that agent, that, in fact, we might not have learned of the misconduct. i'm joined this morning, or this afternoon, with many of my colleagues, including senator hutchison, in filing legislation that would address some of the -- of the -- the laws that are in place that allowed for this horrid situation to move foed, but forward, but because this whole thing came about, because of the acts of an fbi agent, i would certainly hope that that individual has been recognized for his -- just persistence, standing up for the constitution. i think he did right, and i hope that that recognition has be been -- has been given by the fbi. >> well, i would have to get back to you on any particularized recognition. the case is still under review

by opr. both justice department as well as our own opr, but i will say that the agent who came forward and did that was doing so in the tradition of the fbi. it is the legacy to adhere to the constitution. when you see something wrong to bring that to the attention of others. and that is exactly what we teach in our new agent's training as they come through. there is no case that is more important than abiding by the constitution, the applicantable statutes and the attorney general guidelines. >> well, i appreciate that, and you mentioned the report that is still under way. i've asked the office of professional responsibility to conduct this formal investigation. and -- i am hoping that the fbi will work with -- with opr as they look into some of the issues that were behind the stephens matter.

in particular, the fbi has worked very, very closely with the anchorage police department in this case that involved bill allen who was the key witness in the case against senator stephens, and mr. allen was, it was alleged he had transported a young native alaska woman across state lines in violation of the man act. it's been widely reported in the media that the case was recommended for federal prosecution but justice higher ups scuttled that. the question i would have to you is, to what extent was the fbi involved in that investigation, and did that investigation indicate any reason that the prosecution should not go forward? this is just really stunned people back in alaska. they cannot understand why the department of justice has

dropped this, and i've attempted to get answers all the way up the chain and simply have not been able to get any. do you know of any reason based on that investigation the prosecution should not have gone forward? >> i do not, but that is something we'd have to get back to you on. my expectation -- well i shouldn't say that. i would assume this is part of the opr investigation inasmuch as the allegation that came out of that series of events, and that that particular allegation would be addressed in that arena. i am not familiar with the court's report issued earlier today and i'm -- i do not know whether that was a subject of that particular investigation. >> and i would ask you, because this is a matter that has -- has really gone far beyond what most could have even have imagined, that you not only look at the report that is issued today, but

also do some follow-up in terms of that fbi investigation and where we are with office of professional responsibility. the concern that so many of us have is that the allegations against mr. allen are -- are, unfortunately, not isolated in alaska. we have had a great deal of concern about sex trafficking within the state with young native women, and i look at what has happened with the bill allen case and the government's failure to prosecute bill allen sends an awful message, just an awful message to -of-preside predators that are out there. if you are a young native american, have don't stand a chance when victimized by a

person of political influence and financial means. and we worry about the situation of sex trafficking, and, again, if an individual doesn't feel that there is any recourse out there, it makes the situation pretty tough. so this goes even beyond the bill allen investigation. i know that you've got good folks within the fbi that are working these issues. i've met with them. i've talked with them, but, again, i think this is something that needs further attention to detail, and if you can give me your assurance that you will look into that, i would certainly appreciate it. >> yes, and also i will tell you that when the issues were, came out, in terms of the breaking violations, we have gone back in terms of our workforce and making certain that everybody understands the requirements under the brady rules exculpatory to make certain that one learns from this. firstly. secondly, when it comes to human trafficking in alaska, as you

point out we have persons working hoard on that with state and local law enforcement, believe it is a priority, and any young woman or for that matter young man's life that can be saved in terms of working with local law enforcement to address this, we certainly want to be a participant and driver of that. >> i appreciate that. thank you, director. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator hutchison. >> thank you, madam chairman. just to add one more question to lisa's line, and i think she has taken the lead on this and properly so, but i do commend the fbi agent who came forward, who just couldn't sit back and let a person be accused, go through a trial, lose an election and then all based on very bad misconduct on the part of the agencies that we look to

for complete integrity, which would be the department of justice, the prosecutors and the fbi. there were others that were implicated with the fbi in some of the alleged misconduct, and my question to you is, what are you doing to deal with the allegations which i assume will come out in a report or the opr report, if the agents are found to still be in the fbi, and have been actually to your satisfaction part of the scheme that was put together in convict senator stephens? >> well, at the outset, justice department opr led the investigation. we participated and contributed to that investigation to the extent that individuals within the bureau were implicated, we, along with justice, investigated that. there is at least one individual

who is still going through the opr process, let me just put it that way, and i cannot certainly openly but -- i can teyou that that process is monitored but it goes through our process when a person has an opportunity to respond to the charges and the findings, and that process is under way, and then at the end, when it's resolved we take a look at it and determine what lessons need to be learned. what is the appropriate punishment for -- for whatever wrongdoing was undertaken, and do as well do in every case when we find that a person does no adhere to what we expect in the fbi. >> i would just ask if you would share the final result of that investigation and your actions with this committee. >> i'd have to look into that, but i would expect that we would report to you on what we have done.

>> i would ask that you do so. >> yes. >> i want to just go back to a couple of other points. number one, on cyber security. there are different bills that have been put forward to deal with cyber security. i think everyone in both bodies, the house and the senate, and both parties in the house and senate, agree it is a critical need that we address cyber security. i think how we do it is the question and the differences in the bills. many of us are concerned about an overlay by the department of homeland security, especially over the areas that have developed the expertise through the years and the experience in cyber warfare, security of all

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

is there a particular area that you think is essential for us to agree on as we move forward in trying to determine how we get to the goal of securing out of infrastructure? >> let me start by indicating how i perceive the allocation of responsibilities in the cyber arena. on one hand, the protection ever t of the infrastructure. protection of dotcom and net and that infafalls to the departmen homeland security also the actuality of foreign countries seeking to extract information and with the possibility down the road of undertaking cyber attacks, that falls generally with the intelligence community overseas, nsa, cia and the like. in the middle become domestic

intrusions, and determination whether that domestic intrusion is from a criminal, an organized crime group, a nation state, or a -- a teenage hacker. we have 56 field offices around the country, 56 cyber squads. the first indication of a substantial intrusion will quite probably come to us and it is our responsibility to do the investigation to determine who is behind that computer. and to stop them. often the discussion is how we protect and how we present against foreign countries, but part of that has to be disrupting these individuals and putting them behind bars. the legislation that is currently pending, there are three areas that are important to us. one is to the extent possible only if having a required notification to the bureau of an intrusion. i think there are 47 states that

have this, but it's all over the lot in terms of who has to report, when they have to report. so first it's notification. secondly is to a certain extent we are where we were in terms of sharing information prior to september 11th amongst the agencies. when it comes to counterterrorism, we share -- it's very little that's not shared. and i would say it's also irreverently true in the cyber aren't aren't amongst the agencies whether it be dhs, nsa, ourselves, dna and the like. so important to this is what you point out, both the experiences and expertise in the private sector. this is where it's different from addressing terrorism, because the private secretary he sector has to play a sub tash role. runs or critical infrastructures. how you execute that whether through the statute or not is really up to others. my concern is the sharing of

information so that we can determine who was responsible for this and lock them up, and perhaps the third area is the necessity of building up the expertise in the federal government amongst all of the agents, and the outreach to the private side. not only building up the expertise, but also the outreach to the -- to private businesses so that we become partners. so we have not any other criminal arena. >> well, you have really highlighted an area that makes this whole intelligence, security holding, accused, terrorists without charges being filed -- we're not dealing with an enemy that is a nation state.

like we have in the past. so if you picked up a person that was in the german army, or in the intelligence arm of the german government, you would know in world war ii that you had to hold that person in the military sense. but when it is organizations, like al qaeda and others that have attacked our country, but yet are not -- they're not under the rules of -- of war as we accepted. the geneva conventions don't affect them. it makes it very difficult to deal with any kind of the intelligence areas when you're dealing with an enemy of our country but not a nation state. so that's something that we're all going to have to deal with, and i think -- i mean, i hope a

realistic way. because i'm with senator graham on this. i think we need guantanamo bay. i think we need the ability to hold people that are suspected terrorists that have associations with al qaeda and other networks that deal with al qaeda, and i don't want us to give us our capability to protect our country from another attack from one of these entities that may not even be an organization yet. so i know you're wrestling with it. we are, too. but i'm going to come down on the side of protecting our people with an asymmetric war that we have. that's what we're given to deal with, and we've got to do it in a way that protects america. thank you.

>> thank you very much, director mueller. colleagues, as director mueller has said, 60% of the fbi request is in the area of national security. many of these are really sensitive issues that the fbi's engaged in, and we need to make sure we get our resources right while we're working on very complex policies. therefore, this is why we would move to a closed session. if there are no further question, the senate may submit conditional questions for the record. we request the fbi's response in the usual 30 days. this subcommittee will temporarily recess and reconvene in a closed session in room 217 at the visitors' center. before i close this public part, i would like the director to know as we said to the attorney general, when the issues related to public integrity and on the issues retted to the stephensre

the stephenson matter, a bipartisan request. we feel both the justice department, those involved in for enforcing the law, if we're going to pursue public integrity issue, which we must and should, that then those who are pursuing it have to have the highest public integrity themselves. we know the fbi has that standard. you've insistented on that standard, and we thank you, and just note that it's not just for men because there are republican and stephens was on this committee. it's larger than that. so we look forward to working with you and we look forward to meeting in the other room where we can go into the national security budget in more detail. the committee's temporarily recessed until we reconvene. next week we'll also take the testimony of secretary brisen of commerce. shall we proceed?

so the committee is taking a break before they reconvene in another room to discuss the national security budget as a closed door meeting. no camera coverage. so we will move on with programmi programming. more coming up. kathleen sebelius joined by the surgeon general and the center for disease controls head to discuss the new national education tobacco ad called tips from former smokers campaign held at the museum here in washington. live at 12:30 eastern. we'll have it here for you on c-spa c-span3. and on c-span, discussing the u.s. national security agenda in the middle east, north africa and the asia-pacific regions in the role of national security issues in the 2012 presidential

election. that's hosted by the american enterprise institute. live coverage starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. at the national people's congress in beijing, china's commerce minister addressed reporters in a news conference and discussed china's trade relations with the u.s., arab countries and the european union. recently in the u.s. health, lawmakers approved a measure allowing the commerce department to impose higher duties on goods from china. this one-hour portion from yesterday begins with a question on new u.s. trade measures. it's courtesy of china central television. >> -- on with reuters, i have two questions for the minister. the first one is recently the u.s. government announced that it's going to employ some new measures in case that the chinese government continues to provide subsidy for its exports and the specific measures will include the increase of import duty. i would like to consult the

minister for your views as well as the view of the minister of commerce if that's going to be the case, will the minister employ any cuts to the measures and the second is, there are opinions to which the economic reform in china is not deep enough. i want to know your comments, minister over this opinion. do you agree with this kind of opinion and if you do agree, in which specific sectors or areas do you believe china should continue to deepen the reform? thank you. >> translator: we are not only good in chinese also you are very -- very smart at creating two questions into one and so i will just mention the u.s. sanction regarding the subsidies. i've noted the discussion at the congress and u.s. administration

regarding the, in compliance on the part of china with international rules, and the focal point was on subsidies. first, i want to make the statement that chinae abesideid the rules by china succeeded. those organizations including the wto which maintained years ago we abide by the wto rules. of course, we do not have the obligation to observe the domestic code of one particular country. and like other 150-something members of the wto, we should seek fairness and just treatment. regarding subsidies, the wto that classified as actionable

and prohibited subsidies and it's a very broad concept, and the interprets of those two categories of subsidies is very varied among wto member, and it's open to interpretation. for example, after the economic crisis was -- after the economic crisis hit, many state governments gave subsidies to the sector. the u.s. gave subsidies to top three carmakers in the u.s., and as we have heard from the g-20 summit in cannes, there should be no new trade protectionist measure. after that. so we did not -- see a surge of subsidy or duty investigations. the u.s. has been pointing

fingers. the accusations mainly are that china is not complying with rules. as regards in which area or specific category that china is not abiding by the rules, they are not very clear on that. so i suggest that we have dialogue open, heart-to-heart dialogue. for example, the interpretation of subsidies, we can have a conversation on that, and i can make this clear to you that the chinese central government has no prohibited subsidies pried to the economic entities, but china is a big country, and at some regional, some national level, there might be subsidies which may be problematic. but i'm not very understanding, or i don't see why since 2006 the u.s. has been lodging about 31 cases of combined

anti-dumping, duty obligations, in about 2013, are targeting u.s. exports to the u.s. and not prohibiting or restricting their entry into the u.s. market. those are base and u.s. domestic rules, not wto rules, and based on that, china made the case to the court of appeals at the federal circuit, and the ipc, the court of appeals, ruled in favor of china. and believed that u.s. was not justified in its action to lodge those investigations, because china is regarded as a non-market economy. and after that, we also made a case -- made an appeal to the court of appeals for the federal circuit. by the end of 2011, the court maintained a verdict.

so the u.s. was not justified in its action. so if china were in violation of the rule, china would have been urged to correct. but china did not. but recently we have seen that the u.s. congress passed a bill that basically enables the u.s. to lodge investigations on market -- non-market economies, and also traceability was given to 2006 or even before. and, also, the exporters rather than importers, will have to bear the burden of evidence, proof of evidence. so i think the recent movement at the u.s. congress is not in

consistency with u.s. laws, and it's not in line with wto rules. so china is making case to the wto, and china did win the case it's the case at the wto. so i hope that the trade enforcement authority could correct its mistake and be -- be -- your second question is about china's reform is not deepening, right? premier report, made the nation is very comprehensive point regarding china's reform. so i fully support and agree with the points he mentioned. so i wonder whether you could be more specific? for example, the world bank --

has made a target for china to reform a state-owned enterprise sector. so all these reforms should be incorporated into the master plan. for example, break down the monopoly, for example, energy sector, and also for the private sector and the state sector to enter into operations in various sectors, which were not encouraged in the past. but i think the economic structure, which is more dominated by the public sector economy, or staid economy will remain unchanged, because it has been written into china's code. for example, two our swervings. swerving number one is we will have to