reflect appropriate resourcing for things like bunker buster munitions, countermeasures for mines and appropriate sensor and intelligence platforms. we will continue to focus heavily on countering systems like iran and china would use to deny transit to the international unity. my obligation as chairman is to ensure that if the president uses the military option, against iran, that option is a credible one. because what happens to the world's economies if we can't ship strategic resources out of the persian gulf? what happens if we can't stop iran from closing the strait of hormuz? there are too many trouble spots in too many regions for us to

abandon the two conflict strategy. because the first round of cuts forces us to abandon the to war defense, undoing the military reductions in the budget control act, would allow us to return to that proven strategy. the third and final pillar is to restore a military chewed up from 10 years of fighting. it's the longest war we have had in our history. when we increase defense spending during the bush years we spent money on things like body armor, uavs and armored vehicles. what we did not do was upgrade replacement systems that were canceled during the clinton years. today's military is by and large a smaller version of the reagan military. most of the planes, ships and tanks were built during his administration. we must end end this unofficial procurement holiday and get our

forces the tools they need to win the current war and deter future wars. that means repairing and replacing equipment that was lost and damaged in places like iraq and afghanistan. it means upgrading and restoring our nuclear deterrent, which is falling apart after two decades of neglect. and most importantly, it means we take care of our people. and last year's defense bill, we acknowledge that modest increases in certain areas of military health care were appropriate. those fees were both reasonable and small. but recent proposals to pump up military health care by up to 300% is absolutely unacceptable. when our troops made the decision to volunteer for service, they entered a sacred agreement with this government. part of that agreement was that their medical needs would be met.

we made a solemn covenant with them. we cannot, we must not break it. because to maintain a strong america, we need our all volunteer military. are we rv reddy as a nation and the people to embrace the concept of helplessness on the world stage? are we prepared to accept the possibility that someone other than us can shape our destiny? we will do what we can with this defense bill but it's not going to be easy. to put it plainly, we need your help. we need your help in restoring the concept of the reagan military. just the name invokes the concept of strength and certitude. i need you to be advocates for the principles of president reagan. i need you to stand with our

troops. i need you to reject intervention, government intrusion in our lives and refocus this great republic ' constitutional obligations for the common defense. these cuts can be stopped, averted, held off. but it requires you, each of you, to be involved, to be vocal, to be strong. how can we call ourselves reagan republicans if we sit quietly during the most systematic and catastrophic cuts to an institution that reagan helped build? remember the triumphs of the reagan military, the cold war, the great threat of our time and it without a single shot being fired. the gulf war, where we decimated the world's fourth-largest army in less than a month. remember reagan's three-legged

stool and compass that keeps us focused on our conservative principles. when we are strong, and when we stick to those principles, america does wonderful things. we cannot walk blindly through this defining period in our nations history. we cannot ignore the lessons of the past. i believe in optimism. i believe in confidence, and i believe that with your support, we can stage a resurrection of this great country. we have taken our, and in his past decade has been a tough one, but we have endured a revolution, a civil war, a great depression, two world wars, and the cold war. every time we take one on the job, we climbed back up off the mat. my job, our job, as californians

and as americans, is to stiffen that resolve. the ability to control our own destiny is what makes us americans. the power to guide our destiny is what makes us great, and our determination to protect that destiny is what makes us brief. together, let's determined to be masters, not victims, of our fates. thank you. god was our armed forces, god was the great state of california and god was america. [applause] [applause]

>> if there's anything that concerns the american family today is this, our government hasn't caught up with the new facts of american family life. families have changed, so why can't washington? nearly 65% of all mothers are working, part-time, full-time, all of that time, keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable daycare and the pay they deserve. too often, they can't get either.

>> the senate began consideration of the bill today decide to make it easier for small businesses to sell stock in an initial public offerings. objection? so ordered. so ordered. >> mr. president i am honored to

be here today with the women senators to talk about the reauthorization of the balanceaw against women act, a law thatpa has a history of passing thisisp chamber with broad bipartisan support. i wouldre note that there are my authors of this bill, i think up to something like 58 authors currently, andur the women that are speaking today include myself and mikulski, mr. senator murray, senator boxer, also intorg the bill are senator collins and snowe and senator mccaskill, stabenow and gillibrand. the bill is led by senator leahy and senator crapo so we're here to pledge our support for this bill and ask our colleagues to move forward for this bill. the violence against women was a landmark bill when it first became law in 1984. back then it started a sea change in it is a tiewdz and sent a strong message to the

country saying that sexual assault and domestic violence are serious offenses that will not be tolerated. we heard that message loud and clear in my state, and i'm proud to say that our state has always had a strong tradition of standing up against these crimes. in fact, no conversation in our state about domestic abuse would be complete without mentioning former senator paul wellstone and his wife sheila, who we miss dearly. the wellstones put so much time and energy into bringing these issues out of the shadows into taking a subject that many people considered at the time a family matter and saying, you know, what? domestic violence isn't just something we can sweep under a rug. it's a crime, it hurts families, it hurts children, and we're going to do something about it. and while i led the prosecutor's office in hennepin county, minnesota for eight years, we put a lot of focus on the victims' needs and atlantic the

children's needs in domestic violence cases. because it doesn't take a bruise or broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic violence. kids who witness domestic violence are victims, too. we had a poster up on the wall in our office, madam president, a poster of a woman with a band-aid on her nose holding a baby, it said beat your wife, your kid goes to jail. you know why? the statistics show kids who grow up in violent homes are 76 times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence themselves. it's a sobering number, and over all, the statistics for these kinds of crimes are staggering. more than one in three women in the united states have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. and every year, close to 17,000 people lose their lives to domestic violence. so once again, this is not just a family matter.

this is a matter of life and death, and not just for the victims but oftentimes for the law enforcement officers who are all too often caught in the line of fire. i've seen this in my own state. in fact, i saw it just a few months ago when i attended the funeral of sean schneider, a young police officer in lake city, membership. he died after responding to a domestic violence call. a 17-year-old girl was being abused by her boyfriend. when officer schneider arrived at the scene he was shot in the head. he literally gave his life to save another. i attended that funeral, madam president, and i still remember those three little children, the two boys and the little girl with the blue dress with stars on it going down the aisle of the church. and he you see -- when you see that, you realize the victims of domestic violence not aren't just the immediate victims, it is an entire family, it is an

entire community. so we know all too well just how dwast stais stating domestic -- devastating domestic violence can be to victims and entire communities. six years ago we passed a a reauthorization bill out of the judiciary committee, and the bill has the support of 58 senators, including six republicans. i'm glad that this bill has continued to attract bipartisan support. i wish it was unanimous. just seven years ago, in fact, the reauthorization bill passed the house by a vote of 415-4 and it passed the senate by unanimous consent with 18 republican cosponsors. i know that this year some of my republican colleagues on the judiciary committee are not supportive of this bill, but it is my hope that while they may disagree with the bill, they will not stop this bipartisan bill from advancing. combating domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue that we should all be able to agree on. many of the provisions in the

reauthorization bill made important changes to the current law. the bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. it provides flexibility by adding more purpose areas to the list of allowable uses. it has training for people providing legal assistance to victims and takes steps to address the high rates in native american communities. the bill also fills some gaps in the system and i'm pleased to say it includes the legislation that i introduced with senator kay bailey hutchison to address high tech stalking where stalkers use the internet, video surveillance and bugging to stalk their victims. the bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking down on stalkers. just as with physical stalk, high-tech stalking may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. we need our tools for our law

enforcement to be as sophisticated as those who are breaking the law. now, i can tell you i want to end with this, i snow senator feinstein is coming -- i know senator feinstein is coming soon and a number of women who will be speaking today but i want to remind everybody in this chamber that domestic violence takes its toll. one of the most memorable cases i had in our office when our office prosecuted a case of a woman dmild eden prairie, minnesota. she was a russian immigrant, her husband was a russian immigrant, didn't have many friends in the communities. she was most likely a domestic violence victim for many, many years. one day this man killed his wife. he then took her body parts down to missouri. he left some of the body parts there and the entire time he had their 4-year-old daughter in the car with him. he then drove back to minnesota, confessed to the crime. and when they had the funeral,

there was only me, our domestic violence advocate, and the grandparents that had come to russia and this woman's identity twin sister. what had happened at the airport when they arrived was that this little 4-year-old girl who had never seen her aunt, who had never seen her mother's identity twin sister, ran down that hallway when she saw her aunt the first time and hugged her and said mommy, mommy, mommy, because she thought that her mom was back. it reminds us all that domestic violence isn't just about one victim. it's about children, it's about family, and it's about a community. and we all know that this bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. the women of the senate know it, there are already three republican women on this bill and many others, i hope to come. we believe in this bill, we ask our colleagues to support this

bill. i see that my colleague, senator feinstein, is here, and i know that as a member of the judiciary committee she and i are the only two women members of the judiciary committee. she that has taken a lead on this issue for many, many years. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i want to thank the senator from minnesota for her remarks. for a long time i had been the only woman on the judiciary committee, and i'm just delighted that she is there as well. and that we share the same point of view with respect to this bill. i rise today to urge the republican leadership of the senate to allow this piece of legislation that protects american women from the plague -- and it is a plague -- of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence, and sexual assault, to come to the floor of this

senate for a vote. i was in the judiciary committee, i voted for the original violence against women act. it was authorized for six years. we reauthorized it. it served another six years. and now the bill is up for reauthorization. it came out surprisingly from the judiciary committee on a split vote. and, unfortunately, that was a split party vote. i might say i was stunned by this vote because never before had there been any controversy in all of more than a decade and a half, in all of this time about this bill. this act is the centerpiece of the federal government's effort to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. and it has actually impacted positively response to these

crimes at the local, state, and federal level and i hope to show this. the bill authorizes a number of grant programs administered by the department of justice and health and human services to provide funding for emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. as a matter of fact, i was thinking last night when i was mayor of san francisco back in the early 1980's, i started the first home for battered women, which was casa de las madre sanch and it was such a critical need. women being battered had no place to go and often stayed in the home there where they were battered again and again. this bill also provides support for state agencies, rape crisis centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable

women. and american women are safer because we took action. today, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of nonfatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53% since this bill went into effect in 1994. these figures are from the department of justice. so here we have a 53% decrease in the rate of nonfatal partner violence. the need for the services was highlighted in a recent survey by the centers -- centers for disease control which found on average 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the united states. 24 a minute by an intimate

partner in the united states. over the course of the year now that equates to more than 12 million women and men. in california, my state, 30,000 people access crisis intervention services from one of california's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and 2011. these centers primarily rely on federal violence against women act funding, not state funding, to provide services to victims in communities. in 2009 alone, there were more than 167 -- excuse me, 167,000 cases in california in which local, county, or state police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint. 167,000 cases. that's many. despite the fact that the

underlying bill has 58 cosponsors from both parties, not a single republican member of the judiciary committee voted to advance the legislation. now, the bill that came out of judiciary does have some changes, and i want to talk about them for a moment. it creates one very modest new grant program. it consolidates 13 existing programs. it reduces authorization levels for all other programs by nearly 20%. and the savings, 17%, the bill is reduced in cost by 17%. that's $136 million. it encourages effective enforcement of protective orders, and that's a big probl problem. women get protective orders and they're violated because they're

want enforced -- not enforced. and it reduces the national backlog of untested rape kits, a real problem if a jurisdiction can't test a rape kit. yet there's some who refuse to support it because it now includes expanded protections for victims. and let me put this on the table. the bill includes lesbian and gay men. the bill includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. the bill gives native american tribes authority to prosecute crimes. in my view, these are improvements. domestic violence is domestic viems violencviolence. i ask my friends on the other side. if the victim in a same-sex relationship is the -- is the violence any less real, is the

danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? i don't think so. if a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, well, you're illegal, i'm sorry, you don't deserve any protection? 911 operators, police officers don't refuse to help a victim because of their sexual orientation or the country where they were born or their immigration status. when you call the police in america, they come, regardless of who you are. the violence against women reauthorization act of 2011 is supported by 50 national religious organizations, including the presbyterian church, the episcopal church, the evangelical lutheran church, the national council of jewish women, the national council of catholic women, and united church of christ, and the united

methodist church. so i go back to my days as mayor and seeing over and over again, up-close and personal, in a city what happens because of domestic violence. i see police getting killed when they go into a domestic violen violence. we had a number of funerals of police officers in oakland which i attended, and it all stemmed from domestic violence. so to defeat this bill is almost to say, we don't need to consider violence against women. it's not an important issue. it is. it's not a partisan issue. it never has been in this body. , which is why, candidly, i'm surprised that i find myself on the floor urging that this bill be brought to the floor, because it's been historically, through

two reauthorizations, a bipartisan bill. you can't help but notice this isn't the first time when a policy that would specifically imperil the health and safety of american women has compelled some of us to come to this floor and speak out on behalf of american women. i hope that this bill is not part of a march and that march, as i see it, over the past 20 years has been to cut back on rights and services to women. and i mean that most sincerely. i have never seen anything like it. when i came here, there were discussions over roe v. wade. when i first went on the judiciary committee, which was in 1993, i heard it, there were debates over supreme court opinions, casey et al. then there were debates over partial-birth abortion.

then this year we fought against the blunt amendment, which would have effectively allowed employers to arbitrarily combine four pages -- decline to provide four pages of critical preventive health care services for wet. you know, we've had to fight for the simplest thing. i think young women forget that it took until 1920 for women to get to vote in this country, and it was only because women fought for it. and we have fought since the country was established for the right to -- to vote, for the right to inherit property, for the right to go to school. and now we fight for our rights to have sufficient service from the government with respect to our health. so now i'm here to fight for a bill that strengthens laws and protects women against domestic violence and sexual assault. to me, this bill is a no-brain

no-brainer. it has the support of both sides of the aisle. it's bipartisan. it saves lives. it is a lifeline for women and children who are in distress, who have no place to go o other than to stay and to submit to domestic violence abuse. and no one can say i'm exaggerating. trust me, i have seen it. i've seen the bruised bodies up-close and personal. and this bill has reduced the number of assaults, domestic assaults, on women. the record indicates that. it should be continued. it's a no-brainer. i hope it's brought to the flo floor. i hope we maintain a bipartisan vote, and i hope it's reauthorized. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, senator feinstein. we've now been joined by the senator from washington, senator murray, who's been longtime

fighting for domestic violence bills. thank you. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, thank you so much. and i want to thank my colleague from california, senator feinstein, for her longtime advocacy on this. and to our colleague from minnesota, senator klobuchar, for leading the effort this year to reauthorize this critically important bill to protect women in this country from violence. i was very proud to be here with the senator from california back in 1994 when we first passed the violence against women act or vawa, as we call it, which created this national strategy for dealing with domestic violence. and since we took that first historic step, vawa has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates and social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. this law has helped provide lifesaving assistant to hundreds of thousands of women and their

families. it's been supported by democrats and republicans along with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victims' service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors. vawa has attained such broad support for one reason -- it's worked. since it became law 18 years ago, domestic violence has decreased by 53%. and while incidents have gone down, reporting of violence and abuse has gone up. more victims are finally coming forward and more women and families are getting the support and the care they need to move themselves out of dangerous situations. as a result of the language in this law, every single state has made stalking a crime and they've all strength ends criminal rape -- strengthened criminal rape statutes. madam president, we have made a lot of progress since 1994 but

we still have a long way to go. every single minute, 24 people across america are victims of violence by an intimate partner. more than 12 million people a year. 45% of the women killed in this country die at the hands of their partner. and in one day last year, victims of domestic violence made more than 10,000 requests for supports and services that could not be met because programs didn't have the resources. that's why i was so proud to cosponsor and strongly support the violence against women reauthorization act, and it's why i join my colleagues today in prouding expressing our hope that we can move this critical legislation when possible. this is a bipartisan bill that will advance our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assaults, and stalking. it will give our law enforcement agencies the support they need

to enforce and prosecute those crimes, and it will give communities and nonprofits the much-needed resources to support victims of violence. and most importantly, to keep working to stop violence before it ever starts. madam president, this bill was put forward in a bipartisan fashion. it is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations that deal with this issue every day. it consolidates programs to reduce administrative costs. it adds accountability to make sure tax money is well spent. it builds on what works in the current law, improves what does not, and will help our country continue on the path of reducing violence towards women. and, madam president, it should not be controversial. we reauthorized this law last time here in the senate unanimously by voice vote, and president bush signed it into

law with democrats standing there with him. so i am really hopeful that the bipartisan approach to this issue continues today as we work to reauthorize this law once again, because, madam president, this shouldn't be about politics. protecting women against violence should not be a partisan issue. so i want to thank the democrats and republicans who've worked together to write this bill. i'm very glad it passed through committee. i stand ready to support this bill when it comes to the floor. and i truly hope we can get president obama for his signature in a timely fashion so women and families across this country can get the resources and support that this law will deliver. finally, madam president, i just have to say, many of us women have come to this floor so many times over the last few weeks to fight back against attempts to turn back the clock when it comes to women's health care, as the senator from california just talked about. i'm disappointed that these issues keep coming up. but i know i stand with millions of men and women across america

who remain ready to defend the gains we have made over the last 50 years and who think we should be moving forward protecting and supporting more women and families, not moving backwards. that's what this bill does. thank you, madam president. thank you for your leadership. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina is recognized. mrs. hagan: i want to thank our presiding officer or bringing this forward and the other comments from the senator from washington and the senator from california are really highlighting the issue as that we're talking about. but i am proud to join my colleagues to support the violence against women reauthorization act. and i stand here today, during national women's history month, to urge my colleagues to take swift action on a bill that's critical to the well-being of women, our families, and our country. as hillary clinton declared more than 15 years ago in beijing at the fourth world conference on women, "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are

human rights." if we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families, too. it is disheartening in the last several months that petty partisanship and gamesmanship has held up policies critical to women's health, including this act. since its original passage in 1994, the bill has made tremendous progress in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. the bill has transformed our criminal justice system and victim support services. it has encouraged collaboration among law enforcement, health and housing professionals, and community organizations to prevent and respond to domestic partner violence. and it has funded programs, such as services training officers, prosecutors. it is training officers and prosecutors, and these are

called stop grants, and they are used to train personnel, training, technical assistance and other equipment to better apprehend and prosecute individuals who commit violence, crimes against women. unfortunately, until congress takes action on the violence against women reauthorization act, the well-being of women across our country hangs in the balance. i see this as a serious lapse in our responsibility as u.s. senators. and as a mother of two daughters, i am here to tell you that this reauthorization cannot wait. the rates of violence and abuse in our country are astounding and unacceptable. according to a 2010 c.d.c. survey, domestic violence alone affects more than 12 million people each year. in the year leading up to the c.d.c.'s study, 1.3 million women were raped. and this study shows that women are severely affected bisexual violence -- affected by sexual

violence, intimate partner violence and stalking, with 1-4 women falling victim to severe physical violence by an intimate partner. domestic violence also haze significant -- also has a significant impact on our country's health, costing our health system alone over $8.3 billion each year. the reauthorization of this act strengthens and streamlines crucial existing programs that really protect women. in fact, title 5 of the reauthorization includes a bill that i sponsored titled "violence against women health initiative," and this legislation consolidates three existing health-focused programs while strengthening the health care system's response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. this initiative fosters public health responses to domestic violence and sexual violence. it provides training and education to help the health

professionals respond to what they're seeing from violence and abuse, and it supports research on effective public health approaches to end violence against women. since my time in the north carolina state senate where i served ten years, i have been dedicated to combating violence against women. while i was a state senator, i led the effort to ensure that local law enforcement tested rape kits to convict the perpetrators of sexual assault. it was astounding to me to discover that after a woman had been raped and she had an examination where d.n.a. was collected, that that rape kit test would actually sit on a shelf at a sheriff or a plagues plagues -- police station and would not be analyzed. sadly, the evidence would only be analyzed if a woman could identify her attacker. what other victims in america have to identify their attacker before law authorities will take action?

when i first discovered this and brought it up, i was told there was not enough money for every rape kit to be tested. well, we soon found the money, but there are states today that still have these rape kits sitting on shelves unanalyzed. so for all of the progress we have made, combating violence against women must continue to be a priority and it must be a priority in every state in the country. so as i take the floor today in support of the violence against women's reauthorization act, it is fitting to recognize one of our fiercest advocates for women's rights. my colleague and mentor, senator barbara mikulski who on saturday will become the longest female senator in history. senator mikulski has been a strong and unwavering voice for women, families and the people of her state of maryland. she shepherded through the lilly ledbetter act which helps ensure

that no matter your gender, race, religion, age or disability, one will receive equal pay for equal work and she fought tenaciously for her important amendment to the health care reform legislation ensuring that preventative care would be covered with no out-of-pocket expense. i thank senator mikulski for her mentorship, her leadership and her fierce advocacy for women's rights. i look forward to continuing to work alongside senator mikulski and my colleagues here today to promote policies that support our women, our children, our families and to put them on a path to a brighter future. madam president, the violence against women's reauthorization act is central to this goal, and i urge my colleagues to take this bill up and pass it without delay. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i am proud to be able to stand today to speak about the violence against women act in joining with some of my colleagues here on the floor. this is legislation that i have supported in the past and look forward to supporting again. as we talk about those issues that women care about, no surprise to most. we're talking about what's happening with the price of gas, what it costs to fill up the car tank. we're talking about the quality of our children's education. we're talking about the postal service in alaska. we had a military town hall. i met with some of the military spouses. and let me tell you, they were really quite concerned that some of the facilities that they access are -- are perhaps in jeopardy. we care about the security of our jobs, our spouses' jobs, our friends', our neighbors' jobs,

all that goes into working in a small business. we certainly care about our country's fiscal situation and the very dire situation that we are in. but something else that we all care about is -- is the violence, the assaults that women often endure, their sisters, their daughters, their neighbors, their friends, and the violence against women act is an important commitment to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, that they are not alone. this is a promise that resources and expertise are available to prosecute those who would torment them, and also a reason to believe that one can actually leave an abusive situation and transition to a more stable one. it's one of the greatest importance that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are confident that there is a safety net available to

address them and their immediate survival needs as well as the needs of their children. only on this level of confidence can one muster the courage to leave an abusive situation. these are some of the promises that are contained within the violence against women act. there are some additional reasons that i feel as strongly as i do about the reauthorization of this act, and it relates to the safety of the people in my state of alaska. unfortunately, in as beautiful a state as i live in, our statistics as they relate to domestic violence and sexual assault are horrific. they are as ugly as they come. nearly one in two alaska women have experienced partner violence. nearly one in three have experienced sexual violence. overall, nearly six in ten alaskan women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. in alaska, our rate of forcible

rape from between 2003-2009 was 2.6 times higher than the national rate. and, madam president, unfortunately, very tragically, about 9% of alaska mothers reported physical abuse by their husband or partner during pregnancy or in the 12 months weior to pregnancy. .. of our friends, our neighbors, our daughters, and the violence against women act presents the tools to do so. in the villages of rural alaska, oftentimes victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence face some pretty unique challenges. many of these villages have no full-time law enforcement presence whatsoever, nobody to turn to, no safehouse, no place

to go. a single community health aide must tend to every crisis within the community, including caring for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. oftentimes, they don't have the tools that they need, they don't have the rape kits, they don't have the training. oftentimes, you will have a situation where weather can prove an impediment to getting the victim on an airplane, out of the village to one of the shelters in a rural hub. you've got to remember, in most of my communities, 80% of the communities, there is no road out, there is no way to get out. so if you have been violated and there is no law enforcement and there is no shelter and there is nowhere to go, what do you do? basically, the victim is stranded in her own community with the perpetrator for potentially days before help can arrive. the violence against women act i think is a ray of hope for those who service victims of domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages. it devotes increased resources

to rural and isolated communities. it recognizes alaska village public safety officer program as law enforcement so that vawa funds can be directed to providing a full-time law enforcement presence in places that currently have none. and it establishes a framework to restart the alaska rural justice and law enforcement commission. this is an important forum for coordination between law enforcement and our alaska native leaders to abate, discourage domestic violence and sexual assault. madam president, i, too, believe that the senate needs to take up the violence against women act, but i do feel strongly that we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. i'm a cosponsor of this bill. i know some of my colleagues have some concerns, and i have said that we need to take these concerns into account so that we can have, we should have an overwhelming bipartisan bill. this is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it.

madam president, i know there are others who wish to speak, and i appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues in the few minutes that you have given me. thank you. ms. okeechobee: i thank the senator from alaska. we now have -- how much time left? the presiding officer: five minutes. ms. klobuchar: five minutes to be divided between senator mikulski, senator shaheen. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i strongly urge that the violence against women act come up to the floor so that we could look at the issues and debate them in an obey and public forum, and if people have amendments to either add or subtract from the bill or improve the bill, let's do it because this is really a compelling situation. i have been here since we have passed that first bill. in 1994, the original architect was senator joe biden, now our vice president. why did we do it?

it's a compelling need. one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence. 16 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. 23 million will be victims of physical or sexual violence. 20,000 in my own state of maryland. since we created the legislation in 1994, the hotline, the national hotline has received over one million calls. when women felt that they were in danger, danger, so that one million -- those one million people had a chance of being rescued. and who was the biggest request for passing the violence against women? it is not only the women of america, it is also local police. one out of four police officers killed in the line of duty are

responding to domestic violence. they love the lethality index. when they go to a home, they have a checklist to determine how dangerous is that situation? is it simply a spat or a dispute or are they in the danger zone? madam president, we debate big issues -- war and peace, the deficit. all these are important. but we have got to remember our communities and our families, and i think if you are beaten and abused, you should be able to turn to your government to either be rescued and put you on the path and also to have those very important programs early on to do prevention and intervention. i fund this bill. i stand ready to support the passage of the bill and putting the money in the checkbook to support it. i ask unanimous consent my full statement be in the record. maryland has done such a good job. i want to leave time for other

senators. i'm going to yield the floor, but i will not yield on this issue. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today to support this crucial legislation to reauthorize the violence against women act. it provides essential services to women and families across the united states, and i have seen it in my home state of new hampshire where one program that i want to talk about funds services, training officers and prosecution. it is called stop. it provides law enforcement the tools they need to combat domestic violence. this was a life-saving service for a woman from new hampshire named kathy who was in an abusive relationship for six years. she was being -- kathy was being abused as often as twice a week, frequently leaving her with black eyes and bruises. once her partner mark threw her down the stairs.

things worsened after the couple had their house foreclosed on, and one day mark grabbed kathy by the throat, lifted her up off the floor and dropped her and began punching her again and again in front of their 3-year-old child. this was the last straw. kathy finally mustered the courage to contact a friend who helped her call the local police. kathy obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and mark was charged with assault. but as is often the case civil procedures overwhelmed and frustrated kathy so at times she even considered dropping the whole thing. but fortunately funding from the violence against women act made it possible for kathy to have an attorney who could help her, and thanks to this assistance from stop, from the violence against women act, kathy was able to obtain sole custody of her children as well as support

payments and was ultimately able to make a fresh start free from abuse. this body should not be divided on this issue. i'm so pleased to have senator murkowski join us on the floor today to point out that this is a bipartisan issue. the presiding officer: the majority's time has expired. mrs. shaheen: by like to submit my entire statement for the record and urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization. support this reauthorization. >> if there's anything that concerns the american family today, it's theirs. the new facts of american family rights. families have changed, so why didn't washington? new facts, moms working. more than 65% of all mothers are working. part-time, full-time, all the time, keeping the family

together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care and the pay they deserve. too often they can't get either. >> our system is fundamentally undemocratic and a number of ways. one of the ways is closed primary. so when half the states of the country, 40% of all the voters can't participate in the primary. and so, they have no say in who gets nominated.

and as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. >> virginia attorney general can kootenai we will talk about the leak or challenge to obama's health care a lot environmental regulation and his own campaigns become virginia's next governor.

newsmakers is on c-span sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. robert mueller told senators would hamper the agency's efforts to bomb makers. the debt ceiling legislation, the fbi is facing 600 to $800 million in budget cuts. mr. mueller testified before a senate appropriations subcommittee today for an hour 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. [inaudible] today we are taking the testimony with our direct care of the fbi, federal bureau of investigation with direct your mueller. this'll be a two-part hearing. one will be here an open and

public session and because of the sensitivity of issues and budget involved for the fbi's fight against the global water against terrorism, we will have a classified briefing. so upon the conclusion of this phase, we will wish that we reconvene and are classified visitors centers. and nonmembers are welcome this is where we have an in-depth conversation. today we are grateful for the service for two more years to work with our president in order to keep our streets, communities and country safe. we will begin our fbi's 2013 budget request with this open hearing.

as chairwoman of the subcommittee, when they look at the fbi budget, i have three priorities. national security, which is how is the fbi working to keep america safe, community security, how is the t.i. working with local law enforcement to keep our families and our neighborhoods safe? and also oversight and accountability to ensure that we are spending tax payers dollars and ensuring that we give value for a dollar. today we will learn and i'm going to ask unanimous consent in the interest of time for my full statement be included in the record. having said that, my whole statement to the point is that we know that we asked the fbi to carry out extraordinary responsibilities. keeping 330 million americans safe from terrorism and also violent crime to continue their

work to dismantle organized crime, which now has many new faces, many new locations in many new tech geeks and then the despicable drug cartels that continue to exist in our country and protect our borders. we asked the fbi to work to combat gang violence illegal drug and gun smuggling and at the same time help us catch predators. the president's budget request for the fbi is a $.2 billion. this request reflects frustration and budget reality in which we find ourselves. there are no new initiatives in the fbi's budget request this year and only one modest targeted increase and that is the fbi's ability to fight mortgage fraud. in fact the fbi will ask to do more with less in 2013. in order to continue critical

efforts will have savings for the programs and will have a provision. at the eye it tends to become the banker for all law-enforcement, with ensure a purchase is coming up for just the fbi, dea, atf and the israeli council of the fbi to really watch this very carefully because as we look at our cousins in the department of homeland security, interoperable communications have one of the biggest boondoggles i saw. everybody got a gadget, everybody thought it is known at the end of the day, none of those gadgets and gizmos contact to anybody. we are counting on the fbi to route to get it straight and at the same time, we need to get an update on their work on the sentinel program, our virtual

case management problem. also, we want to be sure we take a look at the sequester consequences and what would be the impact on the fbi that there was an 8% cut? we need to know how this will impact the fbi's ability to carry out its mission. an area of national security, ds vi was charged with protecting us from international terrorism. we destroyed response before they happen by identifying tracking defeating them and also working to dismantle weapons of mass destruction. this definitely is not g approvers of ei anymore. counterterrorism and intelligence make up a substantial part of the fbi budget. just weeks ago we saw the fbi's counterterrorism efforts to up close when they arrested a man who wanted to gloat the u.s. capitol. our nation also faces a new kind of threat. that threat occurs in cyberspace.

we have snipers fire, cyberterrorists, organized crime, and fiber is new area and we look forward to getting ideas and concrete budget from the fbi direct your and how we can keep us safe in that area and how they work with other intel agencies. i also want to know how the fbi is protecting americans from violent crime and also fraud in their communities. the fbi targets sophisticated criminal organizations who prey on the vulnerable. the child pornographer, trafficking in children prostitution. the schemes and scams and booking people either as medicare or a mortgage or fraud. and i am concerned that this budget is flat to fight violent crime and gangs. i know my very able and wonderful colleague, senator hutchison is going to talk about the southwest border. she is just about it and so am

i. because of the ongoing threat at our border. state and local budgets are under stress and we want to hear how your meeting. i'm going to conclude my remarks by saying this budget is not about numbers and statistics. it is about people. make sure that americans are not victimized by any bad person or anyone but the predatory intent towards them. we couldn't do it without the people who work for the fbi. so direct uris before he turned to senator hutchison, i want to say to you and thank you for not only your service, but that by two thank you for this wonderful people who work every single day for the fbi, those that are out there in the field offices work of more joint task forces. those around the world and at times very rugged and very dangerous positions. and i know that you vi works

everyday to protect us, but the people who work hard there every day our duty trip in a dedicated and they are in many ways it's on the ground in local communities and also working with our intel and military agencies around the world. this is why want them to know i respect them for the work they do and i will fight for them in terms of their paid benefits and pensions. so if we are going to see thank you, we want to do it at all with words, but with deeds. thank you and i will turn to senator kay bailey hutchison. >> thank you pretty much, mr. mueller for coming before a committee. i'm happy to say that last year we thought it would be the last time that you appear before our committee. and it was very pleased that the president offered and you accepted an extension of your term because i think what has happened at the fbi during your

turn is exponential. i think the changes that have taken place in the responsibilities he had have been more transformational than probably any time since the beginning of the fbi. i do want to start by remarks just very briefly by recognizing also the chairwoman of the committee, who on saturday becalmed the longest-serving woman to serve in congress and the history of the united states congress. we are going to make a big deal of that because we are really proud of this little pint-size nighty night who has outlasted them all. so, mr. fbi direct care -- director, let me point out a few things. director mikulski has really outlined the big picture.

they're a couple of areas of interest that i have and concern. certainly, i think the southwest border has to be as much of a national security issue as anyplace that we have. and yet, this request has the southwest border funding. i would caution the priority of the administration and increasing the financial fraud enforcement decreasing border security. so i am going to say that i'll be looking carefully at that and hoping to restore at least the $5 million that was included to make it look like it was even funding. but that was just required to sustain the position that had been added in the fy 10 order of sublimation's bill.

so i am hoping that we can add more where you think you need it the most. because that would be 13 order corruption task force members located in philadelphia says across the border as i understand it. and these are kind of the backbone of the fbi southwest border mission that provided intelligence and coordinate with the southwest intelligence group at back in the border task force. so i'm going to be looking at that very carefully. i am also concerned and going to ask you about the $162 million precision. and what exactly that is going to impact. it is as it appears that he would be the processing for fingerprinting and dna on ieds

that is an area where i think we could really link it to terrorists and i wouldn't want to cut that unless you have other plans for using money to assure that that is able to be done. and then the other area discarding the contract areas of counterintelligence programs, which would be the informant validation, terry screaming center and tracking task force. i will ask your opinion of those. and then the other area that i will ask you about is the f. thank you agents that were involved in the prosecution of ted stevens. we had the disturbing hearing with mr. holder last week in which we talk about the department of justice employees who appear me are still

prosecuting that the department of justice, even after the report was released in the attorney general himself dismissed the case against senator stevens because of misconduct on the part of the prosecutors. so i want to know if there are people still at the fbi. i think there just to agents that were accused of being involved in it. so i'd like to know your opinion of that as well. of being involved in it. so i would like to know your opinion of that as well. for all that in it. so i would like to know your opinion of that as well. for all that you are doing in the other areas that senator mikulski mentioned, but especially knowing the role of the fbi now and international intelligence and law enforcement for that expansion has been on your watch and i appreciate that you have been able to handle it and work with the intelligence agencies so well. thank you.

>> director mueller, please proceed. >> let me also join others on the committee in congratulating you on the tenure. far longer than mine and my dad. also, let me thank you for her comments with regard to the personnel. i'm reminded of that because recently had an opportunity to talk to a number of asians, analysts and others who worked 24 hours a day over the holidays in a case he recently took down in tampa, which was indicative of the degree of sacrifice ec from the personnel and the organization. so my thanks for commenting on that. let's start by saying that the fbi continues to face unprecedented in increasingly complex challenges. as you know and as you point that we must identify and stop terrorists before they launch attacks against our citizens. we must protect our government, businesses and critical

infrastructure from espionage and from the potentially devastating impact of cyber-based attacks. we must root out mortgage fraud by white-collar and organized crime, stop child predators and protect civil rights. and we must uphold civil liberties and the rule of law while carrying out this broad mission. for fiscal year 2013, the fbi has requested a budget of $8.2 billion to fund more than 13,000 special agents come more than three dozen intelligence and fill in at 3000 professional staff. this funny novel at the to maintain, maintain -- just maintainer-based operations with a small increase as you pointed out for financial and mortgage fraud investigations. let me summarize the key national security and criminal threats that this funding will address. first, the terrorist threat. while osama bin laden and other

key leaders have been removed, al qaeda and its affiliates remain a top terror threat in the united states. al qaeda operating under pakistan remains committed to high-profile attacks against the west and meanwhile al qaeda affiliates in adherents have attempted several attacks on the united states. such attacks include the failed christmas day airline bombings in 2009, the tender trap him in a times square in may 2010 and the attempted bombing of u.s. bound cargo planes in october of the same year. we are also concerned about the threat from homegrown violent extremists. as you pointed out, madam chairwoman, last month the guy arrested a 29-year-old rock and immigrant. alethea legit attempt to detonate a bomb in a suicide attack on the u.s. capitol building. over the past year we have seen similar attempt a homegrown extremists in florida,

massachusetts, texas and washington state. these cases exemplify the need to continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities to do the right information to the right people before any harm is done. turning to foreign intelligence. while foreign intelligence services continue traditional efforts to obtain military and state secrets, they also seek technology and intellectual property from companies and universities. for example, laster longtime northrop grumman engineer with cents to 32 years in prison for selling secrets related to the b-2 stealth bomber and several nations china. lustfully former dow chemical scientists pled guilty to transferring stolen trade secrets to individuals in europe and in china. these are just a few examples of the growing insider threat from employees who may use their access to commit economic

espionage. turning to the cyberthreat. this will be an area of particular focus with the fbi and the coming years. the cybercrime cuts across all of our programs. terrorists are increasingly cybersavvy and like every other multinational organization, they are using the internet to grow their business and connect with like-minded individuals. they are not hiding in the shadows of cyberspace. al qaeda and the arabian peninsula has produced a full-color english language online magazine. al-shabaab al qaeda affiliates in somalia has its own twitter account. in extremists are not just using the internet for propaganda and recruitment. they are using cyberspace to conduct operations and while today terrorists have not use the internet to launch a full-scale cyberattack, we cannot underestimate their attempt and one hacker recruiting video feature is proclaimed for cyberwill be toward the future.

many of state-sponsored computer hacking and economic espionage, which poses significant challenges as well. just as traditional crime is migrated online so too has espionage. possible foreign nations seek intellectual property and trade secrets for military and can added advantage. the results of these developments is that we are losing data and money. we are losing ideas in the same innovation. as citizens, individually we are increasingly available to the same private information. the fbi has in the past readers up to substantial expertise in order to stay ahead of these threats, both at home and abroad. we now cybersquads and everyone of our 56 field offices with more than 1000 specially trained agents analysts and forensic specialists. borders and boundaries pose no offers for hackers to the fbi uses her 63 act -- a offices

around the world to collaborate with our international partners. we also special agents indicted in armenia, estonia, ukraine and the netherlands, working to identify emerging trends and key players in the saver arena. and here at home the fbi the national cyberinvestigative joint task force, which brings together a team on force that military and intelligence agencies in order to stop current and to prevent future attacks. the task force operate through threat focus, specialized groups of agents and analysts that focus on particular threat, such as botanists. and we're making progress. just last week the department of justice and the fbi with domestic and foreign partners announced charges against six hackers who align themselves with the group known as anonymous. according to the charges they were responsible for a broad range of high-profile

cyberintrusions targeting companies come at the media and law enforcement since 2008. this case by successful because we worked extensively with overseas partners and restart traditional investigative and intelligence techniques in the saver arena. we must continue to push forward and enhance our collective capabilities to fight cybercrime and we do need tougher penalties for cybercriminals to make the cost of doing business more than they are willing to bear. just as we did after september 11th, we must continue to break down walls and share information to succeed in combat the cyberthreat. just as we do or did the terrorism, we must identify and stop cyberthreats before they do harm. it is not enough to build our defenses and to investigate the iron after the fact. when they spend a moment of the night to discuss a few of the most significant threats and the criminal arena.

from foreclosure fraud to subprime scams, mortgage fraud remains a serious problem. and a fiscal year 2011 the fbi had more than 3000 pending mortgage fraud investigations were than four times the number of cases we had in 2005. nearly 70% of these investigations include losses of more than $1 million. in this budget year for fiscal year 2013, the fbi is requesting a programming increase of $50,000,000.44 new positions to further address the mortgage and financial fraud schemes at all levels. the focus on health care fraud is no less important to federal government spends hundreds of millions every year to fund medicare and other health care programs. together with our partners at the department of health and human services the fbi has more than 2600 active health care fraud investigations.

in 50 or 2011 these efforts led to recovery of more than $4 billion, taxpayer dollars. the violent crimes and activities continue to exact a high toll and communities according to the national gang intelligence center there are more than 30,000 games with more than 1 million members acted in the united states today. through safe streets and safe trails task force is the fbi identifies and targets the most serious gangs operating targets them as criminal enterprises. turning to the southwest border i now have concern to senator hutchison the continued violence along the southwest border remains a significant threat. we rely on our collaboration with the southwest intelligence group. the fusion center and the el paso intelligence center to track and disrupt this threat. with regard to crimes against children, remain vigilant in the

first remove predators turn communities into keyboard children safe. we have ready response teams across the country to respond quickly to child abductions into her child abduction rapid employment team's third our lost national initiatives, the fbi and its partners are continuing to make a nation safer for our children. lastly, turning to the budget. the fbi budget for 2013 seeks to maintain our current resources and capabilities in a restrained fiscal environment. these resources are critical for us to continue responding to the broad range of national security and criminal threats we face today. chairwoman mikulski, ranking member hutchison, members of the committee, let me close by thanking you for your leadership in support of the fbi and most particularly men and women of the fbi in pursuit of its mission. her investments in our work for

us, investments in technology and infrastructure have made a difference to the fbi every day. in the transformation of the fbi that has undertaken over the last 10 years would not have been passed without the support of this committee. my thanks and i look forward to answering the questions you have. >> thank you very much, director mueller. to my colleagues who have arrived, we are going to have one round of questions here, recognizing people in the order of arrival. when they've completed that, we will recess and then move to a classified hearing with the director on the sensitive matters and we will do that and then recess to room 217. director, i want to move right into my questions. first of all, in your testimony, you should threats of the work of the fbi from international

terrorism to cyberthreats, to really working with the cops on the beat and dealing also with where there is need, there is greed, but mortgage fraud and health care fraud. so let me get right to -- we need to have for the record the major categories for the fbi, which is, how much of your $8 billion, which is actually a modest request held very tightly, pretty much last year's funding, how much goes into national security? than how much goes into traditional crime-fighting? and then also, where did they cross like in the of cyber? because i think many people do not realize that the fbi has such a substantial role in

counterterrorism and counterintelligence. the fbi has transformed since 9/11. could you elaborate on what goes into those categories? [inaudible] under the budget, 60% of approximately $5 billion this court to national security -- the national security programs. at the counterterrorism, counterintelligence, director of intelligence, weapons of mass destruction and then additional pieces of other programs. that's about 60% of our budget, the $5 billion. it also pieces of other programs, for instance a cyberprogram between criminal and national security, where 60% of the saver program, that which is scored to national security relates to intrusions, whereas the other 40% relates to programs such as images, which

addresses child on the internet and ip are, the intellectual property crimes that we also address pairs of 40% of it is cybercrime. the other 60% is perceived and scored against a national security peace of the budget and that relates to computer intrusions. >> well, let's then go to the threat of sequester, which i am concerned that the congress doesn't have the sense of urgency about cyber. but i'm concerned that they don't have a sense of urgency about the threat of sequester. given this 8.2 billion, when one looks at what always spend another security issues, this is really modest when you think of this scope, depth, technical expertise, personal integrity required of the agents and all who work there.

but what happened to the fbi is sequester were triggered? >> would try to estimate what would happen in the event of sequestration and that preliminary figures show would face a cut of 650 to $800 million. that translates into -- this would be of the $8 billion appropriation for 2012. that would translate into a 25 word day for low across the bureau and a reduction by 3500 work years for special agents, intelligence and shoeless and professional staff. given what i've described in terms of the threats we would do some very substantial prioritization and we would have to -- would have a huge impact our investigations and an impact

in our intelligence collection and most particularly not be underestimated but have a very large impact on the morale of the workforce. we would have to rotate the furloughs to lessen the impact. we would have to reprioritize. but it would set us back to where we were many years ago and the impact of the sequestration would he felt for many years in the future. >> i have a whole set of questions related to cyber, which i will defer to our classified meaning. in terms of accountability, as you know i'm going to ask a question about admiral, where you are in achieving the programmatic goals and keeping it within the budgetary framework. as you know, we've been at the sentinel program, which was initiated a long time ago to provide the fbi with the essentially virtual case file is to make the more fat, more productive in the old lingo of

post-9/11 connect the dots. could you tell us, are we really getting sentinel conducted while we are bidding the term to figure out how to connect the dots? >> as you are aware, the congress -- the contract was entered into for a number of years ago. we have phase one that was produced, phase two -- from our tube was not adequate and so, we restructured the contract to bring in much of the software development. we had unanticipated that we hopefully would be through the test last fall and start sentinel. we had a test of the software as well as the infrastructure to support the software and the software worked well, but the infrastructure needed updating. so since the fall, i have put in new servers and built up the infrastructure to be looked into the software package that is in

the last stages of being completed. there are three factors that go into sentinel. one is that when a product that people can use will be embraced in the field that actually works and is hopeful. secondly is the budget stain under budget. and third was doing it in a timely fashion. i have had to sacrifice a timely fashion in order to make certain that progress will be embraced by the workforce and secondly keep it under budget. currently we are building up the infrastructure as a result of the consequence of the test we put in the fall. we are testing out and the tests are positive. they expect tatian is that certainly by the end of the fiscal year, certainly by the father bill have completed this in the sentinel will be in the field and will be under or just a budget. >> well, keep us posted. i now want to turn to senator

hutchinson, then senator lautenberg, graham and feinstein. >> madam chairwoman, i am going to let senator graham has my time and i'll come back at the end because i am going to stay anyway. i do have questions, but i'm going to defer to senator graham. >> thank you. this has been a very informative hearing. is it fair to say that we do not have the legal infrastructure in place to deal with the cyberthreats that we face the congress needs to give you better legislative support? >> yes. soon it isn't fair to say about the things we should be concerned about, cyberattacks from foreign governments and terrorists is a growing threat by the day? >> yes. >> okay, would you consider a cyberattack generated from the people's liberation army of china against our national security infrastructure, should that be considered a hostile act?

>> well, you're in an area that is somewhat beyond my purview. we would describe absolutely would be a hostile act. i don't know about the connotations. >> i don't know either, but we need to come to grips with that because you got along for some bundle against cyberattacks where people are engaging in economic espionage. they may try to shut down a power plant or the grid. when is it a crime and when is that a national security hostile act under the world war? i think that is what we need to consider. and i would argue -- let's say that it's website is generated by al qaeda. if an al qaeda back organization would try to commit a cyberattack, would you consider that an attack on the united states? ..

guantanamo bay there's people being held for multiple years. is that correct? >> yes. >> have fbi agents interviewed -- have we gathered a good information from the population without using waterboarding? >> yes. >> don't you agree the best way to interrogate someone is not to torture them but to use traditional military enforcement techniques? >> i had somewhat of a loaded question. [laughter] i will say --

>> we follow the rules of -- >> you don't torture people, do you? and you get good information. >> yes. >> what i would suggest to the committee is senator mikulskis question on sequestration if this is not a wake-up call for the, chris, what would be? you heard the fbi director has done a marvelous job in all these agents tell us if we do what we are planning to do we are going to devastate one of the front line agencies in the war on terror. ten years ago what was the fbi budget when it came to national security issues or the percentage of your budget? >> i would say one-fifth of the budget back in 2001 was national security, and i would say the principal percentage of that was addressed to espionage and counterintelligence position. >> before 9/11 what percentage of the budget? >> i would say no more than a

quarter. one-fifth or a quarter. >> if your budget has gone up from 1/5 to a quarter, it's now 60% of the national security issues something's got to give. has your budget gone up in the last three years? >> the last three years i would say maybe 2 billion. estimate what percentage increase is that? >> since 2001 our budget in 2001 which i am much more familiar with it was 3.1 billion it's now 8 billion so it's almost tripled over that period of time. >> and these resources have been needed? >> yes. >> do you have enough money to do all the jobs that you have told us that you do? if you don't, tell us. >> it is a prioritization. as use of the threats that we face -- >> it's one thing to prioritize

everybody in their home and business and it's another to have to do it on the cheek. are we giving you enough money to do it not only to prioritize but to foley and robustly deal with a threat the united states faces and if you need more money now is the time to tell us. i would say my concern in the future is having sufficient funds to build up the cabo atty to address cyber and we are afforded the fund to address counterterrorism and that was 2013, 2014 or 2015 a that is the issue that is going to require additional funds down the road. >> could you give an estimate privately or whatever is appropriate about how to build up the cyber account? only do we need new laws to deal with cyber threat we also need to fund a few more robustly. >> will you be able to come to

the question? >> if i can get back from the press conference and we can save money on medicare we will get some of it then. [laughter] simic senator gramm, thank you very much and we look forward to you in the classified hearing on your considerable expertise in the armed services committee and again, your officer this is informative. i also want to comment on this side senator lamar alexander questioned the family on less he sends his regards and we will have questions for the record and note the absence very compelling family. senator lautenberg? >> thank you, madame chairman and director for the wonderful work that the fbi has done and the diligence and the competence that your people will read with, and have sought to you for your

leadership. it's quite incredible we hear the review of what has happened budget fairly for these years, and i am reminded that on 9/11 the loss of lives the society took place in a way that isn't fully understood and the d-day at normandy on pearl harbor we didn't lose as many americans as we did on 9/11, and what we find is the proliferation i'm not doing a second amendment review. we are talking about guns in the wrong hands we are not talking about people who go through the rigors of testing as they do now

we are anxious to review we now understood and understand people from the new york police department were doing surveillance in the state of new jersey across the river into our sovereignty and last week the special agent in charge of the fbi office criticized the new york police department surveillance of new jersey and universities and i told them. it makes our job much, much harder. mr. director, how do you feel about that? >> let me start up by saying we have a very good relationship with the nypd, and the work that the nypd has done since

september 11th to protect new york and the surrounding communities is first-rate and there hasn't been a successful attack in the large part attributable by the new york police department along with a joint terrorism task force which has been ongoing for many years in new york and the joint terrorism task force in new jersey and elsewhere. often there are issues and how you go about doing your work that it arises over a period of time there are bumps in the road in the cooperation, and my expectation is that whatever bumps in the road there have been in the past in terms of alerting people to actions taken but it should not interfere with the work is being done and done exceptionally well with a joint terrorism task force in new jersey as well as in new york.

>> i agree with that, director, but the fact of the matter is there ought to let least be some privilege given to the law enforcement structure in our statement why should there be not that information available? what about the terms and bumping into one another everybody knows you often have jurisdictional issues over the fbi and local law enforcement between sheriffs and police chief and the like. it's not unusual to have that and my belief is you sit down and talk about it and in private to get it resolved and move on. that's what happened as happened over a period of time whether it be new york or philadelphia or san francisco or los angeles or have you. as was pointed out in the

remarks she and they have a good relationship with nypd in new jersey. >> that's true. >> i want to ask a question about people on the terror watch list are able to legally purchase explosives and the loophole allows anyone to walk into a gun show and purchase it no questions asked and when you look of the statistics of murder in our country compared to other advanced societies our numbers dwarf anything that comes from other places, germany, australia, you name it, canada isn't it time to close the gap and the gun show loophole. islamic as we discussed in the cheering refer to the department of justice in terms of the particular must legislation, but needless to say anything that

can keep the hands or the guns out of the hands of criminals are terrorists or the like is something that is beneficial in terms of reducing the extent of i believe violence in our society. >> madam chairman, may i continue with one more question even though the lines are required to inform the fbi about serious crimes in a number of crimes is supposed to be made public. however, according to the fbi data that i have obtained the number of crimes posted online is lower than that reported by the industry. we were planning to change the law to address this discrepancy. in the meantime, what steps can the fbi take to publicly disclose the actual number of serious crimes? and i want to -- i am not interested in hurting the

industry but i'm also not willing to permit crimes to be developed and the true facts about what's taking place. i think you raised two issues. the extent of reporting and compliance with the law, which requires reporting. certainly we can educate cruise line companies in terms of the necessity of doing that and assuring to the extent possible that they comply with the statute in terms of making public those figures i will have to give back to you. i am not certain to what extent they are publicized and if not, why they would not be publicized >> thank you, madame chair. islamic before i turn to senator feinstein, you have a history in defending people on cruise ships. do you remember there were some terrible incidents many years

ago and we need to protect people from pilots with this behavior and we look forward to hearing more. senator hutchinson was meant to be next and yields to use the then we will go to schakowsky and hutcheson in that way, okay? >> thank you very much. i wanted to pick up where senator gramm left off and there has been effort of the armed services committee to change the defense authorization bill to essentially put the country's detention policy under the law of the war and under the law of the war an individual can be held without charge or trial till the end of hostilities to appoint me to that america is a battlefield, and i think that is the point some have been trying

to make. i'd like to ask your view of this. i am strongly opposed to it. i also know what you said during the world wide threat hearing that the fbi is interrupted or understood some 20 terrorist plots in this country over the past year. you have the high-value interrogation group which you testified to the house committee has done 14 interrogations', and i gather with some success. i would like to ask you to comment on whether you believe that permanently detaining americans without trial or charge is appropriate. >> i would have to start with of

the legislation that has recently been passed which i address that particular issue and i think you and others are aware of the outset in the two areas of the continuation of the authority during this possible transfer or not transfer but detention initially into the military custody in the united states and secondly, whether or not there could be clarity. i love the statute or the directives that would clarify the process in which a person is deemed to be not an american citizen, but a person who is al qaeda affiliated engaged in the plot that is not an american citizen to what extent would there be immediate military detention. with both of the statute as well as the president's directive, i am comfortable that the capabilities of the bureau coupled with the dod will be

maintained and that rather unique situation where you have a foreigner who undertakes a terrorist attack affiliated with al qaeda in the united states. i'm looking in that issue and i am comfortable that we have preserved what we needed to preserve in terms of our role in that process. >> the broad question that you have -- >> the broad question is that law is very cloudy and this is a problem, and the court has had some holdings that you cannot be tamed a person indefinitely regardless of whether they are citizens or not in this country without charge or trial. estimate the supreme court has a case under aspects of that and live wrestled with this particular pieces of legislation that would impact that process

whereby a person is detained in the united states not a u.s. citizen and lead to both the department of justice as a president and the presence prerogative to determine whether or not ultimately a person is tried or you proceed against that person, and in an article 3 courthouse in the tribunal which has also been upheld by the supreme court and so with the legislation i believe that the issues have been flushed out to the extent comfortable with that plea hesitate to comment on the other issues which either have not been the subject of legislation or unique to a particular circumstance where you really don't know the facts and it's hard to apply the law. >> i appreciate that and the need for the executive flexibility whether it is

military or whether it's federal court. having said that, senator mikulski and i both serve on the intelligence committee and the foreign intelligence surveillance act known as fisa. it's up for reauthorization and must be realized by the end of the year. do you view that reauthorization as important, do you view it as valuable and if so, why? >> i would go beyond and use the word critical because the world in which we live today is as tom friedman talks about it's a flat world what technology, criminals, terrorists and cyber terrorists cut across borders that will in seconds, and it is absolutely central the intelligence community would it be domestic west particularly for men has the flexibility of

of tannin communications by these individuals as quickly as possible in order to prevent attacks and in the future with a be a terrorist attack on the infrastructure come on the financial structure for by al qaeda and the like in cyberspace. it's essential that we have those tools. islamic would you say the foreign intelligence surveillance act is a critical tool of counterterrorism in the country? >> yes and also it will be a critical tool was well in the cyber reena. >> thank you very much madam chairman. >> senator feinstein, i hope you can join us shortly in the session as well. senator rakowski? >> welcome, director, nice to have you here. this morning the investigative report that details the prosecutorial misconduct in the

case against senator ted stevens was released. it was i guess precipitated almost that the violation came about, but it was not until five months after that trial was completed that we learned of these violations, and it came about because of the complaint was filed by an fbi agent that alleged the prosecutorial and other law enforcement misconduct in that case. in my opinion that was exceptional good work and judge sullivan suggested that were it not for the complete of the agent that in fact we might not have learned of the misconduct.

i joined this morning or this afternoon with many of my colleagues including senator hutchison and in filing legislation that would address some of laws that are in place that allow for this situation to move forward, but because this whole thing came about and because of the act of an fbi agent i would hope that individual has been recognized for his persistence standing up for the constitution i think that he did right and i hope that recognition has them given by the fbi. >> i can't back on a particular as recognition. the case is still under review in both of the justice the board and as well as our own opr, but i will say that the agent who

came forward and was doing so in that tradition of the fbi. it is a legacy to get here to the constitution when you see something wrong to bring that to the attention of others and that is exactly what we teach in our new agents training as they come through if there is no case that is more important and abiding by the constitution in the applicable statutes and the attorney general guidelines. islamic i appreciate that and mentioned the report is still underway to i asked the office of professional responsibility to conduct this investigation. i'm hoping that the fbi will work with opr and as they look into some of the issues that were behind the matter. in particular, the fbi has worked very closely with the anchorage police department in

this case involved bill allen who was the key witness in the case against senator stevens, and was alleged that he had transported a young native alaskan woman across state lines in violation of the act. it's been widely reported in the media that the case was recommended for federal prosecution that the higher ups scuttled that. the question that i would have to you is to what extent was the fbi involved in that investigation, and did that investigation indicate any reason the prosecution should not go forward? this is just really stunned people back in alaska. they cannot understand why the department has dropped this and attempted to get answers all the way up the chain and may not be the will to get any. do you know any reason based on

that information the prosecution should not have gone forward? >> i did not, but that is something we have to give back to you on. my expectation is, i shouldn't say that, i should assume this is a part of the opr investigation and as much as allegation that came out of that series of events and that allegation would be addressed in that arena. i am not familiar with the court report that was announced earlier today and i am not -- i do not know whether that was a subject of that investigation. >> and i would ask you because this is a matter that has really gone far beyond what most could have imagined to not only look to the report is issued today but also the fbi investigation and where we are in the office of professional responsibility.

the concern that so many of us have is that the allegations against mr. allen are unfortunately not isolated in alaska. we have had a great deal of concern about sex trafficking within the state with young native women, and i look at what has happened with the case and the government failure to prosecute cents an awful message to other creditors that might be out there that if you are a young woman and particularly a young native women you don't stand a chance when you have been victimized by a person of political influence and financial means and we worry about the situation of sex trafficking and again, if an

individual doesn't feel there is any recourse out there, it makes the situation pretty tough, so this goes even beyond the bill allen investigation. i know that you've got folks in the fbi that are working these issues. i met with them and talked with them, but again this is something that needs further attention and i would certainly appreciate it. >> alladi also will tell you that when the issues were coming out in terms of the violations we have gone back in terms of our work force and making certain everybody understands the requirements under the rules and exculpatory to make certain that one learns from this. when it comes to human trafficking in alaska we of persons that are working hard on not withstand local law enforcement and believe it is a prayer the and any young woman

for that matter young mans life that can be saved in terms of working with state and local law enforcement to address this we certainly want to be a participant and driver of that. >> i appreciate that. thank you. thank you madame sure. >> senator hutchison. >> thank you madam share. just to add one more question to the line, and i think she's taken the lead on this and properly so i do commend the fbi agent who came forward who just couldn't sit back and let a person be accused and go through a trial with an election and then all based on very bad misconduct on the part of the agencies that we looked to for complete integrity which would be the department of justice, the prosecutors and the fbi. there were others that were

implicated with the fbi and some of the alleged misconduct, and my question to you is what are you doing to deal with the obligations which i assume will come out in a report or the opr report. if the agents are found to still be in the fbi and have been actually to your satisfaction part of the scheme that was put together to conduct senator stevens. >> well, on the outset, the justice department opr led the investigation. we've participated and contributed to that investigation to the extent individuals and the bureau were implicated along with justice we investigated that and there is one individual who's still going through the process, let me just

put it that way. and i cannot -- certainly openly but i can tell you that process is monitored, but it goes through our process where the person has an opportunity to respond to the charges and the findings and that process is under way and then at the end when it's resolved we will take a look and determine what lessons need to be learned, what is the appropriate punishment for whatever wrongdoing was undertaken and deutsch as we do in every case where we find that a person is not adhered to what we expect in the fbi. >> i would just ask if he would share the final results of that investigation and your actions with this committee. >> i would have to look into that but i expect we would report to you on what we have done. ..

many of us are concerned about an overlay by the department of homeland security, especially over the areas that have developed the expertise through the years and the experience in cyberwarfare, security of all kinds, and that would be defense, cia, fbi and the defense intelligence agencies as

well as the national security agency. and so, we are trying to work through what is the best approach for cybersecurity, and i think my position has been that we don't need a homeland security overlay so much as we need the agencies that have the experience and expertise to be able to make these decisions on how is the best way to assure our networks and their infrastructure are secure. in a general way, how would you -- i don't want to put you on the spot because i guess it's hard for you to say in this environment with all of the different ideas and the different agencies involved, but is there a particular area that you think is essential for us to agree on as we move forward in

trying to determine how we get to the goal of securing our infrastructure? >> let me start by maybe indicating how i appreciate the allocation of responsibilities in the cyberarena. on the one hand you have the protection of the infrastructure, protection of i iaa.gov only the protection of.com and that involves the department of homeland security. on the other hand you have, as it was brought out, not just the possibility that the actuality of foreign countries seeking to extract information and with the possibility down the road of undertaking cyberattacks. that falls generally with the intelligence community of overseas, as ike cnci and the like. in the middle comes to the domestic intrusions and determination whether that domestic intrusion is from a criminal, and organized crime

group, a nation-state or a teenaged hacker. we have 56 field offices around the country and 56 cybersquads. the first indication of a substantial intrusion will quite probably come to us and it's our responsibility to do the investigation to determine who is behind that computer and to stop them, and the discussion is how do we protect, how do we protect against foreign countries but part of that has to be disrupting these individuals and putting them behind bars. the legislation that is currently pending the three areas. one is, to the extent possible, pending required notification to the bureau of an intrusion. i think there are 47 states that have this but it's all over the lot in terms of who has to report so first is notification.

secondly is to a certain extent, we are where we were in terms of sharing information prior to september 11 amongst the agencies. and when it comes to counterterrorism, we share, it's very little that is not shared. you know i would say it is almost relevantly true in the cyberarena amongst the agencies whether it be dhs, nsa, ourselves, dia and the like but so important to this is what you point out is both the experience and expertise in the private sector. this is where it is different from addressing terrorism because the private sector has to play a substantial role. the private sector runs are critical in the structure and how you execute that whether through the statute or not, is really up to others. my concern is the sharing of information so that we can to determine who is responsible for this, and perhaps a third area

is the necessity of building up expertise in the federal government amongst all of the agents and the outreach to the private side. not only the expertise but also the outreach to the private businesses so that we become partners in ways that we have not been in any other critical arena. >> well, you have really highlighted an area that makes this whole thing intelligence, security, holding accused terrorists without charges being filed. we are not dealing with an enemy that is a nation-state. like we have in the past. so, if you picked up a person that was in the german army or

in the intelligence arm of the german government, you would know in world war ii that you had to hold that person in the military sense. but, when it is organizations like al qaeda and others, that have attacked our country but yet are not -- they are not under the rules of war as we accept it, the geneva convention it makes it very difficult to deal with any kind of the intelligence areas when you are dealing with an enemy of our country but not a nation-state. so that is something that we are all going to have to deal with and they think, and i hope in a realistic way because i'm with senator grimm on this. i think we need guantánamo bay. i think we need the ability to

hold people that are suspected terrorists that have associations with al qaeda and other networks that deal with al qaeda, and i they don't want us to give up our capability to protect our country from another attack from one of these entities that may not even be an organization yet. so, i know you are wrestling with it and we are too but i am going to come down on the side of protecting our people, with added asymmetric war that we have. that is what we are given to deal with and we have got to do it in a way that protects america. thank you. >> thank you very much director mueller. as director mueller has said, 60% of the at the eye requests

are in the area of national security. many of these are very sensitive issues that the fbi is engaged in and we need to make sure we get our resources right while we are working on very complex policies. therefore, this is why we will move to a closed session. if there are no further questions, or you have additional written questions for the record we request the fbi's usual response in the next 30 days. the senate committee will temporarily recess and reconvene in a closed session in room 217 at the visitor center. before i close this public part, i would like the director to know, as we said to the attorney general, when issues relate to public integrity and issues related to the stephenson matter, this is a bipartisan set of requests, because we feel that both our justice department, those involved in

enforcing the law, if we are going to pursue public integrity issues, which we must and should, is that those who are pursuing it have to have the highest public integrity themselves. we know the fbi has such standards and you have insisted on that standard and we thank you but just know it's not just for them because they are republican and stevens was on this committee. it's larger than that so we will look forward to working with you and we look forward to meeting and the other room where we can go into the national security budget in more detail. the committee is temporarily recessed until we can reconvene next week. we will also take the hearing of the testimony of secretary grayson of commerce. show we proceed?

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> it there's anything that concerns the american family today, it's this. our government hasn't caught up with the new facts of american family life. families have changed, so why can't washington? moms working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working, part-time, full-time, all of the time, keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable daycare and it paid they deserve. to often, they can't get either.

>> last u.s. troops left in december. tomorrow anthony brink in >> they would wear garments made of homespun cloth and it would be much more textured. it would be much less find than the kinds of goods that they could import from great britain that by wearing this homespun cloth, women were visibly and physically displaying their political sentiments.

>> white house press secretary jay carney denied reports that president obama and the british prime minister agree to a joint release of a reserve to lower gas prices. but he said that they did discuss energy issues. mr. carney briefed reporters at the white house for 45 minutes. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the white house for your daily briefing. >> on the ides of march. >> the ides of march. i didn't see the movie. did you see the movie? [laughter] but i plan to. and i loved the play. >> did you chat with clooney

last night, did you? >> i don't have any announcements to make at the top of the briefing. [laughter] >> how did it feel being a guest last night? >> it was a really nice affair. no question it was very appropriate event to celebrate the relationship, the essential relationship we have with the united kingdom. and i think you saw in the comments that the president made and the prime minister made, that the relationship has never been stronger between our two countries. the number of areas of cooperation between our countries has probably never been so broad and numerous. and the relationship between the two leaders is strong as well. so, it was a very nice event. but i have -- >> let me fast-forward. >> let me go to questions.

the "associated press," jim. >> two topics. i wanted to ask about karzai's comments today. he wants an immediate pullout of nato forces from the rural areas and villages. he also wants afghan forces to take the lead in 2013. i wondered if either of those are consistent with where the president stands right now on afghanistan and on the taliban and its declaration that they ty have stopped discussions. isn't that a major setback in terms of what the president wants to do in afghanistan? >> let me deal with the segments of that question. first of all, as you know the president's policy, strategy in afghanistan is to drawdown of forces that were surged into afghanistan. that is happening now. 33,000 forces will be withdrawn. 33,000 u.s. troops will be withdrawn by the end of the summer. as he said yesterday in his comments in the rose garden, our

strategy is to shift to a support role in 2013 and to complete the transition to full afghan security lead in 2014. so, without getting into the specifics of what you do in certain parts of the country and the nature of different deployments, it is consistent to say, as we saw in iraq, that kind of transition involved a change in the footprint, as more and more portions of the country are turned over to afghan security which is happening already. so, with regards to the statement from the taliban, we support an afghan-led process towards reconciliation. there is no likely resolution to the conflict in afghanistan

without a political resolution. and our conditions for participation in that process by the taliban have been clear in terms of the reconciliation. those who would be reconciled me to lay down their arms, renounce al qaeda, promise to abide by the afghan constitution. and we continue to support that process. >> the taliban claims the u.s. is change the terms for those negotiations. is that the case? >> the terms have been, as i stated on many occasions, and just did again, the fact also is that this is an afghan-led process that we support. and it is also true that we are not going to get into great detail about every conversation we have had our meeting we have had with the various parties, but we broadly supportive process here that is essential

to the long-term resolution of the conflict in afghanistan. >> you one other on another subject. reports today that the president and prime minister cameron discussed having strategic oil reserves. what is the status of the white house's attempts to tap the spr? and are you having those kinds of discussions with other foreign leaders? because obviously you want to do this with international concurrence. >> jim, the suggestion that energy issues were among the topics discussed by the british prime minister and the president should not be surprising. that was certainly -- energy issues were among the topics discussed in the meetings meeting said they had. it is an accurate, as was reported today, that any kind of agreement was reached on a

course of action or that any kind of timetable associated with a course of action was agreed to. those reports are wrong. they are false. reuters. >> jay, you talked about the strategy being to draw down troops and to proceed with that, but in terms of the goal of the mission, how can the events of recent days not be a setback to that, with the taliban suspending the nascent talks? how can you achieve that goal of turning over security to the afghans with all of these setbacks? >> well karen, i appreciate the question. it is certainly the case that our challenge in afghanistan has been and continues to be and will be difficult. what is also true is that since the president began implementing his strategy, with its very clear focus on the top priory of

ultimately defeating al qaeda, we have met with success and we have achieved significant progress. some of the events that you referred to are clearly tragic and unfortunate, and don't make the mission and easier to accomplish. but what we do know is that our men and women in uniform in afghanistan are the very best in the world, and they have done a tremendous job to this point in implementing the presidents strategy, and even the midst of these difficult times, they are continuing the process of transferring -- to making that transition to afghan security lead. we are with drying american

troops as part of the president's plan. we will continue to do that. we will continue as we do to strengthen the afghan security forces. we will continue to take the fight to al qaeda across the region, to diminish and ultimately defeat for al qaeda, which is based there in the region. and in accordance with the president strategy, as agreed to at lisbon by nato, we will finish the transfer to afghan security lead in 2014. and that is the mission, and we are sticking to it. >> how concerned is the president about the implications of recent events on what you hope to do at the nato summit, what you hope to announce, what you hope to maybe site's progress? >> again i would not in any way attempt to suggest that the

koran burning, the incident last weekend involving the civilian deaths were anything but unfortunate, tragic and terrible. and they clearly do not help the cause of the mission. but it is also the case that there have been difficult times in the course of our efforts in afghanistan in the past, and we have continued to focus on the mission. we have continued to maintain the highest levels of professionalism and executing the mission and we have made great progress because of that. and the important aspect of all of this is that the president knows where we are going with this strategy. he laid it out clearly. he took a situation that existed when he was sworn into office in afghanistan, where there was great murkiness about our goals

there, our purpose there, whether we have the right force structure, whether we were building towards an opportunity to allow our troops to leave. none of those questions were clear, and this president made them clear. this president made clear that our objective in afghanistan, the reason why american men and women are in harm's way in that country, is because we were attacked by al qaeda, who was based in that country, and therefore the number one objective of our afghanistan mission has to be to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al qaeda. in support of that we have to stabilize afghanistan enough, stabilize the government enough to give it to space to fully train up the necessary afghan security forces so that afghans can take responsibility for the security of their country. and that was a significant

refocusing and narrowing of our objectives. and in doing that, and in providing the resources necessary to achieve the strategy, we have had some success, i think indisputable success. but it is a hard mission and it is not complete, and we are fulfilling the president strategy. yes, jessica. >> to questions on two different topics. following up on the spr. you said just to proceed further on this, that there is no timetable and no agreement but then are you at knowledge and that they did discuss releasing the emergency oil reserves? >> jessica, as has been the case every time i am asked about that issue, i am not going to discuss specifics about it. i can tell you that among the many topics of discussion that the british prime minister and the president had were energy

issues, and the situation globally with the rise in price of oil. but i can say very clearly that the report suggesting that any kind of an agreement was reached on a course of action with regard to those energy issues, that any agreement was reached with a timetable associated with it, that report is false. it is not accurate. >> the pentagon, in a briefing now with captain kirby, said that when secretary panetta was landing in afghanistan, an afghan man drove onto the runway and the pentagon is saying the vehicle had been stolen 30 minutes before the attack. it was aimed at the arriving vip party. what does this tell us about the u.k. and the u.s. military's inability to protect the secretary of defense? >> i would refer you for details about the security arrangements

and what happened there and how that happened to the pentagon and to our personnel there. we are obviously aware of what happened and nobody more so than the secretary of defense. but for any details about that incident, think you should turn to the pentagon. >> does the white house have concerns? >> the president is very aware of the fact, as if every member of the national security team including of course secretary panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs and the commanders in the field that afghanistan is a dangerous place and continues to be a dangerous place and that our personnel there are executing a mission that entails significant risks. that is not news. so, but it can for details about this incident i would refer you to the pentagon.

>> specifically about the inability to -- there is a 30 minute gap there. >> jessica i understand that these are details about an incident that may or not be reflective of a broader question about either that base or the security. and i just am not in a position to adequately address questions of that nature. roger. >> i would like to try the spr stuff a couple more times. [laughter] surprised. what kind of coordination is underway right now, if there is a decision to go ahead with the spr? can you talk about the mechanics a little bit? >> no. again, that is pure speculation. it doesn't even comport with the pure fact that i just bestowed upon you, which is that the report of any kind of agreement

or timetable associated with the agreement, related to a course of action is just wrong. so, of course the united kingdom, the prime minister of the u.k. and the u.s. resident in their discussions talked about pressing issues of the day in which these two countries share an interest and that includes afghanistan, iran and syria, bilateral trade relationships and energy issues, among others. so it should not be a surprise that that topic area was on the table and was discussed. but the reports that i think everyone is referencing when they are asking these questions were not accurate. >> there is nothing -- does the i am here to simply address, to speak for the president, the white house, the administration and make clear a factual

assertion about this report. i'm not here to comment on the market's. >> have you spoken to your british counterparts about how the story might have gotten out? have you had any discussions with them? >> i don't have anything to relate to you about conversations with our counterparts. >> in the past, robert would talk to the french side. >> let me just finish. i certainly know that our friends overseas are not new to the idea that occasionally there are erroneous press reports. ..

made clear the implementation of the sanctions we would be mindful of the impacts on the global economy and the effect on individuals pacific allies to come and without getting into five difficult details how that plays out we are obviously if mindful of that kind of potential. i'm not going to speculate about what specific sanctions and

implementation might have or what price impact it might have on a barrel of oil but we are very aware of and we talked a lot about this fact when we were reviewing this legislation and the president signed it what. sinecure is an honest question to be asked which is what is the plan? you're going to take a million barrels of lines of the administration is encouraging others, saudi arabia and others to put out more or is the u.s. and the british going to make sure the markets are not disrupted? >> i'm just not going to get into the hypothetical, of course of action we might take, we and our allies, others might take then proceed globally. the fact is the issue that you

raised, one we are obviously aware of, and knew in advance is something that we wanted to monitor very carefully. we also have a very keen interest in tightening the sanctions in iran. as you noted in your question, we have been extremely aggressive with our partners in a broad coalition action against the regime in an effort to try to pressure tehran to live up to its international obligations to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions and that has already had a significant impact on the economy on the political leadership and we will continue to press from all corners to increased pressure.

>> there have been eight incidents this year alone. 12 in the 59 coalition troops killed by the afghan allies. last time i talked to somebody in the white house about this i was told the latest information was that they were all unrelated cases. is that still with the information would have that these are all -- >> i don't have any information that would alter that assessment but it is an assessment that is more -- made in more depth at the pentagon and elsewhere. it is important to remember as i noted during one of my briefings the huge volume of missions carried out by, jointly by the

u.s. and afghan forces daily, weekly and effectively, which should not in any way take away from the terrible incidents that you cite, including those in the wake of the inadvertent burning of busbee kuran. i don't have anything that suggests different of the nature of the incidents. perhaps the pentagon does, but i think, you know, we have to remember how broad the mission is over there, how many operations occur with afghan and u.s. forces working together towards the same goal and effectively in presenting the taliban from getting momentum and taking the fight to al qaeda

that's where we are right now. i would refer you to the pentagon for more. this wouldn't on the west indies to withdraw. is it possible they could change the pace in terms of when the afghans take more of a lead and security as karzai suggested? is that possible? >> we make these assessments as the president made clear when he spoke about these, when he spoke about it in the week of lisbon and coordination with our allies and in a manner that is designed to ensure we are as successful as possible in filling the objectives of the mission. we are operating under a timetable was laid out in lisbon that includes as part of these

evaluations but the president said yesterday about transitioning in 2013 into a support role as part of a full transition to afghan security leak in 2014. i think within the context of that framework has we've always said the pace of withdrawal, the nature of deployments, how quickly certain trees and afghanistan are turned over, those kinds of details i am sure will be made closer to the ground and those decisions will be made closer to the ground and will depend on conditions as the weeks and months go on but the structure is clear and it's in the context of this what i think a lot of people have missed there's been a focus on the initial forces in afghanistan and the progress we've made as well as the challenges that we

face is part of that strategy the president put into please was to have a timetable for withdrawing u.s. troops to ending that war responsive we come and that is his strategy and he's implementing it. >> with the journalist that has been detained, president obama spoke more than a year ago as was mentioned the president expressed concern over the relief with intent. there's been journalistic organizations that have protested his attention and express curiosity and outrage at president obama with involving himself in the detention of the journalists. can you tell us anything about why president obama thinks this man is a threat?

>> i appreciate question but i will have to take it because i don't have any information. i will have to give back to you. >> vice president biden finished speaking awhile ago calling out the republican rivals by name. is it fair to say he will be the official voice of the campaign until there is a republican nominee? >> i would refer your question about this speech which was a campaign speech to the campaign pitted the vice president also has and will continue to have significant responsibilities as the president's partner in implementing the president's policies, and i think i could give details about the depth and breadth of his responsibilities in both foreign and domestic policy if you like, but i could also just move on and take another question. [laughter] is there a reason why the

president learned to [inaudible] >> certainly not that i'm aware of. i would ref er you to the campaign. we generally try to keep our schedules tight sometimes they fly but i would refer you on this, the vice president's schedule on this event to the campaign. >> they will continue to fight for what they are calling a broad religious exemption for the employer birth control mandate and i wonder your reaction on that but there's also been discussion that they would welcome or dialogue these things. >> we have had a dialogue with a lot of stakeholders on the issue on providing preventive services

to women, and as you know because you cover it, the president, he brought the process to a solution here that met his objectives to ensure that women across america no matter where they were were able to get the sampras and services including contraceptive services, and without having to pay for them. and that religious -- that those with religious objections would not have institutions for example colleges and universities would not have to provide for or pay for it contraception if they objected to doing so and that is the solution that we reached, and we continue to have discussions with stakeholders on the issues of self funded plans, self funded plans such as we made clear we would.

but the president's position here, the solution was reached to achieve the two objectives and to find that balance has been reached, and we firmly believe that it achieves the goal the president set. >> the financial services as understand today severed ties with most of all of irans banks. what do you expect the impact to be? >> i would say it is part of a process of tightening the sanctions, it's part of the process of isolating iran and making clear to the leadership that there is a price to pay for their intransigence, the refusal to abide by their international obligations and refusal to adequately reassure the international community that

it's nuclear intentions are peaceful and non-weapons related and we have made clear as we did earlier this year when it was the case that we have already implemented the harsh sanctions is less of a broad international coalition in history we were going to continue to ratchet them up and this is as a part of the international effort this is part of it. estimate how this price is that -- >> i would point you to the experts in terms of treasury about what the specific impact of this course of action would be the broad impact and the goal is to raise the price of intransigence and it will have

that effect as part of the overall sanctions regime. spot the problem with the price of oil is the u.s. hasn't convinced for most of the world will be energy independent. what's your reaction to that? >> i didn't see that comment and i would simply say that president obama from the time he came into office and has a pursuit of policy that is driven by that goal increasing america's energy independence, and reducing our dependence on the foreign sources of energy for economic reasons and national security reasons, and certainly it has been more aggressive in doing that than any of his 43 predecessors i think it's fair to say and that

has pursued in all of the above energy strategy which includes not just aggressively increasing oil and gas production, fossil fuel production domestically but insisting that we explore all energy alternatives, wind, solar, biofuels, advanced battery technology and they take action like he did when we work with the automobile companies to put in place historic fuel efficiency standards which by themselves will save american consumers $1.7 trillion reduce our consumption of oil and therefore our consumption and dependence on foreign oil by something to the along the lines of 12 billion barrels. those who suggest that it's an important goal to pursue our

rights. what's also reported this week of the policies that prove you are trying to preserve it. the president made clear today that just drilling is not a plausible solution to our energy challenges. the math doesn't work. you have to do everything. you have to do nuclear, you have to do alternative energy sources. because if you don't, you will continue to have a situation with of the united states depends heavily on the foreign countries for oil and depends heavily for its foreign oil imports in the region of the world that has been very unstable. so all of the above. that's the appropriate approach and all of the above doesn't mean drill, drill. it means drill, invest and take

a executives actions to ensure we have greater energy security. i appreciate the question to the estimate there has been a lot of attention by in part in goldman sachs and i know the white house is very proud of the increased regulation on wall street. i wondered few things that has improved in the financial collapse. >> i'm not going to comment on one employee of one firm. i think the point i would make is the one that you reference in your question which is that this president can focus on the absolute need to ensure that we put into place the rules of the road and present the kind of reckless behavior in our big financial institutions that contributed to the greatest financial crisis this country has seen since the 1930's and

that's what the historic wall street reform the president signed into law does and that is the full approval which as part of that historic wall street reform is designed to do so this president's commitment on this issue against a great deal of resistance and a considerable amount of post law signing attempt to undo has continued to pursue. i'm not sure that makes sense but i'm doing my best. >> without talking about individual do you think the culture has changed? >> i think that what we can do, what the leaders can do in washington is make sure wall street plays by the same rules as main street, and by insisting on that, affect the cultural

change by making it against the rules as the volcker rule does to make risky bets with other people's money with creditors deposits. that's the kind of action that led to the situation where we had a global financial market meltdown. i noted on one of the business news channels last week i guess we have an anniversary of the low in the markets during that dreadful period in early 2009. markets are now double what they were in some cases even more.

and i think while that is certainly good for business and the economy and good for folks who were able to hold onto their investments and other retirement plans to see the savings that had been decimated, resurrected to some degree, what it cannot result in is an nisha because it was not that long ago when this country was staring into the abyss and dramatic action had to be taken to prevent the great depression. >> on the oil reserve there is a separate news reports that said that the prime minister and the president -- are using >> i'm saying that the president and prime minister spoke about a number of issues including

energy issues, including i'm not going to get into specifics because i don't -- whether i've asked about it from destruction work with the president thinks might do or how she would do i just don't -- i'm not going to get into the specifics about what aspect of the global market or energy issues the discuss, but i am confirming that is one topic of the conversation. why am making clear is not accurate is the report is some sort of agreement. >> but you are not saying this report is inaccurate. summit energy issues were among the topics discussed it is the mexican, giving the campaign speech the president is troubling, continuing to travel to a number of swing states and there is a member invited to the state dinner last night and

having given increasingly the speeches do you still maintain this white house is not in campaign mode? >> i still maintain that the president is still spending vast preponderance of his time on his official duties as is everyone who works here. there is a campaign of course and is active and doing the things that it does in preparation for the time when there is a general election nominee for the other party and there is a debate to be had more directly. i have to take issue with the idea that maryland is a swing state but that is where he traveled to give a speech about energy. >> he's travelling on friday -- may be a defeat to >> he has been having political reasons and we've been clear

about that. he is participating in that way in his campaign but in his time it is still fairly minimal the life and free career and others have been very clear that that percentage will increase as the year progresses and especially once there is a republican nominee. >> do you think it has increased in the last month's? >> i think it is from the formation of the campaign i'm sure it has three gradually increased. i think it adds flow depending on what the schedule allows, but it's, again, this president has support in his own party he did not have to engage in a primary fight and he has therefore been able to focus the vast majority of his time on his official

duties and he will continue to do that for as long as possible within the confines the general election campaign creates. >> what about the preponderance of the public would he admit that is increasingly political? >> i will let it get there will be a gradual increase in the amount of his time that he spends on political evens, but we are a long way from the point where that becomes a significant part of the schedule. we are just not there yet. deutsch in the energy speech today he give a speech that addressed the fact that when we are trying to get the country moving in the right direction, adopting the all of the above approach that unfortunately we have some folks who by the nature of the system are charged

with the task of governing along with us who seem not to be before seem to think come seem to believe that we need anything but fossil fuels to secure our energy future and seem to think that even talking about alternative energy sources is funny. i think calling them flat earth is appropriate. estimate is that the campaign message? >> no, it's a policy message. we believe we have to do this for the sake of the america's economic future. it is simply not an option to say we can just keep controlling with 2% of the no oil reserves in the world when we consume 20% of the world's oil. it's a mediocre math student, but that doesn't seem to work out. it won't work out well for the united states.

so what do we do? we aggressively because we are america innovate, invest, insist that the best technologies are made here, the best products are made here and the best jobs are created here so that we can kill two birds with one stone. a growing our economy, enhance our national security. >> why is the president so confident that all of the u.s. troop patrols withdraw from their largely attacks against the u.s.? >> it is the focus of the policy of the president to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda to stabilize afghanistan and i'm not sure that the afghan forces can gradually take over the security responsibilities for their country. that has to be ultimately afghanistans future coming and we have sacrificed greatly to

the international security interest and touche ensure that that can, about. obviously there are shall the edges. obviously there have been setbacks. the progress is also undeniable when you evaluate where we are against the objectives the president put into place when he announced the strategy. so is the essence of the president and of the nato, the timetable that is governing the drawdown in the transition is the right time table, a timetable that will allow us to achieve our objective as well as bring our men and women home. >> do you have enough resources? >> that gets way ahead of where we are. the president made clear in announcing his afghanistan strategy that we and our allies

and abroad and a coalition of international partners will continue to have a robust strategic relationship with afghanistan beyond the transition period, but its 2012, and what that looks like obviously is difficult to predict with any specificity right now >> i will for you been there for the question. >> he is releasing a 17 minute documentary video, and -- >> easy this one. >> if so what is the reaction to it and if not, when do you plan -- are there viewing problems in the white house? >> i look forward to seeing it many times in my spare time

which i don't have enough, but i am certainly not aware of any of the viewing parties and i would refer you to the campaign and i am just going to go out on a limb they probably have a plan for the unveiling of and distribution of one point sure will be a very compelling film. estimate a sign that early but my point is has the president screened it? >> it is his campaign but i haven't asked him whether he has seen it but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if he had. thanks. >> amol conversations