mr. reid: ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i from time to time have to express my apologies to everyone, staff, presiding officer. i just can't come to the floor until we know what we're going to do tomorrow. and that takes a lot of time. i've had meetings going on in my office. and i apologize to everyone. i'm sorry that things take so long and it appears we're doing nothing but there are things being done. i ask consent the senate proceed

to consideration of s. res. 409. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 4 409, congratulating the penn state university wrestling team for winning the 2014 national collegiate athletic association wrestle championships. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when we complete our business tonight, we adjourn until 10:30 -- 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 3979. all time during adjournment count postcloture on the reid amendment to h.r. 3979. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we're doing our best to reach an

agreement on both unemployment insurance and some executive nominations during tomorrow's session. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> good afternoon everyone and i am very pleased to be joined by my colleague and friend senator whitehouse. this morning as you well know the supreme court announced a decision in mccutcheon versus fec. while we are still pouring through the text a few things are clear. the roberts court is yet again turning back the clock on our democracy by limine being the cap on overall donations to federal candidates, political parties and pacs. this in itself is a small step but it's another step on the road to a nation of our political system that the supreme court is clearly headed down.

they wish to dismantle all limits on giving piece by piece until we are back to the days of the robber barons when anyone or anything could give unlimited money, undisclosed and make our political system seems so rigged that everyone will lose interest in our congress. the implications of this decision are huge even though the individual question before the court was small. the koch brothers and other wealthy donors have already wreaked havoc on our political system. this decision and those that will follow it seems by the narrowest of margins 5-4 will make the koch brothers lives easier and americans lives harder. it could lead to interpretations of a law that results in the end of any fairness in the political system as we know it.

we saw what happened in the wake of citizens united. we sought the flood of special-interest money. we saw lawyers poring over it, the decision and its implications to figure out ways around the law and we are going to see much more of that again. much of the money that is donated is anonymous. we don't know who is donating it. most of the commercials run have nothing to do with the actual interests of who is donating the money and today's ruling decided once again by the mere slimmest of majorities is yet another nail in the coffin for our free and fair election system. now for instance by eliminating aggregate contribution limits nothing can stop a single millionaire from lining the pockets of an entire state's congressional delegation or giving one check to every member of a party in congress.

you might remember tom perkins you said wealthier people ought to get more votes in american elections. i would ask chief justice roberts did tom perkins argued this case because that is where the outcome is headed. so it's a sad day. the implications of this particular decision are significant but not huge. but the direction that the court is headed in is just dramatic and just dark. i just want to mention one other thing. our colleague tom udall could not be with us. he has introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow the congress to impose limits that the supreme court seems to be part of free speech and a decision like this makes that amendment more and more likely and one other point. the opponents -- the proponents of this decision talk about free speech.

that's an absurdity. no amendment is absolute. you can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. you can't distribute child pornography. you can't libel somebody. those are limitations on free speech. it seems so logical to every american that's a limitation should be on the wealthiest of donors rigging our political system but somehow the supreme court, five of them anyway cling to this idea that putting the same dishonest commercial on television for the 4111th time is a vital part of free speech. i don't think thomas jefferson, george washington or any of the founding fathers would ever think that this was a mandate for free speech. >> thank you chuck. i just want to make a few points. the first is that once again this was a 5-4 decision.

once again we see the supreme court behaving in a way that would team matched if the five conservative justices made it a strategy to go off and sit in a room by themselves and decide how best to implement the republican agenda and then came out and did it. the recurrence of these 5-4 decisions on very important and big issues is a signal of a court that leans towards getting its way rather than seeking consensus among the judges. in this case and in citizens united getting its way means aligning political power in this country with financial wealth. and that is a step that is i think a bad one for democracy. the idea that your voice in this country counts only in proportion to your wealth is a

very unfortunate idea but it is the base of both citizens united and this decision. the last thing i will mention is that this is a court that knows essentially nothing about elections. it's the first chord in a long time on which no one has ever run for office and to listen to them pontificate amateur ashley about elections and corruption when they have no more sense of that than the ultimate amateur is i know how to eat so i will open a restaurant. the discussion of corruption and how it works in elections and mature-ish and naïve to the extreme that boggles the mind and it really makes me wonder if they thought this through or they needed to check that box in order to get where they want to go. it's a really disturbing decision following a really disturbing decision of citizens

united. >> just one other point. i'm sure the rules committee and we will be hearing -- holding hearings on this hearing seeing if there's anything we can do. >> they say will it improve the system as it will provide money through disclosed money for candidates rather than outside groups. what is your response? >> with my response is dark money groups are dark as they wanted dark and they're going to keep it dark and this will simply allow more money to cascade through the system. i don't think it will reduce the amount of money that goes to the super pacs and the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) but will increase the number of very wealthy people who have a disproportionate effect on our political system. >> it is kind of a wash in that the koch brothers aren't able to give a whole lot of money because of citizens united.

>> i said the specific effects of this decision is not that large because we are already all washed in money but where it shows where the supreme court is headed which is to dismantle other even more significant limits so any person could write out a check of any size and undisclosed put it into a limited number of races. and that direction as i said would be like the 1890s. we would go back to the days of the robber barons. >> it's a little bit ironic that we are spending so much time and energy and effort trying to support ukraine as it emerges from corrupt and oligarchic governments government while we have the supreme court that is busily at home kicking down the protections that protect american democracy from that same kind of oligarchioligarchi

c government. >> i would like to say to justice kennedy, i was once an elevator with him alone and i was so tempted but you're not supposed to say anything about any case. this was even a pending case but what i would like to say and i think i can say it publicly, do you know how you are running democracy in this country in a guise of improving free speech. i don't think the koch brothers lack for free speech. >> senator all of the money covered in this case is disclosed. >> absolutely. correct. i said we are headed in that direction. >> what is the damage? >> the damage is if you want to to -- let's say you are a person who doesn't believe in undisclosundisclos ed money. let's say you are person who doesn't want to go to a

501(c)(4) because you are worried maybe there'll be an irs investigation sometime down the road. could write one check to a joint committee of 232 house members and give them each the maximum. it makes it much easier. up until 10 years ago we were trying to make it harder for a very wealthy people to send huge amounts of money cascading through our system. with citizens united in this case we are making it easier. if you think that's a good thino ,-com,-com ma then you like this decision that most americans, 98% of americans would say that money has to much of an interest already and this makes it easier for them. >> it reminds me a reminds me a little bit of chairman leahy's remark that when he got to the senate he thought the seniority system was really unfair and archaic but as he spent more and

more time here he has decided is a better and better idea. i think the same analysis applies to this decision. the richer you are the more you think that this decision could be a good idea great if you youe a regular middle-class american and can't afford to make major campaign donations washington is listening too much to rich people and ignoring your concerns than this just kicks the door open a little wider. >> okay tom. give it to tom here. >> new york city is the primary area for contributions. what's the impact on new york city and the impact on washington as a result? >> well look, i think any city city -- new york has a lot of wealthy people but this does not have a geographic effect. it has an economic effect. the wealthier you are a more weight you will have in this democracy.

if you think wealthy people don't have enough weight in this democracy you should be for this decision. the frightening thing about the decision is what were the limitations on it quite the limitations were the facts in the case, not the supreme court's luggage. the supreme court's logic takes it in a direction that would get rid of all limits and as i said go back to the days of the robber barons. >> however you don't like this case i am not sure the democrats will universally -- c. i checked with some people who would know. no one knows. this is not a decision that advantages one party over the other. it advantages the very wealthy over everybody else. the very wealthy should be allowed to participate participate in a system that most people would agree if he did a balancing test already their wages disproportionate and this makes it more so.

>> but at their financials do you think might be under threat? >> i think individual limits will be under threat from the supreme court. the sex we were challenged in this case so a person could write out the check for $10 million directly to a candidate. somebody, you asked about the koch brothers. they have to do it right now through an independent expenditure and that is not an somebody who has run this dscc if i could be a candidate to get $5 million undisclosed to my campaign treasury that i can spend as i want that is far more effective to that candidate then someone putting $5 million into a 501(c)(4). >> will leadership put some sort of a limit on this decision on the floor? >> again most of these decisions are first amendment decisions so it's very hard but we will explore what kind of legislative responses are possible within the bounds of the supreme court

decision. as i said it makes the udall constitutional amendment more attractive. >> the chief laid out very specific legislative responses that you all can take. have you looked at those? >> they have said all along we could implement more disclosure. we have tried. our republican colleagues who used to be mitch mcconnell used to get up and say disclosure is the answer in an act of supreme self esters against disclosure because they know they are benefiting from this far more than we are. not from this decision but the overall impact of the money. >> have you talked to the fec chair? >> absolutely. i'm upset is an american as a someone who believes government can be a force for good this decision weakens everybody's facing government and that is the enemy of democracy. if people lose faith in democracy and people lose faith that they have some ability to control the events that are occurring in washington the

actions of elected officials, the average person loses that faith, this is a much different country and i fear the consequences. i genuinely fear what is happening here. i am sure you do, go talk to average people. they are so disillusioned with the system. one of the main reasons hey what the reasons hey look for tea partiers gridlocked or government. how does the tea party have such power? some of it is that they dominate some of the republican primaries but much of it is they have 20 people and they can call them up and push a button and save this money in. we saw with the government shutting down. republican senators were told there would be ads in your district if you oppose this. a small number of people who really want to paralyze the government are being given such huge distortion at weight but the average citizen who doesn't follow the details of government it just doesn't work and it's

terrible for democracy. >> if you're a court watcher note lack of humility and a lack of judicial conservatism to these decisions. these are judges who are making sweeping determinations without trying to bring the court together, without trying to unify their colleagues the way judge will then famously did in brown versus board of education. they're trespassing into an area in which they know nothing and in which they have in proven affirmatively wrong. it's not debatable that citizens united was wrongly decided in terms of saying that this spending is going to be independent of candidates and it's going to be transparent. we will know who it is. those decisions were factually wrong. they made up findings of fact that appellate judges are not supposed to do.

they found facts that have been indisputably proven wrong and they won't go back and reconsider their plain error. they just keep charging forward. that is not a sign of a court that is either -- that is anything but activist and it's a sign of a court that has an agenda and it is really worrisome when that agenda take something that has been defended for hundreds of years with lead ,-com,-com ma sweat and tears by americans and begins to turn us into a country where the money rules and everybody else can go ahead. >> does anyone think the koch brothers first amendment rights are being violated or any other very wealthy person? the only person who seems to think they have a direct self-interest and seeing that small number people gain more power. the argument just doesn't make any sense. and the shelden said it's an argument for people who i've not seen how politics really works, and how the effects of money

jaundice the system away from the interests of average people too often. last one. >> could you discuss the legislation on reform. >> i will give you one right now. climate change. how many senators have a record on climate change before citizens united came along. john mccain ran for president on climate change. susan collins co-authored a climate will. mark kirk voted for reischmann marquee in the house. several others have written articles or spoken publicly in favor of carbon fees and then come citizen united. the main one who will come to the floor right now and admit that climate change and carbon pollution is worth doing anything about. that is the real problem.

that is hitting our farms, for that is hitting our families come to hitting our forests, hitting our families and the fact that the denial is in the wake of citizens united in the big money behind that party right now is the polluter money of the koch brothers. if you can't put those together you can follow a story very well. >> we don't mean any of you in this room. [laughter] thank you. >> thank you. >> now here is the oral argument in the campaign finance case that the supreme court decided today. this is an hour. >> we ohio -- hear arguments in 12 mccutcheon versus the federal election committee. see mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the aggregate contributions

limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest baseline of congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption. these limits seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns one hypothesizes are addressed by multitude of direct anti-circumvention measures. >> how is that? >> biggar imposes numerous provisions on earmarking contributions for a political candidate. we have coordination restrictions on coordinated expenditures. there are proliferation restrictions on packs that are all designed.

he has a lot of supporters and 40 of them get a brainstorm. in each of the 40 puts on internet rule sign that says sam smith packed. we can give each of those $45,000. they are not established by single person. each is independently run. we know pretty well bet that total of 5000 times will go to sam smith. what does that violate? >> there a couple of problems with that hypothetically your honor. first of all their base limits both on what can be given to a pac. >> $5000. >> and one attack can give to a

candidate. >> $5000. all we have is my $5000 going to the pack. by a thousand times 4000. five times 40, five times 400 rate how much is that? >> earmarking requires that you write a check for a company letter that you want the money to go to someone. >> actually it does not. >> fec regulations are broader than that. if you have a path that is going to contribute to only one candidate. >> they will contribute to several. >> at that point then you don't have the traceability you are talking about because there's more money coming into the pac they can find its way to any one particular candidate. >> as the hypothetical assumes i would be surprised to see the

commission wouldn't come after you for earmarking. >> lets say this one. you have 100 packs and each of them say that they are going to support the five candidates in the most contested senate races. there are really only five contested senate races and 100 pacs say they are going to support those five candidates. so a donor gives $5000 to each of those 100 pacs we support those candidates. but that divides up the money. $1000 goes to each candidate. the total for those pacs the $100,000 goes to each of the senate candidates in the five most contested races. 20 times what the individual contribution limits allow. >> it couple of responses to that your honor. first of all we are talking about scenarios where there is in coordination at all between the first-person them makes the

contribution and the candidate later on that's receiving it. >> this candidate knows all of his donors. there are not all that many of them. he can keep them all in his head in a mental rolodex. >> but they are not actually donors to him at that point. they're contribute into a pac in the hypothetical. >> five of the most contested senate races so a person gives $100,000 to each of five candidates who if they went become the five senators who are most attuned to donors and he knows who is giving him $100,00e senators who gets in on the strength of these contributions that are 20 times what the individual limits allow. >> i don't think it works to think of these as direct contributions in excess of the bates limits because the pac has limited itself and how much you can contribute. >> what we are trying to do is it's hard to do, to that what we are trying to do in both our

cases is that we looked up all the rules and rags for my law clerks did and what she discovered and it may be wrong because i will look at it again come to is there has been no significant change in the air market rules or any of the rules you're talking about but for one , change since buckley. the one change, the wind changes the change that all contributions made by political committees established by or finance or maintained or controlled by a single person will count as one. so what you are saying in these hypotheticals is simply the construction of her cicely the same situation that existed in buckley while being careful to have not one person control the 4000 pacs which is pretty easy to do. if you want to say is this a reality turn on your television set or internet as we found

instances without naming names where it certainly is a reality. >> to responses. there are changes in earmarking northern what you have suggested because the restrictions that the fec has about regulations cover more than the statute itself. specifically they cover these instances of a pac that is only going to be contributing to one candidate. >> i just want to be clear what you're answer to justice kagan was her hypothetical. as part of your answer that this might the hypothetical that she gives, contravened earmarking? >> it can pose to earmarking concerns and proliferation concerns if we are talking about something. >> is part of your answer to her hypothetical isn't real or is it going to happen or it can't happen under existing law? >> that's part of the answer. i don't think it's a realistic

scenario under existing regulation. >> with the other side can see that this is true? >> i doubt that they would concede that it's true but i think if you look and you have a bunch of pacs that are giving contributions for the same group of individuals you are going to run into earmarking and proliferation restrictions but the other thing i would say. >> imagine if you have a pac which says we are going to give money to smith. that's bad but if you have have a practice as we are going to give all the money contribute to us to smith and jones that's okay or smith jones and three others. it seems to me that is earmarking. >> exactly. if you know --. >> do you think it's earmarking to have a pac that gives money to the candidates in the five most contested senate races i don't think any fec would say that's earmarking. >> i may have an been overly suspicious mind but i don't know, if i saw 100 pacs rise up and all of them said exactly

the same thing we are going to make contributions for the five most contested senate candidate in the five most contested senate races, i would be suspicious. maybe the fec would also be suspicious that they didn't spring all independently. >> i think that's absolutely right. >> suppose a number of pacs and using justice kagan is an example, we are going to give to congressional or senate candidates who want to cut down on government spending and we know only for people that are like that. [laughter] >> at that point i think that's not saying with any certainty what they're going to do. it's not clear you have something to target there because the pac might be spending money in different ways that are not operating as a conduit for circumvention. i think that gets again to why

this doesn't have the coordination you need. >> there are 150 house candidates with completely safe seats, all right and there were maybe 30 or 40 or something like that in their party who don't have safe seats so the 150 get together and they say we are going to run a joint fund-raiser and anybody can contribute $2600 to each of these candidates, 150 of them so that takes about four and a thousand dollars. then these 150 candidates with with completely safe seats transfer all this money to the one person who doesn't have a safe seat. that's about $400,000. double it for a primary and general election. that's about $800,000. it goes to one candidate from one donor because of the ability for candidates to transfer money

to each other. >> that is not legal justice kagan. the candidates do not have the ability to transfer money to each other. >> a maximum of $2600 to another candidate in an election. >> it candidate can transfer $2000 to the candidate in an election. that's a hard contribution limit on how much they can contribute but i think all of this gets to another problem which is there is an overburdening problem. if you are talking about the scenario in your scenario there's only one person who can even make a contribution. at that point after the first $2600 --. >> you are exactly right ms. murphy. one person can make an 800,000-dollar contribution to a house race were $800,000 goes a long way and then what these 150 candidates can do is they can do it for every single other candidate in a contested seat so take your 30 or 40 house contested seats and becomes a conduit for single person to

make an 800,000-dollar contribution to a candidate in a contested district. >> even if you accept the scenario where all of these candidates are independently deciding to give their money to one candidate you can have a lot designed to prohibit everybody else from engaging in a contribution that don't. >> everyone else -- can you give us an idea of whose expression is at stake? most people couldn't come near the limit. what are sent h. and is there any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to contribute over the aggregate? >> the i don't have a percentage on how many are able. we certainly aren't talking about more individuals than when

the first amendment rights were implicated. >> if prohibits the speech of 2% of the country is okay. >> absolutely not. >> ms. murphy we haven't talked yet about the effect of the limits of the ability of donors to give a minimum amount. the effect of the aggregate limits is to limit someone's contribution to nine candidates. >> that's right. >> is there a way to eliminate that aspect while retaining some of the aggregate limits? in other words is that a necessary consequence in any aggregate limits or are there alternative ways that don't have that consequence? >> is certainly a necessary consequence where there are distinct aggregate limits on contributions to candidates alone.

i think agri- limits in general are always going to have this effect of prohibiting people from giving contributions that don't themselves -- and that is why the government is really concerned about it there are narrower avenues to get at that. if the concern is joint fund-raising committees. >> i'm a little confused, okay? i'm confused because we are talking in the abstract made this decision was based on a motion to dismiss and each colloquy about what happens in doesn't happen very and we don't have a record below. i can go into the news as justice breyer suggested. it's very hard to think that any candidate doesn't know the contributor has enough money to give not only to himself or herself but to any of his or her affiliates who are supporting him or her. it's merely common sense.

it's hard to dispute so you are saying it can't happen but i don't see charges of coordination going on that much. >> i guess i'm not sure what you are talking about happening. if you are just talking about knowing that some individuals are making contributions to other candidates for state parties who were not going to share those contributions with a particular candidate then i don't see how. >> i won't name the candidate but you see a picture of the candidate. there is a sign that says smith packed. that is what it says and then it says make a donation to help the smith pac support republican or democratic candidates period. now it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they will do with the money and maybe smith will get a pretty good share.

if smith has 400 people who figure this out you will have 400 times five dozen times one person. now you say that really couldn't happen because of the designation. we haven't found a designation rule that will stop it but then justice sotomayor is saying i don't know and i don't either because there has been no hearing. there has been no evidence presented. there is nothing. >> to pointer on it. the case was briefed on cross-motion for a junta relief so the government had an opportunity to make a record and it chose to treated as a legal case. >> ms. ms. murphy to lead to a record to figure out issues of the law? >> that's my second . >> i agree that this candidate finance law is so intricate that i can't degrade out and it might've been nice to have the lower court tell me what the law is that we don't normally

require a record to decide questions of law. >> you should need when you're either because these limits are facially under and over conclusive. >> you are taking a position that the law stops corruption and you you're suggesting that the government is incapable of showing facts the facts that the law doesn't work as it is? don't you need facts to prove or disprove that proposition? >> even if the government approved a proposition they would be in over and under -- album. with that i would like to reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. burchfield. >> mr. chief justice they please the court. senator mcconnell agrees this aggregate limit does not pass scrutiny and senator mcconnell believes that all districts of this nature should be reviewed under strict scrutiny.

to begin with this is a severe restriction on political speech. >> mr. burchfield i would like you to address this question about the restriction on speech. it has been argued that these limits promote expression, promote democratic participation because what they require the candidate to do is instead of concentrating fund-raising on this super affluent the candidate would then have to try to raise money, more broadly in the electorate so that by having these limits you are promoting democratic participation and the little people will count some and he won't have the super affluent that will control the

election. >> your honor i disagree for this reason. the aggregate limit on political parties places like-minded political parties in the position of competing against each other that rather than collaboracollabora ting against each other throughout the national political political parties in the republican side of the state and local parties compete against each other for an artificially limited pool of money for each contributor. the same is true on the candidate side. they compete for the same limited pool of money even though it each individual contribution to the candidate or the party is limited. the federal election commission regulations in justice breyer i would propose that you look at section 110.18 which specifically prohibits a cap of the nature you describe if a person introduced to a packed with knowledge the contribution is going to a particular candidate. that is an earmark under the federal elections commission.

>> is it correct that the consequence of this provision has been very severe with respected national political parties? >> it is your honor particularly in the current environment where the national political parties are being analyzed. >> much of the money that used to go to them now goes to pacs. isn't that what has happened? >> exactly right. >> this is really turning the dials on regulating elections. i asked myself, to why would members of congress want to hurt their political parties? and the answer to myself -- [laughter] well ordinarily actual political parties will devote their money to elections in those states where the incumbent has a good chance of losing so in fact if you are an incumbent who cares about political parties i don't

want money to go to my opponents and if you turn down the amount of money that the national political parties have that is that much less money that can be devoted against you if you are challenged in a close race. isn't that the consequence of this? >> let me see you in racial and. there are separate limits for candidates and political parties. the effect is to insulate the incumbents from competing with the political parties for the dollars and by imposing a cap on the candidate on the amount candidates can raise the incumbents realize they are the favorite class among candidates who are going to be getting the contributions. >> has it worked that way in practice? there was one brief saying that that was wrong and in fact it was the challenges that were aided. >> your honor there is a hard cap on the number and a

contributor can give to all candidates and a separate cap on the amount that --. >> one summer before the growth i spent several weeks reading the lengthy case and it was filled with testimony by senators and congressman and a handful of people can give hundreds of thousands of dollars they know who those people are and that those people do have undue influence which means in the first amendment terms that the individual who in fact has wonderful ideas and convinces others you can pay 3 cents to buy the internet or something hasn't a shot because people in affluent people not ideas with money. there is a record on that. here there is no record showing whether this aspect does or does not have the same tendency.

that is why i ask how can i decide this on the basis of theory when the record previously showed the contrary and in fact might show that even in respect to these limits? >> right of this case comes to the court as an applied challenge. mr. mccutchen does not want to go through, does not want to go through the committees you are talking about. he wants to write checks directly to the candidates and directly to the committees. he is constrained by the aggregate limit. >> but he can write checks to anyone that he wants to write checks to. he just can't give a special number. >> if he wanted to give a contribution to every candidate running for a federal congressional seat he would be limited to $86. >> in this case it would be something like $1000 because he

identified 12 more candidates he would like to give 17762 but he could give each of them over $1000. >> your honor he could but again you are diminishing his right to associate in the intensity of his association by applying disaggregate it --. >> people will be allowed to put together the national committees or the state committees all the candidates in the house and the senate. it comes to over $3.5 million so i can write checks totaling $3.5 million to the republican party committees and all its candidates or the democratic party's committees even before i start writing checks to independent pacs. now having written a check for 3.5 or so million dollars to a single party candidate are you suggesting that party and the members of that party are not going to owe me anything, that i'm not going to get special

treatment? i thought that was exactly what we said in mcconnell that when we talked about soft money restrictions we understood. if you get $3.5 million to get a very special place at the table. this is effectively to reintroduce the soft money scam of mcconnell, isn't it? >> no your honor is absolute and not because mcconnell dealt with a situation where you were not considering the bass limits. the soft money was not subject to the base limits. to take your example of the joint fund-raising committee the joint funding regulation which consumes more than three pages in the federal code of regulations 102.17c reaffirms the base limits. it specifically reaffirms the anti-earmarking restriction and it says the joint fund-raising committee must inform all contributors of those restrictions. again it's a situation where the money leaves the contributor's hands he loses control over it.

>> the money goes to a single party and indeed i could make this even worse. i could say let's see the speaker of the house where the majority leader of the house. solicits those money from particulaparticula r people so solicit somebody to ante up his $3.6 million and then justice kennedy said in mcconnell v. recipient of the money into the one this list is the payment so the speaker and the majority leader can solicit $3.6 million to all the party members and you're telling me there's just no special influence that goes along with that? >> we know from citizens united decision your honor that gratitude and influence are not considered to be a quid pro quo corruption. that is not the sort of corruption that would sustain this limit especially in light of the severe restrictions on speech and the association it imposes as a political party competing against each other and

is the candidates have to compete against each other. >> the court sustained aggregate limits. what has changed since buckley? >> your honor the statute has changed significantly to impose base limits on the parties on both a state and federal parties. it has changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees. one of the concerns and buckley was the dairy industry which contributed to hundreds of pacs supporting president nixon's re-election. >> these were all created by the dairy goodness ration of the nixon campaign? >> as i read the lower court decision in buck way that is correct. in addition you also have a thick volume of code of federal regulations of the federal election commission which did not exist at the time of ugly. >> thank you council counsel. >> thank you your honor.

>> general forelli. >> may it please the court. let me start by explaining. aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and equally fundamentally by serving as a bulwark against the campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions in which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption be obvious and inherent. the corrosive appearancappearanc e of corruption would be overwhelming. the appellate in this case have tried to present the cases of the issuer whether there was some corrupting potential in giving a contribution to the 19th candidate after someone has already contributed to the maximum of the 18th. that is not what this case is about. the appellants are not arguing that the aggregate limit is strong in the wrong place. they are arguing there can be no aggregate limit because the base contribution limits do all the work.

what that means is you are taking the lid off the aggregate can't tradition limit and as justice kagan indicated that means an individual can contribute every two years up to $3.6 million to the candidates for a party in national committee. >> that is because they can transfer the funds among themselves to a particular candidate. is the possibility prohibiting those transfers perhaps a way of protecting against that corruption appearance while at the same time allowing individuals to contribute to however many house candidates it wants to contribute to? the concern is you have somebody who is very interested say in environmental regulation and very interested in gun control. the current system the way the

anti-aggregation system works is he has got to choose great is he going to express his belief in the environmental regulation by donating or is he going to choose the gun control issue? >> mr. chief justice i want to make two different point in response to that question. the first is restricting transfers wouldn't have a bearing on the circumvention. it would have a bearing on that problem but there is a more fundamental problem here. it's a problem analogous to the one that was at issue with soft-money mcconnell which is the fact that delivering a $3.6 million check to whoever does the speaker of the house the senate majority leader whoever it is who solicits that check the fact that delivering that check creates the inherent opportunity for a quid pro quo corruption exactly the kind of verse the court identified and buckley.

>> what is the framework for analyzing the aggregation but it has this consequence with respect to limiting how many candidates an individual can support within the limits that congress has said don't present any danger of corruption. so what is the framework for analyzing back? give me your argument with respect to the transfers and the appearance there but it does have that other consequence on something we have recognized. >> let me make a specific point about that in work and to the framework. the specific point is this. the aggregate limit would have the effect of restricting the ability of the contributed to make the maximum contribution to more than a certain number of candidates. that is true. we can't help but it knowledge that. it's math but that doesn't mean that individual cannot spend as much as the individual wants on independent expenditures to try to advance the interest of those

candidates in the interest of the causes of those candidates stand for and mr. mccutcheon for sample can spend as much of his considerable fortune as he wants on independent expenditure advocating the election. >> that does not evoke any gratitude on the part of the people? i mean if gratitude is corruption you know, can't don't those independent expenditures if of gratitude and it's not the of the money, 3.2 million. an individual could give that to an independent pac. it's not that we are stopping people from spending big money in on politics. >> the foundation of this jurisprudence in this area is a careful line between independent expenditures which this court has held repeatedly two.create a sufficient risk of quid pro quo corruption to justify their regulation and contribution

which do --. >> that line eliminates some of the arguments here which are arguments against big money in politics. big money can be in politics. the thing is you can give it to the republican party or the democratic party but you can start your own path. that's perfectly good. i'm not sure if that's it benefit to our political system. >> think we do have limits on contributions to political parties in addition to limits on contributions to candidates and i think that does help establish a point here which is that candidates are not hermetically sealed from each other. parties are not hermetically sealed off from candidates. they are all on the same team and we limit the amount that an individual can put into a clinical party as well as the amount they individual could can contribute. >> i'm looking for an answer here. i thought that i had one. it's rather basic i think the

point that is being made now. as i understand it, the whole reason -- there is no doubt that campaign money takes an ordinary person and says you cannot give more than such and such an amount. 200 people in the united states would like to give $117,000 or more. we are telling them you can't. you can't support your beliefs. that is a first amendment right but that tends to be justified by the first amendment because the average person thinks what he says as he signs his first amendment rights can't have an opinion upon his representative. he says what is the point of the first amendment? so that is basic i think. once that is so, congress has leeway and you are saying i have seen it all over the place but

that's why we don't want those 200 people to spend more than 117 or 120,000 because the average person thinks the election is after the election all the actions are affected by the pocketbook and not by the merits of the first amendment arguments. now you say the person can do the same thing anyway. what an independent does is he can spend $40 million that he can spend $50 million in all that does is mix up the messages that is i think the question and i think that is a very serious question and i would like to know is it true? what are we supposed to do? what is your opinion about that? >> i have the same question. you have two persons. one person gives an amount to a candidate that is limited. the other takes out ads uncoordinated all on his own costing $500,000. don't you think that second

person has more access to the candidate is successful from the first? i think that is that the road of justice scalia's question and justice breyer's. >> let me answer this with an analogy if i could justice kennedy. i think the right way to think about it is this. if somebody thinks the secretary of defense is doing a great job they can take out an ad in the "washington post" and spend five and a thousand that ad. they would have been on doubted first amendment right to do that. it's hard to imagine a content-neutral case but if instead the person wanted to express -- does it. >> if instead someone want to express symbolically their view that the secretary of defense is done a great job of giving the

secretary of defense a maserati no one would think it was a first amendment ground that could be invoked. >> we are talking here about campaign contradictions. isn't it illegal for a candidate to take campaign contributions and by a maserati? >> yes, it is but again if i may justice alito because the point is the rule against gives and the conflict of interest rules assist to advance a content-neutral government interest of the highest importance. >> that is your argument general verrilli and the district court's arguments, what i see is not obviously plausible and certainly lack any empirical support. you have chosen to use the same hypothetical the district court

used in the $3.5 million contribution that could be evidence by a coordinate which involves all of the house candidates and the senate candidates in a particular year getting together with all of the parties national party committees plus all of the state party committees and that is how you get up to the $3.5 million figure, isn't that right? how realistic is it that all of the state party committees for example are going to get money and they're all going to transfer it to one candidate? for 49 of them you will be a candidate who is not in their own state and there are virtually no instances of state party committees contributing to candidates to another state. the other part of it is seems dubious on its face is that all of the candidates for the house and the senate in a particular party or going to get together and they are going to transfer

money to one candidate. you cited in your brief the best examples of contributions from some candidates to other candidates. they are very small. isn't that true? >> yes but i think justice alito with all due respect to point your honor is making confuses two different ways in which these laws combat the risk of corruption. the first one is the handing over of the large check and letters at $3.6 million check from everyone or $2.2 million check for the house candidates or a 1 million-dollar check for all the state committees. what the justice found in mcconnell with soft money is an inherent risk of corruption. that is why we have limits on how much we can kutcher be to a political party. >> alessa monies transferred you have to get it from the person

who wants to corrupt to the person who wants to the corrupted. i don't see where the quid pro quo argument is. >> the way the joint fund-raising committee's work is to hand over a single check to a candidate who solicits it. it could be and a candidate who sets up a joint fund-raising committee. the handing over the check to that candidate seems to me to create a significant risk of indebtedness on the part of the candidate even though a lot of the money is given to others' pain addition of party leaders are often the ones who solicit those contributions and they are going to have a particular indebtedness to candidates because of course their authority and power depends on the party retaining or gaining the majority in the legislature so they are going to feel apartheid or sense of indebtedness that this person is helping not only them but everyone with massive amounts. >> if i could make my point

mr. chief justice. every candidate and the party is going to be affected because every candidate is going to get a slice of the money and every candidate's going to know the person who wrote the multi-million dollar check is held not only the candidate that the whole team and that creates a particular sense of indebtedness and every member of the party is likely to be leaned on by the party leadership to deliver legislation. speeds these aggregate limits may not stand or fall together but take this example if you can take a minute and walk me through this that i step. you have someone who wants to corrupt a member of the house and this person strategy is to make a contribution to multiple house candidates with the hope and expectation in the plan that those will transfer the money to the member that this person to corrupt. how is that person going to accomplish that given the air marking regulations and the

limits on how much one member can contribute to another? >> i think it's possible but i think if somebody had that goal that circumvention goal by far better ways of achieving it would be giving significant contributions to state parties and national parties who are free to transfer money among themselves without restriction and by making contributions to pacs. >> if you're not going to defend the applicatiapplicati on of the aggregate limits in that situation doesn't it follow that as applied to that situation these are unconstitutional? >> no, i don't think so. first of all i think it could happen in that situation. >> explained to me how it's going to be done. >> the person gives to member a map with the hope that member a is going to give to member b.

if the person even applies while making a contribution to a to b that is earmarked. >> and mcconnell and his court said that your marking is not the outer limit of the government's authority to regulate. a lot of this can be done with winks and nods and subtly so i don't think it's a case case of your marking woodwork to prohibit that. i would also think when talking about arrogant limits they are part of an overall system of regulation. i think that they work to keep the circumvention risk in check and they worked to make sure that you don't have the kind of problem. >> what would you think and just listening to your dialog, and this is tough to construct hypotheticals and the council says no, i got this part wrong or that part wrong or the other and they may be right.

we can't figure this out doing all these factual things in an hour frank lee. i am not sure there hasn't been a full hearing. it seems to me there are things to explore in respect to circumvention. who is right to change the hypotheticals and other things to explore perspective the question in being able to write a $3.6 million check to a lot of people does lead the average person to thank my first amendment speech in terms of influencing my representative means nothing very there are things to explore in terms of the relationship between what is permissible meaning we spend $40 million independently and what isn't permissible namely spending more than $117,000. they would seem relevant so what do you think about going into these matters in a district court where the evidentiary aspects of them can be explored

at some length? >> well, i think justice breyer the statute can be upheld under the current state of the record and i understand it i take your honor's point but i do think you have a substantial record in buckley and a substantial record in mcconnell and that substantial record their strictly on whether aggregate contribution pose the inherent danger of corruption in the gross of the parents of corruption. >> really the government in the proceeding will know -- didn't suggest in response to the three-judge court in an evidentiary hearing. both sides need to treat this as a matter that could be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing. >> that is correct your honor. >> they pointed out what this

does is limit particularly drives contributions toward the pacs and away from the parties. without these limits the money would flow to the candidate, to the party organization, but now instead it's going to the pacs. what is your response to that? >> well, we take the constitutional first amendment framework of this court's decision as a given. the court has determined that independent expenditures did not present a risk of quid pro quo part it -- corruption that contributions, direct contributions to candidates and two parties can pose that risk.

>> that is the law but the question, given that is the law, can't isn't the consequence of this particular privilege to sap the vitality of what akel parties and to encourage, what should i say, drive-by pacs for each election? isn't that the consequence? >> i think the answer is we don't know one way or the other whether that's a consequence. with all due respect justice scalia i don't think the parties raise and spend substantial amounts of money so i don't think we know but beyond that congress has made a determination that there is a real risk of quid pro quo corruption. it is regulated with respect to that risk and congress is free to take this into consideration. >> you say it's $3.5 million you assume someone gives the maximum

to every possible candidate and party he can contribute to throughout the united states, just to put that in perspective how much money is spent by political parties and pacs in all elections throughout the country in one election cycle? >> i think that's a good point. take the 2010 at elections. each party spent an parties and candidates on each side spend approximately $1.5 billion. >> and what about pax? >> that i don't have the specifics on. here is the problem. >> what about newspapers that spend a lot of money in endorsing candidates and promoting their candidate's? you have to put in that money to match. that is money directed to political speech and when you add all that up i would think

$3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. >> i don't think that's the right way to look at your honor. if you think a party has to get 1.5 million dollars to run a congressional campaign and you have a maximum of $3.6 million that's about 450 people you need to round up. less than 500 people can fund the whole shooting match and that i think is part of the problem here that you will create a situation if you take off the aggregate limits in which there is a rearing real risk that the government will be run for those people and the government all perceived it and that is why we have these aggregate limits. >> the consequence just to get back to my prior question the consequence is you're telling someone who does want to give 3.4 million but wants to contribute to more than nine house candidates up to the

maximum 5000. you are telling him that he can't make that contribution however modest certainly within the limits congress has said does not present to a tenth candidate. i appreciate very to meet you are making about the $3.5 million check and the need for the aggregate limits to address that. i understand that point but what do you do with the flipside? you can't pretend there is pursued with no first amendment no first amendment cost quite apart from the one that is there. it seems to be a direct destruction on much smaller contributions that congress they do not present a problem. >> i take that point mr. chief justice but you asked about the right analytical framework. the right framework on the first amendment is to think about this in terms of neutrality. the government's interest in preventing the appearance of corruption which is why apart up the example of the maserati is entirely contract neutral.

>> but that doesn't normally get you far on the first amendment. you could not have a rule that says the poster the new york times but only endorsed nine candidates. it's completely content-neutral. that limit i would think that would be content-based contribution because you're not trying to prevent the appearance of corruption and there is no neutral justification for why you would impose such a rule. the point is with respect to elected officials and giving money to elected officials terrasys content-neutral justification that doesn't exist with respect to any other entity out there in the world. guess it's not free and first amendment cost and weight knowledge that but the cost is mitigated. this is not a prohibition. you can't make it at the maximum >> is there any way to prevent the concern you have about the three-point whatever it is

million-dollar check without imposing a limit to support 10 candidates rather than one? >> i suppose you could calculate an aggregate that is different and higher than the one that is here now but the problem with that is the appellate's aren't making that argument. they're making the argument and the only argument they have made is you cannot have aggregate commitments because base contribution limits. >> they are making the argument that the regulations that already exist about transfers from one entity to another prevent a lot of what you are worried about. if they are not sufficient they could be bolstered. the aggregate limits are a very blunt way of trying to get at the problem that you are worried about. is that wrong? there's nothing that can be done to prevent transfers from joint fund-raising committees or from one member to another or state

parties to candidates? .. part of the party leadership is delivered and that is the inherent risk of corruption in that situation is quite parallel why we have what you can give to a party because these people are

not sealed off from each other. they have an interest in each other's success so they will feel a sense of indebtedness and now if i could i won't try to wo address the circumvention problem. what they've done is come up with a series of things to take care of this view would have to say no transfers, no giving money to those that have indicated they are going to give money to candidates. you have to do five or six things to deal with the risk and the idea that is a less restrictive piece is going to impose first amendment costs of its own. >> it seems to me fanciful to seem that the sense of gratitude that an individual senator or congressman is going to feel because of the substantial contribution to the republican

national committee or democratic national committee is any greater then the sense of gratitude that that senator or congressman will feel spending an enormous amount of money in his district or state. the latter is much more identifiable and there is nothing in the law that excludes that. so that isn't much of a risk. >> i'm not here to debate whether it is correct with respect to the risk of corruption. the wind is there is an unacceptable risk that is too high. >> that's the law.

the answer is he settled that issue the risk of corruption is real and we think it is profound talking about the kind of contributions that can be made if you take the lid off of the contributions. if the situation is correct and it is deeply disabling to candidates parties come of the congress can address that. >> if the court is having second thoughts about its rule into the independent expenditures are not corrupt, we could change that part of the law. >> the record as far as i recall senator years ago talked about

at length i don't like to use the word corrupt, use integrity of the process and the notion that gets people to think the speech makes a difference etc.. most in this party is about circumvention and i think you are right to say that there is a huge corruption aspect but we don't have a lot of information in the record about that. >> i think with respect this is a close parallel. >> you are talking they don't think about it that way so that's why i've been pushing this idea. let's go into this. i understand that and i would say the record these aggregate limits were enacted in the same

statute to which that legislative record pertains and it does go to the same problem and therefore i think it is ample evidence that would justify upholding these limits and i would strongly urge the court to do so. >> you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice. first we haven't heard the general talk about circumvention and i think that's because the argument doesn't really work. it's already addressed by the multiple measures that are contained in the to the extent there are narrow tailored ways to what we are hearing today is a corruption argument that is the questioning is revealed once you accept about corruption theory the government is putting forward there isn't a way to continue to drop a lin draw thee between independent expenditures and the 3 million-dollar check

to the individuals in these limited amounts. to the individual that spends $3.6 million directly supporting one candidate on that candidate's behalf. so what really has the system that is forcing money out of the most transparently possible to make the train contributions to candidates. if there is no further questions, thank you. >> thank you counsel. the case is submitted. >> the supreme court struck their limits and federal law on the campaign contributions in a fight-for a vote. the race traditions in the first amendment. the supreme court has once again reminded congress that americans have a constitutional first amendment right to speak and associate with political candidates and their choice.

>> in a few moments the acting cia director justifies about the attack on the u.s. consulate that happened in 2010 and a little more than three hours she returns to capitol hill with more questioning on the recall to repair a faulty admissions which that's been implicated in accidents with about a dozen people. >> the services committee will hear from the army secretary and the army chief of staff ray rdn now about the budget request for next year. the success is asked about the shooting in fort worth texas. that's live on c-span three f9 f9:30. i think most people don't

remember him in minority rights we don't usually talk about that -- in every ten years there would be a count of the population into this is because you're going to have representational democracy to see how many people you're representing if you have to decide how many representatives in the house in the one part of the government that is the key to the population that's going to represent. but in the 1970s from how many people are there and where in the human curiosity to measure. what is the nature of the home life in terms of the output. you have this creeping growth of the litigation economically. on the numbers that make the

world go round saturday night at ten eastern and sunday at nine. saturday morning at 11 eastern michael lewis will take your questions on his latest able street revolt and a discussion on the mideast with military strategist and former assistant secretary with your calls and comments book tv on c-span2. former acting cia director has told members of the house intelligence committee that the cia didn't play that our role in al qaeda in the attack on the consulate in libya in 2012. this three-hour hearing focused on the cia role in creating the talking points susan rice used on the news programs.

>> called the committee's order. today we continue the investigation into the september 112012 attacks against facilities and libya with the testimony from the former deputy director michael morrell. the committee has heard from esther morel on these attacks several times before but in closed session. today we've received his testimony in open sessions of the american people can hear directly from one of the most senior intelligence officials involved in the lead up and response to those attacks. we are interested in his role in developing the talking points that shaped the administration's inaccurate narrative about the attack. we expect he will explain for the public how this controversy developed. i understand you will do some of that in your opening statement. i want to acknowledge the courageous american heroes on the ground in chantal benghazi

into the security officers. those that risk their lives to save their colleagues each served on the front lines defending america's interests of the rest of us can sleep safely at night. we lost some of the best among us on that terrible night. many of the officers that came to the rescue testified in closed session before the committee. these men took measures to save their fellow americans without their courage, their skill the terrorists has been conducting a thorough detailed investigation over the last 19 months to understand exactly what happened.

we've helped over 17 member events reviewed thousands of documents, mostly classified and interviewed the men on the ground that night. we will focus on how the committee received inaccurate talking points and how the administration used as talking points. after the attacks the committee immediately saw and received the -close-brace. and that then cia director petraeus on september 12 and september 13 respectively. after the briefing some members saw guidance about what could be said publicly in an unclassified form. the american people certainly needed to know the truth about the attacks. unfortunately the talking points did not reflect the best information available. they didn't mention that the terrorists were involved in the attack through briefing reports, they were involved.

the talking points suggested that there had been a demonstration and that there had been gone and the officers on the ground said so. the talking points were so void of the facts or useful information that i dismissed them. in fact on september 12, 2012, i made a public statement that the attack had all of the hallmarks of al qaeda. i don't believe any of the members used the talking points after the attacks. the director described they were useless. you indicated that you didn't know susan rice would appear on talk shows september 16 and the statement implies you would have written different talking points if you knew she would use them on that particular day. but she did use them. as the spokesman for the government, she used them to tell the american people there had been a protest by the anti-islamic video. she made no mention of al qaeda and focused on the protest.

you told the deputy committee on september 15 but a before she appeared in public but the chief reported that there was no protest. public records, to your the publitwo-year thepublic needs ty what those talking points -- how those talking points were created. the american people should understand your role and the role of the intelligence committee in the process. i must conclude the white house used the talking points to perpetrate its own is guided agenda. the white house wanted america to believe al qaeda to be on the run. thus the needed the attacks in response to the anti-islamic video it is so the white house used your talking points to say so. but we knew that all qaeda and other affiliated terrorist organizations in militia groups participated in the attacks. officers on the ground knew that there was no protest. the american people have noted in those officers knew if the administration told them the truth they would know that the

terrorists were to blame and understand the threat we are facing today. the professionals could have been mobilized. i don't believe the administration learned a lesson of this unfortunately. the ambassador stated on february 23 of this year she had no regrets and she still believes the talking points represented the best information we had at the time. that is wrong by the materials and documentation in possession of the committee. the white house wants to ignore reality and perpetrate it all qaeda and other islamic extremists are on the verge of defeat. this is a very important issue. all qaeda is growing and planning operations against americans in their safe havens in libya, syria, iraq and elsewhere. yet the administration continues to talk and act as if al qaeda is on the run. they foolishly focus on the al

qaeda core but it makes no difference whether the terrorists who target americans were directed by al qaeda and pakistan were al qaeda and yemen. let's not forget that they ignored the warnings about the deteriorating threat environment in libya and rejected requests for security support from officers on the ground. defense department failed to foster that soap to protect facilities that were in harms way despite ample warnings. benghazi highlights our failures and signifies. we know some of the locations of the benghazi attackers and we have the capability and the capacity to get them. the administration has done neither in the longer this goes the longer the risk they pose and the message it sends to reinforce those that perpetrate the attack. they refused its true all qaeda

is a greater threat today than it was on september 10, 2001 and its most highlighted by the sheer folly cube of threat streams targeted at aspirational in some cases operational details to attack americans and western allies. the nation must redouble its efforts against the threat and we must continue to confront the threat with every tool that we havwehave to end with a and witt what is at stake. it's been 19 months since the americans were killed by terrorists and we still haven't got any to justice. this is a disgrace. in the nine months i have remaining as the chairman of the committee i will continue demanding the administration take action against the benghazi terrorists. before turning to the witness i will recognize the member for any opening comments. >> thank you mr. chairman. based on your announcement that you are retiring at the end of the congressional term, i want to take this opportunity to

thank you for your leadership and commitment to bipartisanship and dedication to find solutions to the most pressing national security problems has transformed the committee into a shining example of what good can come when we worked together in a bipartisan way. we have had a diversity of opinions on the committee and i disagree with some of the things you said but that doesn't mean we don't get along. we disagree, we argue but we always focus on the endgame and how to get there together. all members of the kennedy respect and get along with each other even though we disagree on many issues. your leadership and bipartisanship has resulted in a committee with an unparalleled track record of accomplishment passing intelligence authorization act as every year into cybersecurity legislation and proposing bipartisan reform in the collection of metadata and increases privacy and civil liberties and preserves an important capability. the committee will miss you and your leadership that we have you until the end of the congress and we know you will well up your sleeves and do the work the american people have come to

expect. as we turn our attention to the attacks in the benghazi on september 11, 2012, we know there were many heroes in people who suffered great loss. ambassador chris stevens and we honor the other men and women whwho acted courageously that dy to save the lives of others. no one left a comrade behind. we only took them into the countless others that risked their lives to find out what went wrong to make sure it doesn't happen again which is what we are doing today. the independent accountability review board headed by the ambassador thomas pickering created a competitive review of the situation and issued 29 recommendations. the government has implemented a recommendation when it comes to the increasing security. in congress we've also gone through every aspect of the strategy and we have run down every allegation in theory no matter how far-fetched. we have reviewed thousands of classified documents and we watched the frame of the

security video and interview to the intelligence individuals on the ground. we also found areas that can and must be approved to b be through improved but today we found absolutely no inappropriate motivations. specific to today's hearing we also found no conspiracies in the editing of the talking points never-ending conspiracy theories grade i was the one who answered the talking points in f the days immediately following the tragedy. i asked for them to aid the ability for the committee to communicate with the american people without revealing the classified information in what we knew would be a very media driven issue. for the review we found evidence to the talking points edited to ensure accuracy to check the classification and safeguard the investigation and eventual prosecution which has to be our ultimate goal finding and holding accountable those that committed this act and killed our americans. this is the third time we have had mr. morell to talk about

benghazi. after today i hope we get back to the more pressing work of the committee overseeing the committee passing intelligence authorization act improving cybersecurity. in the meantime let me say thank you for being so willing to come before the committee even after you have retired. your service to the country over 30 years has been exemplary and we know you and the people in the cia that led especially those deployed in hotspots around the world determined instead of gratitude. mr. chairman, thank you and i yield back. >> thank you for the kind words. one thin big of the committees e have a bipartisan way and we will continue doing that in the remaining months that he will be the ranking member and i will be chairman. thank you for that. before turning to the witness, this is an investigative hearing. we are going to swear the witness said before he testifies. this is the prerogative of every committee chair. while it is always against the wall to provide false statements

to congress, the act of swearing in a witness impresses the gravity of the and the need to tell the truth. with that i would ask if you would please stand and hold on let me make sure i get this. not much longer. [laughter] there it is. could you raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so hopefully god? but the record reflect the witness is answered in the affirmative. mr. morell can please be seated and i to back want to thank you for your 30 plus years in the service as you had a highly decorated and certainly distinguished career for those 30 years supporting and having the opportunity to provide testimony today in front of the public and i would recognize you

for your opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman and members of the committee, mr. chairman and members of the committee thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. as the chairman knows, when he asked me a few weeks ago to testify today on benghazi, my response was a quick and decisive yes. and as he also knows, i specifically asked that this would be an open hearing. why was i so decisive and why did i want this to be an open hearing? because much has been said that many allegations have been made about the handling of benghazi by the cia and its leadership.

much of this discussion has been an accurate and the congress and the american people deserve to know the facts. i want to start by making my most important point of the day and it repeats something both the chairman and the ranking member said. i want to take a moment to honor the patriots that america lost on that tragic night in benghazi. chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glenn doherty. they died serving their country, and it is pair amount that we never lose sight of their service, their dedication, and their bravery. mr. chairman, i have submitted a comprehensive and detailed 23 page written statement. i respectfully request that it be placed in the record.

it covers the development and evolution of the cia classified analysis of what happened in benghazi and my role in that process. it also covers the preparation of the now famous unclassified talking point and my role in this process and it covers the specific allegations that have been levied against me. time does not permitime does noo into all of this detail during my oral statement. so i urge anyone concerned about this issue to read the full written statement in order to get a complete understanding of what transpired. in fact i would ask with respect that the committee make my written statement available on its website. mr. chairman, i want both the committee and the american people to know that i take very seriously the allegations about how the cia in general and about

how i in particular handled the analysis and the talking points. as this committee knows the ethical code under which intelligence officers carry out their responsibilities calls for total objectivity. to call it like you see it. it doesn't matter what the audience wants to hear no matter the implications for policy and no matter the political consequences. in short, speak truth to power. i served the central intelligence agency for 33 years and i always abided by that code. i served six presidents, three republicans and three democrats. i served as president george w. bush's first daily intelligence briefing and i served as president obama's deputy director and acting director of the cia.

during this entire service, i never allowed politics to influence what i said or did, never. iab leave the facts in my written statement make it clear that neither i nor anyone else in the cia worked to alter the analysis or the talking points in a way that compromised the responsibility to the american people. we didn't deliberately downplayed the role of terrorism in the benghazi attack a and our analysis or in the talking points and neither i nor anyone else in the agency deliberately misled anyone in congress about any aspect of the tragedy in benghazi. mr. chairman, none of what i said should be interpreted to mean we at the cia did everything right. no organization ever does. there are things we should have

done differently. there are areas where the cia performance and my own performance could have been better. but none of our actions were the result of political influence in the intelligence process, none. let me touch on three specific issues. one, the cia analysts, the most talented and highly trained analysts said the government concluded less than 24 hours after the attack that a protest had preceded the assault on the state department's facility in benghazi. they arrived at this initial judgment with good reason and without any input from the white house, the state department, or the cia leadership. the judgment was coordinated across the intelligence community which meant that it was a judgment of the entire community, not just the cia.

as you know, subsequent information revealed the judgment to be incorrect. but, and let me emphasize this, our analysts reached their judgment because that is where the best available information at the time led them. our analysts did what they are trained to do, to make a judgment based on the best information at hand, make it clear that judgment might change as new information becomes available and then adjust the judgment as necessary. that's what i expected of them, it's what you expect of them and it's what the american people expect of them and it is exactly what they did. number two, the cia senior analyst on terrorism and outstanding officer whom this committee knows well wrote the

first draft of the unclassified talking points. neither the white house, the state department or i did so as some have alleged. after our top analysts had the first draft, many changes were made to the talking points over a period of time including some by agency officers, some by other agencies and some by me. the process inside the cia to produce the talking points could have been better in several respects and i discussed this in detail at my written testimony. but, to be very clear, the white house did not make any substantive changes to the talking points, nor did they ask the two make any substantive changes to the talking points. and while the talking points could have been better, the judgment that the attacks involved for a protest was fully

consistent with the intelligence community's classified analysis at the time. number three, on the morning that i edited the talking points, our station in tripoli, a talented operations officer for whom i have a great deal of respect sent his daily updates to the cia headquarters addressing the ongoing security situation in libya. his e-mail received some attention. let me address it. there was a line towards the end of the e-mail that claimed the attack in benghazi was, and i quote, not an escalation of a protest. this e-mail was received by my staff and by a number of other officials at the agency. as the record indicates, my actions in response to the e-mail were appropriate and consistent with my responsibilities as the deputy

director. i wanted to get the analysis right and make sure that the right people knew about the station chiefs to use. upon reading the station chiefs e-mails, i immediately recognized the discrepancy between the view and the judgment of the analysts. i asked for more information from the station chiefs, and i gave policymakers a heads up on the issue. i asked our analysts to revisit their judgment based on the station chiefs comments and to do so quickly. they did that and based on the ecology of the information available to them, they stuck to their initial conclusion. mr. chairman, i didn't hide or downplay the station chiefs comments as some have suggested. in fact i did just the opposite. i addressed the critical

difference of opinion immediately and appropriately. i want to make two final points. first, i take what happened in benghazi very seriously and very personally. as deputy director and acting director of an agency that's lost a number of brave men and women on my watch, no one wanted to know more than i exactly what led to the attack, how we could have responded better and what we could do to minimize the chances of a tragedy like this happening again. second, as washington discusses this important issue, we ought to leave politics out of it, plain and simple. since leaving the government, i've had the opportunity to speak with many americans around the country about this very serious national security threat facing the united states and of the role our intelligence

community plays in protecting americans from those threats. very often i'm asked about the tragedy in benghazi. while those that have engaged me on this issue wants to know how this happened, they've made it very clear to me that there is no room for politics or any discussion about the death of the four brave americans. i could not agree more. mr. chairman, that concludes my opening statement. i look forward to answering all of your questions. >> thank you very much mr. morell. i asked several of these questions in closed session previously. i think it's important to ask again now that you're before the american people in open session. our committee has in our possession some 4,000 pages of the cables and assessment highlighting the security environment prior to the september 112012 attack. are you familiar with those reporting was?

>> yes im. >> are you familiar with the murder of the british investor in 2012 by islamic militants in benghazi? >> yes, sir. >> are you aware that british pulled out of diplomatic officials in response to that? >> sim. >> the committee has documentation they were actively tracking down terrorists prior to the attack. were you aware of that? >> yes sir. >> we have received testimony from officers stationed in benghazi at the security upgrades were made at the cia in response to threat conditions. were you aware of that? >> the committee has informed the officials on the ground in libya that they had concerns about co- locating the state department at the temporary mission for somebod facility tol security gaps at the threat environment. are you familiar with that? >> i wasn't familiar at the time. >> so you were not familiar that some of those assessments

happened in august? >> i think it was earlier than that. were you aware that state department officials had a cia officer about overnighting at the annex of the attack in the physical security concerns at the temporary mission? >> i was not aware of that. >> were you aware that the attack in benghazi on september 112012 involved military movements blocking maneuvers. in your role as the deputy director did you value the opinion for the chiefs of station? in your statement you said the chief of the station indicated that there was no protest and the attack was not opportunistic. the assessment was based on his conversations with eyewitnesses and security officers who were the regional security officers on the ground and the political

officers who were in tripoli. i understand how maybe you were a low-level analyst making the mistake. but what concerns the committee and the investigator for the very fact that your distinguished career as one of the best analysts. he became the director of intelligence analysis and top analyst at the cia. you were with president bush in florida on september 11, 2001 and told him immediately that your instinct is that osama bin laden was responsible for september 11 attacks so help me into the investigators understand if you will know in all of the information you could possibly come to the conclusion that this was coming to this coordinated assault on september 11 that killed four americans was anything other than a terror rest attack. >> mr. congressman, i would say about her of things.

first of all, the analyst in september produced a piece of analysis that said that the attack in benghazi evolved spontaneously from the protest as you know. that judgment by the analyst was based on a number of press reports and intelligence reports saying there was a protest, including one intelligence report from the station and benghazi. as the time of the analyst made that judgment, there was not a single piece of information available to the analyst saying there was not a protest so they made a judgment on the 13th. when i received the station chiefs e-mail on the morning of the 15th, as i said i noticed the discrepancy.

the station chief in his e-mail said that there were two reasons why he thought that there was not a protest. the first reason that he gave is that there were press reports saying that there was no prote protest. i personally didn't find that reason compelling cause quite wrinkly there were press reports saying that there was a protest. the second reason that he gave in that e-mail is that his officers from the benghazi base when they went to rescue the state department colleagues and state department facility they didn't see a protest when they arrived. that wasn't compelling to me because they didn't arrive until an hour after the attack started coming and it's quite possible and likely that any protest would have dissipated by then. and third, in my mind was the report from the previous day

sent by the station saying there was a protest. so i felt that if the analysts were going to look at their judgment two days before that they needed more information from the station chief on why he thought what he thought and that's what i asked for that morning was for him to go back and produce a piece of paper that provided more detail why he be believed there to be no protest he did that in 24 hours. now the other thing i did that morning and the importance of this issue was to let my colleagues on the deputy committee meeting note that the station chief had a different view, that it was different from the analysts and that they were -- we were working to sort it out and we would get back to them. that's what happened and that's what i did. >> november 152012 when you appeared before the committee with the director clapper and olson to discuss the benghazi attacks i asked at that time why

the talking points have been changed to remove the references to al qaeda for the answer from the panel that he didn't know. curious that you were sitting on the same panel certainly heard the questions but you didn't say anything. can you tell me why? >> at that time i didn't know who had removed the reference to al qaeda. and i had a similar exchange with the senator on the senate intelligence committee on this issue. so at the time i did not know. but to be fair, and in retrospect what i wish i would have done was to say to you mr. chairman, i do not know who took al qaeda out of the talking points but you should not shouli myself made a number of changes to the points. that's what i should have said that i didn't. >> you said earlier there was no coordination with you into the white house and with those talking points would look like? >> the talking points were sent to the white house. the white house into the

national security staff actually, the national security staff suggested three changes. all of them were editorial in nature. one of the more substantive. >> i have a chart i would like to put up and i hope you can read. we are going to give you a copy to refresh your memory and hope you understand. this is a large copy of the draft with your handwriting and/or notes on the memo is self and it has a list of names at the bottom right corner. can you -- [inaudible] >> you absolutely can. >> this brings back memories. >> i'm sure it does. can you go down the list of names? one of the questions the investigators had was a list of names at the time you were drafting it would indicate you were in some contact or concerns

or what have to run it through these individuals can you walk through that list and tell us who those individuals were at the time you were editing these talking points? >> yes can i get a little bit of background mr. chair? >> scheuer. >> so, i was made aware of the talking points late in the afternoon on friday the 14th. when i was made aware of the talking points and i was shown the draft of the talking points, i reacted very strongly to the inclusion of the warning language in the talking points and i reacted strongly to that language because quite frankly, i saw it wasn't responsive to the committee's request about what happened in benghazi on the 11th and more importantly, i thought it was an effort by the central intelligence agency to make it look like we had shifted

any blame and responsibility from the attack to the state department and it didn't give the state department and the opportunity to say what they did with the warnings come as a why didn't think the warning language should be in there. i made the decision at that moment i was going to take that warning language out. so, the next morning, saturday morning i came in and o my executive assistant tells me that the state department is very upset about the warning wing which has well and that as a result the talking points are in limbo. they are stuck. he also tells me that because of that of the then deputy national security advisor wants to talk about the talking points at the deputy meetinof thedeputy meetir this morning. ..

i have my own concerns with the talking points. i will edit them and send it back around for final coordination before we send them to the committee. what you are looking at here is what i did. i'm responsible for the changes on this piece of paper. the names you see are the names of the individuals who i wanted to send the talking points to one more time before we send them to you. so let me go through them. first you see in cs and the eye. what i wanted to make sure it's the final version of the talking