can't seal this country. we're not going to stop the ability of people to travel, to the activities, to live their lives as we live our lives in the united states. but i can tell you this, that as we move forward and create this homeland, home town security architecture and build it and more is being added to read every day and more and more of your jurisdictions are joining in a vital and small ways. the more we do that, the more we

narrow the window through which someone intending to commit a terrorist act can pass. we know their window, we narrowed their opportunity, and we narrow or lower the risk that our citizenry face and we maximize our ability to protect and prevent. these are not ordinary times. and so, i'd like to be able to maybe close with some of the traditional platitudes, and i wish i could. but i don't think that would be the responsible thing to do. there are no guarantees in this world. our responsibilities or greater. our responsibility is to share

is greater, and our need to make sure that we don't have a federal centric approach to these things that need is also greater. what we need to be doing is recognizing the role each of us play, and in the role that our jurisdictions play through things like sars and see something say something. in homeland security part of our role is to try to inform and in power all of these players that all of these levels. and to do so in a way that is productive as well less reactive but as i suggested before,

america is a very tough country and we are very tough people. we have surrounded war and surmounted attacks like oklahoma city and surmounted or a tax like 9/11. i often remind people the new york stock exchange was up and running within four or five days after the attack of 9/11. we are a tough and resilient nation. we are tougher and more resilient because of the work by people like you. so once again, the country is calling on you. the country is calling on our department at dhs. the country is calling on us to work smarter, to work more together to be thinking ahead as

well as thinking react fleet and calling on us to make sure that the homeland security we build incorporates all of the resources of our home towns, and that is what i'm here today to speak to you about and the message i would like to go home with. thank you. [applause]

one of the things i look for when watching your videos is you, the students. i want to see you and your personality, and that helps meet your video stand out from the rest. >> what i like to see most in studentcam entries are a real investment and care in the topic that you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you're not interested in what you're presenting, chances are

we probably won't be either. >> one tie breaker a lot for me last year is the requirement on using c-span video. i'm looking for videos where people have looked at c-span content and said what elements of c-span video make the most sense for telling the compelling story i'm trying to tell. >> for all the rules including deadlines, price information and how to upload your video, but studentcam.org. tomorrow the full senate begins consideration of the impeachment of u.s. district court judge thomas porteous from louisianan. the house of representatives has approved four articles of impeachment against the judge, alleging among other things in proper relationships with lawyers and bail bondsman appearing in his courtroom. over the next four and a half hours will hear the case outlined before the senate impeachment committee in september.

>> good morning. the evidence proceedings of the senate impeachment committee on the articles against judge g. thomas porteous, jr. of the eastern district of louisiana will come to order. with the adoption of senate resolution 458 on march 17th, 2010 this committee was appointed to perform the duties and exercise the powers provided for the rules of procedure and practice in the senate while sitting in impeachment trial. royalty 11 requires the committee to receive evidence and take testimony on the four articles of impeachment which will be presented to the senate by the house of representative said. following extensive pre-trial proceedings we are here today to begin receiving evidence. as a conclusion of the evidence to proceedings the committee shall, as mandated by rule 11 and senate resolution 458, report to the full senate in writing a certified copy of the transcript of the preceding and testimony had been given for this committee and in addition, statement of facts that are

uncontested and a summary of the evidence that the parties have introduced on contested issues of fact. these proceedings may be viewed lights in each office on television or on the committee website at www.sitc.senate.gov. the proceedings are also being recorded so each cementer who is not on the committee may have an opportunity at any time to view the testimony of the witnesses as well as read the transcripts of their testimony. under senate impeachment will be 11, the full senate retains the power to determine the competency, relevancy and materiality of the evidence the committee will report to it. the senate also retains the power to send for any witness to testify in open senate or indeed, to order that the entire trial be conducted in open senate. regarding the house request to wafer will 22 and allow to persons to present his opening

statements, that request is hereby granted and the rule was waived. will 19 requiring senators wising to rest a question to the question in writing and through the presiding officer was previously waived. members will be permitted to ask questions directly of the witnesses once that witness has been cross-examined. and i would now defer to both sides of the trial to begin their opening statement. >> have -- madam chair [inaudible] >> turn your microphone on. >> thank you, madame chair. much better. i'm joined by my colleague of

the plot from virginia. we'll be joined during the trial lawyer our colleagues, and johnson, jim sensenbrenner and zoey lofgren. also assisted by a very able counsel, alan baron, mark, harry des moines and kingston kunar. at the outset, the house recognizes one extraordinary proceeding that says how seldom an impeachment is undertaken. i think this is a reflection of several things not the least of which the caliber of men and women who were nominated for the federal bench the vast majority of which occlude themselves with great distinction and not given cause for their removal from office. i think it's also a tribute to the confirmation process that is a good job in putting out those who are not suitable for the bench. and i also think it's a reflection of how infrequently the house believes this extraordinary remedy is required. i won't spend much time this morning in discussing the standard for impeachment, the high crimes and misdemeanors.

there will be time for that later. more than that, i think the members of this committee understand that standard better than i or anyone else could articulate. but i will share at least in my view one of the formulations i think the house and senate have arrived on in considering judicial impeachments. and that is that a judge has committed a serious violation of the public trust. that in the phraseology of the government, one of the framers that the judge has missed demeaned himself by violating the public trust that it necessitates removal from the bench. and i also stated in a unanimous view of the house of representatives, the conduct of judge porteous was so unethical, so deplorable and inedible to the public trust that it cannot be allowed to remain on the bench. what was the conduct? i would like to give a brief overview of the facts of the case before i turn to my colleague mr. goodlatte to go through the evidence in more detail before i do it's worth

pointing out the vast majority of the facts, the underlying conduct in this case is not disputed. the central conduct in this case is simply not contested. and that conduct involves four areas. the judges relationship with two attorneys commission concludes his relationship with the bill on company run by louis marcotte and the concealment of the nature of his relationship with these attorneys with a bill once company during his senate confirmation and it involves the numerous false statements and representations and violations of the bankruptcy court ordered and his bankruptcy case. let me start first with the lawyers. the evidence will show that he's known these lawyers for a long time and in fact had been a partner of theirs before he was appointed to the state bench. at some point while he was on the state bench, but because of

his expenses in the course of his family, occasions, when things or what not, within it was because of his gambling or his drinking or his taste for expensive lunches, he started asking for cash from one of the attorneys. in the beginning it was small amounts, $50, $100, whatever he had on him. but over time he began to ask for more cash, $500, $1,000. and at some point, bob got tired of being hit on by the judge for cash. and he told the judge in had to stop, the judge had to change his lifestyle or do it is necessary but the cash had to stop. and after they had this conversation, the judge started sending to readerships to the law firm of creely. the curator ships or a centrally smaller administrative cases often when there is an absent party and it's necessary for someone to take in and out in the paper or do other of the ministry of tasks in the court

to read the cases were not worth much, $175 or $200. a amato & creely will testify they didn't ask for them, they didn't want them but once the judge started sending these to readers to the firm of amato & creely he started again to hit them up for cash. he would call and want some of the curator of money and the evidence will show that they started to get him basically 50% of the curator money. it also shows the continue to give them curator money and they would both to control from the firm. they would teach basically get a thousand dollars as its role from the firm. they would then turn that into cash and give the cash to judge porteous. this went on three period of time until judge porteous was nominated for the federal bench. once he was appointed the federal bench to was a logger in a position to send to readers to the form of amato & creely.

when the to leadership stopped, the cash also stopped. now that cash stopped and the request stopped at the end of the curators when he was appointed the federal bench, the request for cash stopped until a certain point, and that point came when judge porteous was assigned a multimillion-dollar piece of litigation called liljeberg versus landmark. this case has been going on for years. six weeks before the trial, liljeberg brings in, among others, two new lawyers and one of them is jake amato and the other is levenson. the opposing counsel a gentleman named joel became concerned with the late addition six weeks before trial and this multi-year

very complex multimillion-dollar perhaps as much as the evidence will show for $200 million. very concerned with the late addition of these lawyers said he did some due diligence, contacted people that he knew that understood the bar and new orleans. and what he was told alarmed him that basically the things these two attorneys have in common, amato & creely and levenson they were basically crooning is of the judge and they were told in no uncertain terms he was told by not people who wanted to identify themselves or people who would speak publicly but the fix was in that they better make a good record for themselves on the appeal because they were going to lose this case. now this put mr. mol in a very difficult position because the case was a bench trial. was went be no jury. judge porteous was going to decide the facts and decide the law, he was going to write the order, and mr. mole did in that

evidence he could cite to most of which he was told he could not use in court but he did know they had lunch together although he did not know how frequently. and he was able to find through the court records he believed mr. amato were levinson had given a contribution to judge porteous's campaign and these were the only facts he could cite to their friendship in this campaign contribution, having lunch together in his motion to recuse. but he felt he had no choice. he had to try to ask the judge to remove himself for the case so he filed the motion. the judge makes it quite clear during the recusal hearing and we will share the concept of that hearing because it is one of the most illuminating pieces of evidence in the case the judge makes it clear he understands the ethical standards. he understands when he has to take himself off the case. he goes through that with

council and then he tries mr. mole for suggesting he got the campaign contribution from mr. amato and mr. levenson. he said i never had a campaign. the contribution you're talking about is a contribution to all the judges for all their campaigns. a program that was called justice for all, to all the judges the election. that was the only money he got from these lawyers. this of course we know was a quite elaborate conceit and misrepresentation because in fact he had gotten thousands and thousands of dollars for the curator ships from mr. amato and mr. creely. if he had done his homework he would have found out about all this cash the judge received. the recusal motion on appeal as he later appeals in the court of appeals for the affirmation and denies it.

the appeal would have been successful. the judge would recuse himself but he doesn't. he rules against the motion. the repeal was denied. the case goes to trial. after the case goes to trial judge porteous takes the case under submission. this is what an enormous amount for amato and creely. the of the commission arrangement that the contingency case. they don't get any unless they win this case and if they do when mr. amato would testify. the stand to earn somewhere between half a million $2 million. he's taken a lowercase into years as mr. amato has worked on this case. it's worth an awful lot to his firm. cases under submission for three years. willis of the submission the continue having their lunches together. the evidence will show creely or amato or ladens and have lunch with a judge probably hundreds of times over the years, expensive restaurants, lots of liquor.

the continue having a the lunches and the wining and dining, but more than that, they pay for parties for the judge, they pay for other expenses for the judge coming in on one very difficult weekend, mr. amato goes fishing with the judge and they are on the fishing boat and the judge says, breaks down and says i need money for my son's wedding. you've got to help me. i need money for my son's wedding. can you give me 2000, $3,000? can you get me that cash? can you give it to me, can you find somebody to give it to me? i need the money. and mr. amato will testify, made the worst decision of his life. mindful of the fact he had this very important litigation in this courtroom he gives him the one money. can't remember whether he gave it to him personally or had his secretary over to pick it up, but gives him 2,000, $2,500 in

cash and an envelope. not during the recusal the judge made a point of saying i know the standard when to be held to. it's my responsibility as a judge to disclose if there's something that the attorney should ask me to remove myself from the case to discuss judge porteous disclose at any point while it's under submission that he has solicited cash from one of the lawyers? does he tell the council about it? of course not. ultimately the judge rules in favor of mr. amato quiet. it's a huge victory for mr. amato's client. he writes a lengthy opinion. mr. mole, macina he would have to, appeals the opinion and in large part the court appeals reverses. not only reverses bottom of the more skating opinions you will ever read accuses judge porteous of making up remedies and arguments on whole cloth.

baseless, a faceless decision is essentially the court of appeals. views of what judge porteous has written. the evidence will also show that at the same time that this illicit relationship is coming on with amato and creely it's not the only relationship with its kind coming out in the court house in the state court house. judge porteous also has a relationship with a bill bonds company run by louis marcotte. and with respect to the marcotte, lewis and his sister, laurie, the evidence will show a similar pattern. the marcotte's taking the judge out to probably over the years dozens if not hundreds of meals and expensive places, buying and liquor, more than that, doing repairs on the judge's car, doing repairs of the judge's home, and for his part, the evidence will show judge porteous set bonds in a manner that would maximize profits to

lois marcotte and his company. and what a judge's priority in setting the bond would be to ensure the court. the evidence will show here that the marcotte's asked for bonds the would be announced would benefit him, mr. marcotte. and that the judge was more than willing to comply and the judge did more for louis marcotte. on two separate occasions, he was asked by mr. marcotte to expunge the convictions of employees of the billboard business who could no longer work, no one could be licensed to work in the business because of their convictions. so lewis marcotte goes to the judge and civil you expunge the condition first of a guy named jeff and the judge does it and leader of another bill on the employee, aubrey wallace and the judge explains that too. these were two of the bill of employees doing the work for the judge, doing the car repairs and the home repairs. and when the judge takes the

federal bench and can no longer set bombs to advantage louis marcotte, judge porteous helps recruit the judge to take his place with the marcotte's. a state judge, new state judge who will later go to jail after pleading guilty through a charge almost identical to the conduct year. with respect to the confirmation process, the evidence will show judge porteous knowingly failed to disclose the corrupt nature of these relationships to the fbi and the senate. how do we know the failure to disclose is knowing. hauer apart from the obvious fact that he is certainly aware of the cash he got from creely and amato that were the basis of the cash. he was aware of the lunches and party they paid for. he was aware of the drinking and

gambling. how apart from the obvious to we know that judge porteous put deliberately kept this from the senate? he tells us so. he tells us and shows us. let me give just one example how he does that. louis marcotte when he asks him to expunge one of these convictions, the second of the convictions, aubrey wallace. he will testify when he asks judge porteous to expunge the condition, the judge says i will do it, but not right now. i won't do this until after my senate confirmation. i'm not blowing a lifetime appointment to the bench to do this for you. and that's exactly what happens. he waits until after his senate confirmation and just before he's sworn in to expunge the conviction that aubrey wallace. why does he give precisely? he doesn't want to do it before the confirmation because he knows this would material affect

his confirmation of his expunging conditions for this company. but why just before he's sworn in? he also knows the moment he's sworn in to the bench he's no longer in a position to expunge the conviction. he can only do that is a state judge said it has to be thin and the evidence will show that when he expunge is the conviction. now during the confirmation judge porteous is asked by the senate is he aware of any unfavorable information that may affect his nomination? the answer is in his written statement under penalty of perjury to the best of my knowledge i do not know of any favorable information that may affect my nomination. how could he disclose the expunge and aubrey wallace conviction when he truly wait until after the confirmation to do? and the answer is he had already done it with respect to jeff. this was only the second time he did it. but of course, he also knew

about all of the cash, new about all of the other expenses and failed to disclose that and i think there is no question that would have materially not only affected his confirmation but in did his confirmation. with respect to the bankruptcy of the evidence will show a similar effort to conceal the truth he begins the bankruptcy process by filing a petition in a phony name, not porteous, but he picks a name he files his name the petition in the name ortous suppose this would be associated with him. why file a phony name? or perhaps to avoid having the casino read about his bankruptcy and declined to extend credit markers to him in the future or as perhaps the defense also just to avoid public and harassment.

but if a man will go the extreme length of filing a bankruptcy petition under a false name, and certified under penalty of perjury that name is in fact his real name and go to the length of taking a post office box to conceal it is his true identity will not conceal other information from the senate to obtain a lifetime appointment to the bench? the evidence will show that he would and in fact he did. there are numerous other false statements and bankruptcy proceeding which we will chronicle leader. the judge porteous repeatedly line deletes the bankruptcy judge's order not to incur debt when he goes to casinos again and again, filling out credit applications taking up markers and borrowing from the casino to gamble. as i mentioned these facts are not seriously contested. in fact judge porteous had missed most of them in the fifth circuit. these acts about the curator money and of extending the curator and ethnic calling them and getting cash back.

he will not call with a kickback but judge porteous does not do my getting the cash after sending the curators. when he's asked how much money did he get from amato and creely during the proceedings his answer have no idea. i have no idea. number i didn't get the money, i don't know if you're talking about, but in terms of how much, i have no idea. he got cash so often after such a prolonged period of time, he has no idea exactly how much he got from them. does he had met in the two or 3,000 in cash after soliciting it during the pendency of this case in an envelope? yes, he admits that, too, in the fifth circuit. he takes issue strangely enough with the envelope. he can't remember whether it was a big envelope or regular envelope but he doesn't deny getting an envelope with cash during the pending of this multimillion-dollar litigation. he doesn't remember whether he got it personally or send his

federal secretary to pick up the cash for him but he doesn't deny getting the cash. he admits not disposing of the curator money during the recusal hearing. he admits not paying taxes on the income he got from amato and creely. he admits filing disclosure forms as the federal reforms and claiming that he had about $40,000 in credit card debt when in fact he had over $180,000 worth of credit card debt. yet its filing bankruptcy under a false name saying only it was his lawyer's idea. he admits filling out credit applications with casinos and incurring more debt in the form of markers with those casinos when the bankruptcy order prohibiting him from doing so. none of this he denies. not the lunches of the parties, the favors or the cash not the false statements or extensions, and of the split bonds with a false name, none of this to the expect he has or will deny. as the facts are largely

untested. as i will discuss briefly after mr. goodlatte goes to the evidence of these facts in more detail the issue of the case is largely missed. judge porteous doesn't believe the conduct is wrong. he doesn't believe any of it is unethical or immoral. in his view it is at best the appearance of impropriety. as the defense states in its statement of the case, the conduct alleged here is, quote, a variety of factors that constitute at most the appearance of impropriety. it is unanimous view of the house of representatives that judge porteous's conduct was not only wrong but so the violative of the public trust he cannot be allowed to remain on the bench without making a mockery of the court system. i would now like to turn it over to my colleague, bob goodlatte, to go through the evidence in more detail.

>> thank you, mr. schiff, ms. mccaskill, mr. hatch, members of the committee, let me turn to the facts we shall proven the case in more detail. judge porteous was born in december, 1946 and he will be 64 this december. in 1971 he graduated from lsu law school and was a partner with jacob amato with whom you will hear later today between 1973 and 1974. robert creely, who will also hear from later to become a practice that that will firm. october 1973 to august, 1984, judge porteous also served as assistant district attorney in jefferson parish laws iyad. in august, 1984, judge porteous served as a state district court judge on the 24th judicial court for jefferson parish louisiana

where he served as a state judge from august, 1984 to october 28, 1994. while a state judge, amato and creely regularly and frequently took him to lunch and provided and paid for other entertainment for the judge porteous. judge porteous and virtually never pay for any launches he attended with creely or amato. what we first started talking about judge porteous's curator scheme with attorneys creely and amato. as mr. schiff stated at some point after he became a state judge, judge porteous began to request money from robert creely. the evidence will show judge porteous claimed he needed money for personal reasons such as tuition, car repairs or home repairs. creely would give him the money has requested. over time as judge porteous's request for money persisted and the amounts he sought increase, creely came to resent and resist them to the point creely would avoid judge porteous's phone calls. creely but so far as to tell

judge porteous he felt he was being taken advantage of. this committee ruled the transcript from the fifth circuit in house hearings are admissible so i will quote here from what creely testified before the fifth circuit, quote, i don't recall if i specifically told him that it was because of his lifestyle, but i told him that we could not continue giving him money. i couldn't continue giving him money. in light of creely's resistance, judge porteous camaguey the following scheme. judge porteous used his judicial power to assign creely to readership. these are appointments whereby creely would represent the missing party in the case such as a case to clear title on a foreclosure for which creely would receive a set fee of approximately $200 from the court. after he was paid for those curator ships, judge porteous requested from creely money constituting some portion of the fees. pagen creely testified in the fifth circuit, question due to

judge porteous mcginn request of you after sending you curatorships for a portion of fees you're being paid by the court? answer, yes, sir. question, and how did he do that? answer, i don't recall how it came about, but it came about and he got -- and i can't tell you that he got all of the curator fees that we generated but he got a good portion of the fees we generated from the curators. creely told his partner, amato, that judge porteous was asking for money from the curatorships. here is how amato described in the deposition in august of this year in response to questioning by judge porteous attorney. question, was it your understanding there was a connection between the money that was the cash that was given to judge porteous and the kucinich? answer, at some point in time, yes. question, and how did you reach the understanding? answer, bob creely khanna my office monday, told me that

porteous was sending curatorships and wanted us to give him some money back and i told him this is going to wind up bad. and as you can see mr. amato couldn't have been more increasing. let me pause here. the evidence here is not simply the testimony of creely and amato. judge porteous himself admitted central aspects of the sequence of events leading to and including his actions regarding the curatorships to be flexible in his testimony under oath to the fifth circuit judge porteous confirmed mr. creely refused to pay him money before the summit started. answer, he may have said i needed to get my finances under control. yes. during the time he said curatorships over to the amato and creely he would receive money back from them. question, after receiving curatorships, mr. creely or amato or other law firm would give them money, correct?

and circumlocution moly. question, during the time you were giving creely and amato and the law firm to readerships and you're getting the cash back, was that cash you received a kickback for the curatorships in your mind? answer, no, sir. though judge porteous disputes whether they should be characterized as a kick back, he does not dispute the fundamental premise of the arrangement that was then in place, that there was a time he was kidding, quote, creely and amato and their law firm curatorships and was giving cash back. thus creely a amato exceed it to judge porteous ' request and funding by the senate. creely a amato to controls from the firms to come up with the cash to give judge porteous in response to his demand. here are examples of orders that the judge assigned assigning a curator to lead to curatorships to creely orders that the judge porteous signed in his judicial capacity in order to enrich

himself. during the 1988 to 1994 time period, the house identified approximately 200 curator ships believed was with judge porteous assigned amounting to the fees of close to $47 to the firm. creely and amato estimated they collectively gave judge porteous approximately $20,000 or $10,000 each from doherty readership proceeds. and as to the money amount he received, judge porteous testified. question, judge porteous over the years how much cash have you received from j amato and bald creely order laforme? answer, have no earthly idea. question, it could have been $10,000 or more, isn't it? answer, i can't. you're asking me to speculate. i have no idea is all i can tell you so the money came directly from creely. the evidence will show that judge porteous well understood that the money was 50/50 from amato as well.

the evidence will be clear that judge porteous spent time with both men and understood they had a close partnership relationship. however, after judge porteous began a federal judge in 1994, his ability to assign creely the curatorships came to an end, and thus his cash requests came to an end for the time being. we believe you will conclude the fact that judge porteous stopped making cash requests of the same time he stopped assigning curatorships is powerful evidence that judge porteous understood that those two events would be inextricably interwoven. now let me turn to judge porteous's handling of the liljeberg case in federal court. a case where amato was the attorney for one of the parties. in early 1996, judge porteous, now a federal judge, was assigned a complicated civil case involving the disputes between a hospital, life mark, and a company run in the pharmacy at the hospital known collectively as liljeberg to the

trial was set for early november 1996 and just six weeks prior to the date for trial in late september, 1996, the liljeberg hired mr. amato and creely and a close friend leonard levenson to represent them at trial. as mr. schiff noted, with mark council failed to reduce judge porteous. whitemarsh argued the timing of known close friends of judge porteous entering this complex case raised suspicion about the integrity of the process. lifemark's had known a partnership with creely given judge porteous close to $200,000 in cash. in october, 1996, judge porteous conducted a hearing on lifemark recusal motion. it is worth going through what happened at that recusal during and a little bit of detail. now that the recusal during judge porteous described his

relationship with amato and pleasants and as follows. quote, if anyone wants to decide if i'm a friend with mr. amato reluctance and i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative yes. mr. amato and i practice law to give the public 20 plus years ago. judge porteous further stated, quote coming this mr. amato and mr. levenson our friends of mine. have i ever been to either one of their houses? the answer is a definitive no. how far gone along to lunch with him? the answer is a definitive yes. have i been going to lunch with all the members of the bar? the answer is yes. in short, at the hearing judge porteous portrait his relationship with amato as simply the same sort of an exceptional relationship he would have had with any member of the bar limited to having, quote come and gone to lunch with him. even that is misleading because the evidence will show judge porteous had in fact accepted hundreds of meals at a expensive restaurants from amato without

for supporting. more significantly, and describing his relationship judge porteous makes no mention whatsoever of what is the issue. that is he has received the essence of dollars in cash from amato's money that comes from amato as well as creely. mr. mole had a great disadvantage says, quote, the public perception is they dined with you some trouble with you, the of contributing to your campaigns, and judge porteous councils on this. i didn't have a campaign so interested to find out how did you know that. i never had in a campaign counsel. i never had an opponent to read the first time i ran 1984, i think it is the only time they gave me money, and of court. judge porteous goes on to challenge mole about the suggestion that amato and creely had given campaign contributions saying mole should have done his

homework better, and of quote. he makes the self-serving comment in which he promises to notify the council if he has any question he should recuse himself and conclude i don't think a well-informed individual can question my impartiality in this case. well, in effect what you have here is george porteous and amato who know the facts just not disclosing it. completely misleading and disguise and the nature of the actable relationship. amato knows this is not right. here's what amato described in the court room in response to the questioning by mr. schiff and his senate deposition. question, and he in fact told the attorneys they should have done their homework better because this was a contribution to a general judge found. answer, that's correct. that's the short story. question, and why would he was making this show for the other council that they should have done their homework better he

didn't tell them anything about the approximately $20,000 curator fees that you and your partner kickback get him, did he? answer, no, he didn't tell them anything about these def. question, did you think that was misleading mr. amato to pound his chest and say i never got any campaign contribution but failed to tell them you've got about $20,000 in cash under the table? yes. question, so you don't feel he was being honest during that hearing, do you? answer, i don't think he was being honest. in the summer of 1997, judge porteous presided over the liljeberg trial that took the case under the fis and. he did not issue his opinion until april 2000. the evidence will show in may of 19991 of the judge had the case under advisement, judge porteous invited amato creely, amato's partner to his sons of jalabert prior to the wedding.

on that trip, creely paid for judge porteous's hotel room and contributed several hundred dollars to the bachelor party dinner and paid for the entertainment for judge porteous. indeed judge porteous had rented in the fifth circuit is the testimony creely made the payments for him to read in june of 1999 also while still having the case under of fis and, judge porteous went on a fishing trip and told him his son's wedding expenses for more than anticipated and requested to amato give him cash in response to that, amato and creely give approximately $2,000. pause for a moment. here we have a federal judge will have a small injury case under advisement asking one of the attorneys for cash. like much of the of the evidence we shall introduce the fact judge porteous solicited and received money from amato in 1999 in connection to his son's wedding and while the case is

pending is not really contested. here is how the judge testified. question, do you recall in 1999 in the summer of may, june, receiving $2,000 from them? user, judge porteous, i've read mr. amato's brandt testimony and is as we were fishing and i made some the presentation i was having difficulties and that he loaned me some money or give me some money. question, whether or not you recall asking mr. amato for money during his fishing trip, do you recall getting envelope with two dozen dollars shortly thereafter? answer, yes, something seems to suggest there may have been an envelope. i don't remember the size of the envelope, how got the envelope or anything about it. question, with a second, is it the nature of the envelope that you're disputing? answer, no, money was received in an envelope. question, and it had cash in it? answer colin yes, sir. question, and it was from creely

or amato? >> answer, yes. >> question, and was used to pay for your son's wedding? answer, to help defray the cost, yes. question, and would you dispute the amount was more than $2,000? answer, i don't have any basis to dispute. in addition in the fall of 1999 while judge porteous still had the liljeberg case number and size and, creely and amato people for one of $1 for the party in honor of judge porteous fifth year on the federal bench. in april to build the judge issued his opinions in the liljeberg case ruling for the liljeberg on all major issues. market appealed judge porteouss' opinion and in a scathing terms. describing it as seriously as, quote, inexplicable. constructed entirely out of whole cloth bordering on the nonsensical, and absurd. los article 1 charge is a pattern conduct in connection

with judge porteous handling of the liljeberg case including his failure to recuse himself making false and misleading statements that the refusal hearing, the solicitation in $2,000 from amato will the case was pending before him and his receipt of other things of value from creely including creely's payments for the judge porteous expense of the 1999 trip to las vegas. now let me turn to article 2. judge porteous' relationship with bill bondsman louis marcotte and his sister that mr. schiff discussed. for that, it is necessary to return to judge porteous' roots as a state judge. first, let me take a second to describe how the villans business worked in new orleans and why judge porteous' actions and setting bombs was so financially significant to the marcotte. this is somewhat detailed and i tried to distort it to its essentials. a bail bond is basically an

insurance policy. the prisoner pays the premium, typically 10% of the amount of the field on to the bail bondsman and the bail bondsman promises the court the prisoner will show up when he is required so if a blonde savitt $50,000 a prisoner would pay the bail bondsman $5,000. louis speed, the salon's month, will testify that he would make no money if the bond was set so high the prisoner could not afford the premium, work to lower the premium would be an insignificant sum. what marcotte wanted was for the bond to be set at the maximum amount for its the prisoner could afford to pay marcotte a premium. it is against this background judge porteous' relationship with the marcottes must be understood. prior to taking the federal bench, starting in the early 1990's, judge porteous developed a relationship with the marcottes where he solicited and accepted things of value from them, and at the same time to commit murders of shall act as a

state judge for the financial benefits. first, as to what the marcottes gave to judge porteous. marcottes frequently took judge porteous to high and restaurants for lunch pail in both for meals and drinks. the marcottes also paid for numerous car repairs and routine car maintenance for judge porteous. they pay for home repairs for judge porteous when defense of judge porteous had to be fixed. marcottes also pay for a trip to las vegas for judge porteous. in return, judge porteous when we became marcottes's go to guy for sitting on some believe the bonds. he went with recommended on the amounts. that would maximize their income. judge porteous was receptive and signed countless bonds to their request, judicial acts he knew to be a financial benefit to them. now at a private hearing mr. creely argued the house cannot identify any corrupt bonds set by judge porteous.

that is not the point where the articles of impeachment allege. rather the evidence will demonstrate judge porteous solicited and willingly accepted things from the marcottes which he knew to be an inducement and rewards for his taking many judicial acts for the financial benefit of the marcottes. the evidence will show they were not social friends as you or i may conceive that term. they knew each other solely through work and formed a corrupt mutually beneficial relationship. in addition, in addition to setting bonds as requested, judge porteous to cover judicial acts of significance for the marcottes. in 1993, judge porteous expense to the conviction of duhon to read this was worked out between judge speed and porteous and judge porteous at staunch duhon's as marcotte suggested. in 1994 at marcottes request judge porteous set aside the conviction of another marcotte

employee, aubrey wallace. again, this was worked out between louis speed and judge porteous. it took place during judge porteous' last days on the bench. a final judicial act by judge porteous for the marcottes benefits and evidence the extent to which judge porteous was beholden to the marcottes. now let me turn to judge porteous' confirmation as a federal judge. at some point in 1994, -- excuse me -- at some point in 1994 judge porteous kimber consideration to be appointed as a federal judge. judge porteous if the white house and the senate had found out about his relationships with either creely or the marcottes he would never be nominated, let alone confirmed. in the course of the background investigation and during the confirmation process, judge porteous was asked questions on less than four occasions but what have logically started his disclosure of his relationships with creely and amato if he had

been truthful and forthcoming. first at some point prior to july of 1994, judge porteous for about a former referred to as the supplement to the sf 86. on that form is the question that goes to the heart of the issue associated with a background process. i want to show you that question and answer. i want to show that answer to the committee. in that form judge porteous was asked question, is their anything in your personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or what will you. is their anything in your life that could cause embarrassment to you or the president is publicly known. if so, please provide full details. to which judge porteous answered know. judge porteous signed the document under the penalties of false statements. of course the evidence will show that he knew of the facts on it describes and bust you that

answer was false. the evidence will show that thereafter on july 6 and july 8th, judge porteous was interviewed by fbi agent and as part of the makarov check process. judge porteous was asked by the agent the same sort of question and his answers were incorporated in a memorandum of the agent this summer in the interview. let me again to the exhibit. in the fbi right of that interview judge porteous was recorded as stating that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence pressure, course or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on the candidate's character reputation judgment or discussion. after that interview the fbi of new orleans said a background check to the headquarters in washington which reviewed the baquet check and upon that they directed the agents to interview judge porteous second time about a very particular allegation

that the fbi received in 1993 judge porteous had taken a bribe from an attorney to reduce the bond due individual who had been arrested. this allegation did not implicate the marcottes. swa august 18 from the fbi returned in the conduct of a second in person interview with judge porteous probing possible illegal conduct of his part in connection with monk setting. once again from the fbi records judge porteous as stating, quote, that he was unaware of any thing in his background that might be the basis of attempted influence, pressure, the abortion or compromise can or what impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment or discretion. finally, on the united states senate committee on the judiciary -- united states committee on the tradition recent judge porteous questionnaire for the judicial nominees. again i am showing you the document on the screen. in that questionnaire, judge porteous was asked the following

questions and gave the following answer. please advise the committee of any unfavorable information that may affect your nomination. answer, to the best of my knowledge, i do not know of any unfavorable information that may affect my nomination. the signature block is in the form of an affidavit that the information provided in the document is true and correct. thus on four occasions judge porteous concealed the truth as to his relationships with creely and amato and the marcottes from the fbi and the senate. in addition, the men who judge porteous had been receiving things from creely and amato were interviewed by the fbi. each made misleading or false statements designed to protect judge porteous. now let me turn to an act undertaken by judge porteous during the time of the confirmation process that evidence is first judge porteous knew his relationship with marcotte was corrupt and second demonstrates he wanted to conceal what relationship from

the senate. as i mentioned, marcotte had an employee in and aubrey wallace. wallace had to felony