he was limited at the what the report said were several portions of the remains that could not identified from the pentagon attack and the attack in shanksville, pennsylvania. they were cremated and put in containers by a biomedical waste contractor wo incinerated them and put nthem in landfill. he spoke to people in washington. >> it said these incinerations of unidentified remains. page 6 under section 2, background and introduction.

if you look on page 6 on the third full paragraph, it says this policy began shortly after september 11, 2001, when several portions of remains from the pentagon attack and the shanksville, pennsylvania crash site could not be tested or identified. these cremated portions were put in sealed containers provided to a contractor. they transported these containers and incinerated them. it said the residual terms were disposed of in a landfill. that referring to september 11th victims and do you know how extensive this was? >> i don't know how extensive it was, and it was only those victims that went through the port mortuary. >> how many were there in do you know? >> i don't know. >> is there a way to find out? >> i don't know there's a way to find out. the reason we put that comment

in there is there's a starting point for understanding how this happened. in other words, while i understand how sensational the notion is, there was a point where people considered going to the cream to her yum and in some states it's law that that is the final deposition of the fallen. and so that it goes from the -- what many have considered the final disposition, which we don't agree with, by the way. we think the final disposition needs to be the final resting place. we believe if that in 9/11 you can trace back the origins for why what happened happened, we only have records that really go back. the air force has records that we know of that only go back. this is anecdotal evidence told to us by the people we interviewed. >> in appendix e of your report, it lists under time line 25 july

2002. memo from acting director of army casualties and mortuary to dispose of group f remains from the attack on the pentagon through incineration. it sounds like there's a memo that talks about it. in september of 2002 there's another one. it's not just anecdotal. there's paperwork that directed that these be incinerated. >> you can see where the paperwork is, and you can try to track it down. i'm telling you, that was not the focus of this panel. the focus of the panel was to look forward to see what was wrong, to correct what was wrong or make a forward-looking sort of recommendation about what needed to be fixed. we did not spend a great deal of time and effort and energy looking into what you're talking about. next question. >> i'm sorry. these are -- >> i'm sorry. are we going to the next

question? it's my report, but it's not the focus of the report. next question. yes, sir. >> but there does seem to be in this time line a series of incidents that make responsible, official and military civilian aware of problems or at least questionable activities at the mortuary over a series of years. >> i will readily admit that there were a series of investigations that took place within the mortuary that were command directed inspections that we looked at and we concluded that the results of those inspections were not were properly taken into account. in other words, corrective actions were not taken. and with a dysfunctional, isolated chain of command, it could not have, which is the point i would like to come back to.

i appreciate the fact that you are looking deep, but we didn't look deep. we spent 5% of our time looking back for information. that was not our charge. our charge was to look forward. we think that the recommendations we have made, which is really what i would like to talk to you about, are recommendations that will fix the problem and restore the confidence. >> army general john abizaid chaired the investigation for the defense department. he made his comments earlier today at the pentagon taking reporters' questions. jill is following the story, a reporter from the air force times, a gannett public indication. she join us us in washington. as you look at this report and some of the addendums, what did you learn? >> well, it's really interesting, because it's buried way back there in the report. you'll see in appendix e, there's a whole list, aa time line of separate incidents that happened at dover port mortuary

which we hadn't been aware of. it was that they lost remains for seven victims killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the pentagon and pennsylvania. some other incidents is a $25,000 pay outto the wife of the fallen marine whose personal effects were destroyed. two civilian cadavers used to test creamatory facilities. >> i realize they're not related, but a lot of attention last year at arlington national cemetery with how the remains of fallen soldiers were taken care of, and i guess the obvious question is how could this happen and how could it happen again in a lot of what we heard at arlington national cemetery just a year ago? >> honestly, i don't know if that's really been draesaddress. the air force chief of staff said tuesday and held out their

hands and said this is the first time we hear about these 9/11 remains. in terms of the other incidents already reported, i think they just said, you know, we acknowledge the mistake and take the fault and we're fixing it, which i think is part of what is shown in this port mortuary review. >> and those mistakes being what, specifically? well, the mistakes that were originally found include a couple of pieces of remains. the little fragments of the remains of two crew members as well as a soldier disappeared. they were never located. a marine's left arm was sawed-off to fit into a uniform without the notification of a family. in some cases feetal remains usually plastic pails inside of nonreinforced cardboard boxes. >> in beginning this strefgs at the defense department, has the

pengui pentagon been able to restructure what happened in each individual case? >> the not really, nothing released to the public. at the press conference today the general actually declined to provide the documentation to back it up and says he wants to focus on the future and moving forward and at that the focus of the investigation wasn't looking back at past problems. >> we're talking to jill lass ter. how is congress reacting to the news? >> it may not be good. when the dover -- when the first dover revelations came last year, the outcry was fairly immediate with people denouncing what happened and calling for additional investigations, and that's how this panel actually came about. it's important to remember that

the air force is fighting on the hill now and getting a lot of heat for a proposal to cut a significant number of personnel and aircraft from the air national guard, which i believe 49 governors signed a letter opposing that as well as about 50 state heads of the national guard. >> in your piece and in the portion we heard a moment ago, it was a rather combative press conference today at the pentagon. how would you describe the mood of military officials and the questions posed by reporters in that room? >> it was fairly heated. i think that the reporters -- i think that the main purpose of the report, i think, in the eyes of the people that produced it was to talk about the look forward, but when the reporters in the room saw all of the past incidents that tends to be rather compelling. again, the most notable of which is 9/11 victims, portions of their remans being lowest. i think that the struggle was how did these past events happen

versus air force and general abizaid saying we want to look forward and not pay attention to the past as much. >> you've been looking into this and can't really explain with specific information, but from what you were able to learn, how could this happen in terms of getting these remains in a landfill, not even misplaced in a cemetery but a landfill? >> generally what has been happening, at least this was what i learned last year, is install portions of remains, not an arm or leg bushgts something small like a piece of muscle would be treated as medical waste, and that medical waste would be incinerated along with other medical waste and disposed of in a landfill. since 2008 the air force has actually done disposables -- or burials at sea where they go and

take an urn of the remains in the ocean. >> jill lasseter, thank you so much for being with us. >> thanks very much. i appreciate it. >> you're listening "washington today." the hill newspaper is reporting on testimony that took place yesterday, martin dempsey, and following up on an interview he conducted on gps program. from the hill newspaper the chairman of the joint chiefs telling the senate panel that he did not counsel israel against attacking iran over the nux lar program. general dempsey told lawmakers we had conversations about from timt. general derchcy is defending his xhoent that eran is a rational ablgtor which has been criticized by many reps. mung those aacting for clarification today, a member of

the question questioning chairman dempsey. >> chairman dempsey. i have great respect for you and your service to the country and the important role that you play. but i have to ask you about the interview you gave with cnn, because i need to understand it. when you were asked by farid about what we were counseling with our israeli partners with respect to to iran and you said you were counseling not to attack iran, and then you also said that you believed that the administration believes, i assume, that the iranian regime is a national actor. can you help any understand why you would have said that particular in a public interview about one of our closest allies?

i'm really concerned that in doing that that we're sending the wrong signal to iran. can you mep me with that. >> thanks for asking senator. you beat senator graham to the punch. honestly, i want to clear up some things. first of all, i didn't counsel israel not to attack. we had a conversation with them about time. the issue of time. that will require a much longer conversation. on the issue of rationality, look, i agree that iran is a regime that is dangerously misguided. look at the behavior. it protects ifrts and loathes its neighbors and interferes with its neighbors and disregards its own citizens. none of that is acceptable to us or our way of thinking and being ration rational. it fits their pattern of thinks.

my view is we can't afford to underestimate our potential adversaries by writing them off as irrational. that's the juxta position of the phrase. i personally don't mistake iran's rhetoric for a lack of reason. i think the issue for us all is we have to sdib what global pressure including the use of force if examine when necessary can turn your regime away from the nuclear beps ambitions. thanks for letting me clear that up. >> as i understand your testimony, you wouldn't take force as an option off the table? >> absolutely not. >> one of the things i'm concerned about when you think about with the description as the way it came across in the interview with cnn as describing iran as a rational actor, is this issue that if they acquire a nuclear weapon, it's not just about their using it but also the possibility they are a great

state sponsor of terrorism that they could provide na nuclear weapon to let others use it on their behalf. is that not a real risk with iran? >> that is a real risk, as is the risk of nuclear proliferation among others that feel threatened would seek to acquire their own nuclear weapons. >> when we hear those possibilities and we heard that is a real risk if iran requires a nuclear weapon, that most of the us think that can't be a rational act from our perspective of terms of looking at it and the world and the number of innocent lives that could be lost if a terrorist group acquires a nuclear weapon and iran provides it. you would agree with me that i understand that maybe their calculations ilts rational, but by ours it would not be? >> i think that's exactly the point. as we seek to influence their behavior, we understand to understand their way of thinking. that was the oent point i was make. >> i appreciate you testifying

about that today. >> general dempsey responding to questions from senator kelly a yot, and they're focusing on the pentagon budget. as is the case with other issues rising to the occasion, in this case the interview general dempsey did on cnn, this is the first time he had a dhans to address those remarks on the cnn interview in which he refused to the ian ran government as a national actor and said an attack would be destabilizing and not prudent. those comments had criticism from officials. general dempsey doesn't mistake iran's rhetoric for a lack of reason. elsd even iran's actions unacceptable fit the country's pattern over the past 30 years. read more on this story by checking out the bill blog at thehill.com. john boehner is showing his fraus frags on high gasoline prices. he did call on the president to present his own written proposal for an energy plan and blamed,

quote, radical environmentalists for standing in the way of a national energy policy. on capitol hill the energy secretary testifying before the house appropriations subcommittee, again, a budget hearing, and taking question from freshmen republic of michigan. >> before you were nominated, you were quoted atz ss saying w have to boost the level of the price of gal lien to level in europe. have too look at results. under this administration, the price of gasoline is doubles. while bumping $4 a gallon in north mississippi, today the price of gasoline in europe is about $8 a gallon. the people of north mississippi can't be mere, so i have to be their voice for them. i have to tell you that $8 a gallon of gasoline makes them afraid. it's a cruel tax on the people

of north mississippi as they try to go back and forth to work. it's a cloud hanging over economic development, and it appears they plan they're feet. how do you respond to that? >> i think absolutely we should be judged on what we're doing. i should be judged on my fracture record when i became secretary of energy. when this administration started, we were in a free fall in a recession, and the piece plunged from $140 a gallon down to -- 140e do$140 a barrel to 4. we do everything in our power too. we agree that there is great suffering when the price of

gasoline increases in the united states. so we're very concerned about this, and as i repeatedly tsd in the department of energy, what we're trying to do is diversify you're energy supply of transportation so that we have cost-effective means, natural gas is graelt. so we're punishing it on natural face and for transportation. electricitification is great because then that all flows. the battery researched what we've been funding. we've had some pretty spectacular break throughs. once aannounced yesterday that looks like it will decrease the cost of these bearers twofold and maybe more. vie yal fuels are aggressive starting in the previous administration and continues to diversify that supply of tpgs. these are the things we're doing and we're very focused that because we understand the economic impacts with all americans and our economy.

>> but is the overall goal to get our price? >> no. the overall goal is to decrease our depend see on oil, dependen to build and strength in economy for the first time in the last eight years, through a lot of positives putting this administration, previous administrations, you know, our oil production has increased for the first time, it's at its highest levels in eight years, the import, the fraction is the highest level in 16 years, we think if that if you consider these positives, including energy efficiency, you know, we they that with can go a long way becoming less dependent on oil and diverse mying our supply and we'll help the american economy and the american consumer. >> the energy secretary testifying on capitol hill. the second week of hearings. as members of the president's

cabinet, secretary of state hillary clinton discussing respective budgets for cabinet agencies. to talk about issues, included in this case, gas prices. john boehner noting that american families and small businesses are struggling with rising gas prices, we pressed the president to again present specific details for what he called a comprehensive energy plan. here's what the speaker said about gas prices. >> americans understand that we can produce more of our own energy and they don't understand why 35 years since the oil embargo of 1974, that we have never had a natural energy policy. we got a handful of environmental groups, radical economic groups, who stood in the way and it's just about time that we have a national energy

policy. enough of it. get out of here. >> a little humor it was a reference to a question that reporters had about the 2012 campaign. the 1350eshg didn't want to answer any questions about the current race, a couple of stories, by the way, posted a short while ago in the "new york times" referring to mitt romney as he and his campaign look ahead to the results in michigan tonight. more in the next hour. at the daily briefing, jay carney at the top of the briefing making a direct reference to the speaker on gas and energy price. >> reporter: before i get started, i wanted to note as the president predicted last week when he came a speech at the university of miami, upon its return to washington, congress or at least some members in congress are politicized the issue of gas prices.

speaker of the house apparently spoke with reporters this morning in which he suggested that the president wasn't in support of expanding domestic oil and gas production, which is categorically false and suggested that somehow, simply by drilling or approving the keystone pipeline that would lower gas prices, that's the kind of empty promise that politicians make when we face hiex in the global price of oil, that is really dishonest with the kind of promise that -- promises that are dishonest with the american people and as you now, the president has from the beginning supported an all the above approach to our energy challenges. that includes expanding domestic oil and gas production as you know, oil and gas, production has been up all three years that he has been in office, it

includes investing in alternative energy sources. wind solar. improving the construction of the first nuclear power plant in this country. it's encouraging the construction of pipelines, domestically like the one that the company transcanadian that it tends to build from oklahoma to the gulf of mexico. that's the approach that the president takes. he being honest with the american, he makes sure that there are no quick fixes. we need an all of the above approach to increase our energy dependence and make america stronger economically in the 21st century. >> jay carney. according to aaa, the price of gasoline averaging $3.70 and in parts of california, it's as

high as $4.50. premium gasoline reaching $5. the highest for this team of the year. on the senate floor, mitch mcconnell, republican leader from kentucky had this to say. >> over the past few weeks, the american people have begun to feel the painful effects of president obama's energy policy. make no mistake the rising price of gas line isn't simply the ult of forces that we can't control, it's the result of a vision that this president laid out even before he was elected to office. that vision was on clear display just last week, as americans groaned at the cost of gasoline, the president took to a microphone to talk about far off day where americans might be able to use algae as a substitute for gas.

algae as a substitute for gas. and then, dusting off the same talking points, democrats have been using for decades, he claimed that there are no short-term solution to the problem. in other words, he kicked the can down the road for another day, another time, abdicating leadership on yet another issue on national significance. so, this morning, i think it's worthwhile, to take a step back from the red rihetoric and look what this president has actually done about this problem and what his energy policies would mean for the future. because according to numerous private and public energy experts, gas prices are only going to keep rising in the weeks and months ahead. going up. and up. and up. some say that the average price for a gallon of gasoline could

hit $4 by late spring. early summer. and could reach $5 or even $6 in some areas of our country. and when that moment comes, americans should know what the administration had to do with it. for starters, let's not forget that as a candidate, the president himself said that he preferred what he called a gradual adjustment. to gas prices -- in other words, higher prices that went up slowly so people didn't feel the pinch quite as acutely. let's also recall after the election, the president chose an energy secretary that he wanted gas prices in line with prices on every in europe where folks pay $8 a gallon. that's what they pay for gas over in europe. where the secretary of energy said we should be looking to

establish gas prices. let's not forget that the president chose an interior secretary, a man who as a u.s. senat voted not for it on the senate floor. we're well on our way to the european gas prices. and two cabinet officials he chose to deal with the issue are all on record supporting them. so let's be honest, the only problem that president sees is the political blowback that he gets for it. that's why last week he gave another speech. to absolve himself from the high gas prices. >> senator mitch mcconnell made his comments on the senate floor earlier today as republicans taking aim at the issue of high

gas prices as we said earlier, record high levels for this time of year, averaging between $3.70 to $4 a gallon in many parts of the country and much higher in states like california. the "new york times" reporting that gordon gecko is corporating with the fbi. michael douglas who played the financier back in that 1997 movie and is now starring a straight to television video for the fbi. trying to go after insider training, the same crime that brought down the high-flying mr. gecko. >> the problem is ladies and gentlemen, greed for a lack of a better word, is good. greed is right. >> hello, i'm michael douglas, in thevi