internet. but there's still a ton of that stuff going on. and two is great cases but it's not a lot of cases. i'm informed that if you look at intellectual property theft through cyber as the means, hacking into an american company's computer, accessing their confidential data, their formulas, their secrets, exfiltrating that out and then using that to compete against the company, we have made exactly zero cases. that in all of the cyber cases, all the intellectual property theft cases we've made, there's been a human link. we've found the guy who was downloading it to a disk and putting it in his pocket. my impression from my visit to the ncijtf is they are standing in front of a fire hose trying

to do their very best to manage around just an immense amount of work. and from what i hear from private sector folks, they would love to have more fbi and more federal law enforcement support when they've been hacked. now, nine times out of ten they don't even know they've been hacked. they get told they've been hacked when your folks or homeland security come knocking on the door and say, by the way, you might want to consider looking at this file. but once they do know, having more support from you guys i think -- i think you're doing a great job with the resources you have but i just feel where at a stage this has become such a big problem, both as a national security problem to our electric grid, to our financial system, to our communications networks, if somebody decides to take those down, and as an industrial espionage problem against our major competitive industries, and as a privacy problem. there's probably somebody in

this room right now whose credit card and social security information is on some estonian gangster's website for sale. there's just so much of it for sale right now. so there are all these issues. and i feel that we need, in the same way that we had to move from just having a couple of aircraft in the u.s. army years ago, we've got to have an air force on this one. that we need to be thinking about really, what's the next step? how should we structure this? it's not enough to just add incrementally, we really need to kind of go game on this. so i'd like your thoughts on that point. i know omb is a bit of a hazard for folks when you're being asked to argue beyond your allocated budget. but i'd at least like to ask you to participate willingly and helpfully and continue to. because i've had good support so far. in trying to work this through. we're trying to get something into the cyber bill that will at least put a structure into analyzing what our law enforcement boss sure should

look like, how should it be resourced for the future? we've got a dea, we've got a atf, we've got a secret service. maybe we should be thinking of building something that is equivalent for cyber as we look out. what are your thoughts? >> let me start by saying i share your concern about putting the country and the bureau in a posture to address this. and it's going to take a substantial reorientation of the bureau to address this. in terms of personnel -- and i would put them -- one of the things that too often we do is we take pockets of the cyber issue and forget about them. and within the bureau, there are a number of initiatives we've undertaken over a period of time that fall wind the cyber umbrella.

certainly the ncijtf is one of them. i think perhaps one of the most important of them. also every one of our 56 field offices have cyber squads in which those individuals are doing cyber work. now, there are intrusions and there are cases -- innocent image cases quite obviously that fall within that. i would say as we grow, the intrusions are perhaps more important. you hate to say, that but more important, need a different skill, need a different effort. my discussions with our people is that this is -- we have to reorient the bureau to address signer in the same way we reoriented the bureau to address counterterrorism. that means beefing up our cyber squads, making them task forces. in case you do know where the cyber intrusion is going to occur, you need to do the forensics in order to start the evaluation of at bution, much less the criminal case. consequently it has to be distributed across the country,

the expertise has to be distributed across the country. now, it takes more of a headquarters role because inevitably in most of those, whether it abbott net or what have you, victims in all 50 states, it may have started in romania or morocco or what have you. consequently the old way of allocating responsibility to the office -- generally the first u.s. attorney who happens to get the subpoena in to the grand jury doesn't work in this environment. so what we're working with in the bureau is putting together a distributed -- >> if you don't mind me interjecting, plus in those cases you really don't have a criminal case, you have a civil effort to shut it off which russ doc and core flood did bill yachbtly but it's hard to tee it off in the structure when there's no criminal case -- >> we look at it as national security -- i mean, this is one of the problems that you have in cyber.

at the time of a cyber intrusion you do not know whether it's a state actor, you don't know whether it's organized crime or organized crime working for a state actor, or an individual or group of individuals who are not necessarily organized but distributed, the anonymous type of attacks. or lastly, the 18-year-old who is particularly adapt and wants to make his mark or her mark by intercepting. so you cannot immediately put it into a cubbyhole of national security or this particular crime. and consequently, ncijtf with it 18 counterparts and with a distributed network in my mind gives us ability to identify that intrusion, work on that intrusion, with dhs protecting the infrastructure but our gathering the information and hopefully helping on the -- identifying the at bution for that particular attack. i do believe that something like the reasonable computer forensics laboratories, yes,

they do the exploitation, but it's the same expertise you need to do the at bution in terms of a cyber attack. so we've got 16 of them. i would love to have more of those. there are other aspects of the organization, the fbi organization, that have to be integrated. you can have a -- cyber attacks that are undertaken by terrorists. it can be by state actors or espionage. and you need, in both of those, expertise as to who are the terrorist who would undertake isn't it who are the countries or the intelligence agencies of those countries that undertake isn't it consequently you have to merge the cyber expertise along with the substantive expertise in that particular area. that's reorganizing to do that. bottom line, there's a long way to go for all of this. but it's a sharing of intelligence, developing the capability to take that intelligence and work with not

only our persons in the united states but within nsa, cia, and the others outside which will enable us to be successful in this particular arena. >> i really thank you for the excellent work that the bureau is doing on this and i look forward to working hard to make sure that you get the resources as well that you need. i'll close by observing that these cases are immensely complicated and difficult. if you look at the complicating factors that make a capes difficult, it has virtually all of them. it has probably the worst complicating factor of international domain, having to work through legats, having to work through treaties, having to work through foreign countries. the complicating factor of as you pointed out integration with our intelligence community and having to deal with the security and classified nature of some of that and protecting sources and methods. the cases themselves are

challenging and difficult. as difficult as any rico case can be. the forensics are very important, trying to figure out how this stuff actually works and be able to testify about it clearly. and then there's just a lot of work putting it together because some of these things ver big operations. when you combine all of that, each case could really be a huge vacuum for effort in order to succeed. so i think that's an important appreciation that i wanted to put into the record as we go about building this. this is not like bygone gun cases where you could knock them off one after the other. these are the kind of cases that could swamp a small u.s. attorney's office and present immense challenges. >> that's where we push resources. and we have to be far more flexible.

we have to have virtual teams addressing these cases. both of us have done ricos. these are cases that are complicated. often there's one body behind that computer. what you want to do, identify those individuals and arrest them and incarcerate them so that there's deterrence. you can talk about protecting the networks, you can talk about tracking the signature back to some particular country. but then there has to be action. and that's where our role comes in. >> well, i appreciate it. i think i'm the last person standing in this hearing. so i will call it to its conclusion. i thank you for coming up, as you have so often done, to face the oversight of this committee. you always do so very professionally and your organization is first-rate so we're always delighted to have you here. and the record will remain open for one additional week in case there's anything further that anybody wishes to submit. but the hearing is closed. thank you. >> thank you.

when immigrants start to show up in significant numbers, which is somewhat the case in the 1820s and 1830s, but really very much the case in the 1840s and afterwards, they're showing up into a political environment in which they're already qualified to vote as soon as they become citizens. just to give you a sense of the kind of politics we're talking about, this is an image from harper's weekly in 1858, just after election time. it shows a saloon and a polling

place. if you wanted to vote, you can see the doorway all the way in the back, you had to go in there to vote. >> this weekend on "lectures in history," from munsey, indiana, ball state university professor james connelly investigates immigration, voting, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. vice president joe biden criticized republican presidential candidate mitt romney yesterday for taking credit for the recent improvements to the auto industry and the economy, as well as for his work at the venture capital first baip capital. this campaign event was part of the vice president's two-day visit to eastern ohio. his remarks at a chevy dealership in martins ferry, ohio, are about 35 minutes. >> thank you very much. hey, folks, how are you? good to see you all. is what a beautiful day. hey. as i say to the military, if you

have seats, take them, please. you don't have to stand. thank you so very, very much. it's a delight to be here. i want to thank the state senator, lewis, where are you, lew? i thought he was lewis here. there you go? how are you, man? thanks for being here. thanks for being here. mr. mayor, where are you? mr. mayor, thank you, buddy. you still play, mr. mayor. and david foster, thank you very much. and rich, thank you. but you know, the stuffalino family i want to particularly thank. joe, it's great to be here. thank you for the opportunity. i have to admit to you, coming into the shop, walking in the doors, coming out the side lot here, it -- it brings me back home. it brings me back to my youth. i'm the son of an automobile

man. my dad was a general manager, no jobs left in scranton, he moved down to wilmington, delaware. he eventually got a job and he ended up being an automobile manager of two of the largest agencyth in the state for the better part of 35 years. and as dave said, he was a proud man. my dad used to say, joey, and i give my word i'm not making this up, joey, a paycheck's -- a job's about a lot more than a paycheck, it's about your dignity. it's about your self-respect. it's about your sense of who you are. it's about your place in the community. it's a lot more than just a paycheck. an awful lot of people in the valley, an awful lot of people in the wyoming valley where i'm from, an awful lot of people in the delaware valley where i ended up living, have had their dignity stripped.

and somehow, i don't think -- these other guys aren't bad guys but i don't think they get that part of it. i don't think they get that part of it of what a job means. more than just a paycheck. but it also reminds me, going down to my dad's -- my dad's dealership, i was telling joe last night, one of the great things about having a dad who ran a dealership, you always got a new car for the prom, man. you didn't have enough money to own a car, but you always got a new car for the prom. i don't know how many times i'd drive an old '51 plymouth up to the lot just like this, porter chevrolet, walk in and say, mary, where's dad? and i'd go off with a nice-looking car on the used car lot. and usually only folks my age remember, usually you got simonized. but anyway. most of all it's great to be standing here with the chevy cruise behind me.

let me tell you why i say that. you know, there's a lot more than a great car in there. these three cars behind me represent pride. they represent pride. the pride the men and women feel. the pride they feel in morristown making a vehicle. making a vehicle they not only know is selling, making a vehicle they know is the best, the best-quality vehicle in the world. the other thing they don't understand about us, folks on the line, folks in the dealerships, folks in the parts plants, it's not just about the line. it's not just about the job you have. it's about whether or not you can have pride in what you're doing. pride knowing you're making something that the world wants. pride knowing you're making quality. any of you uaw guys, i remember

things guys at the plant in delaware, gave us most pride back before the plant shut down about eight years ago. they got the authority to shut the line down if a piece of junk came by. remember how much pride they had. they didn't want to shut the line down. they knew that line moving meant their paycheck. but they wanted things to go out there that they made that were stamped "made in delaware." made in that plant. they took pride in it. let me tell you something, folks. these vehicles are pure pride. my dad, we were talking last night, joe and i. and we were talking about, i said how my dad felt about product. you know, my dad would be really happy. >> he's been gone about nine years now. he'd be really proud of what barack did, bringing back the automobile industry. but you know what he'd be smiling down on right now? joe, they finally sent me

product. they sent me the best vehicle in the world. they sent me the most qualified vehicle in its class. i remember reading j.d. powers about, i don't know b. 10, 12 months ago, saying for the first time in i think it was 23, 25 years, american consumers thought american automobiles were the best-made automobile in this the world. i could just see the grin on my father's face. because folks, these were once again making the best products in the world. you know, and the fact of the matter is that, you know, when times were tough, there have always been ups and downs. i was kidding last night when we were having dinner, and i said, my dad used to have an expression. he said, the first kid in the neighborhood to learn the definition of the word recession was the son of an automobile man. the last kid in the neighborhood to learn the definition of the word recovery was the son of an automobile man.

well, i tell you what. you know, you are -- you're getting sent some of the best product now, joe. and i say, hello, honda. hello, toyota. take a look. take a look. take a look. in the compact field, the best-selling automobile now, for the first time in a long time. and that's because of the quality of the product. up in nordstown they just added a second and third shift. 2,300 new jobs. 2,300 new jobs. 232,000 units sold. ladies and gentlemen, you know, this story kind of represents the best example of the

philosophies voters are going to choose from in this election. there's the obama philosophy, one that has a fundamental underlying principle, and i mean this sincerely. a fundamental underlying principle that is we think -- we believe in people. we believe in ordinary american people. that if you give them a fair shot, you give them an even chance, they have never, never, never, never in american history let the country down or let themselves down. the underlying principle -- [ applause ] we don't think the guys at the top are the smart guys and if they just get it right, everything else will work. we think this works the other way around. that's the history of the valley, man. that's the history. we understand. we understand the value of the world of workers in the success of businesses. it's not just business geniuses. it's the workers as well. they are the reason why business

s overwhelmingly succeed. and the values of the middle class. we believe the middle class is how you define a successful economy. folks, look. we value engineers and workers in the line, the sales force. we have faith in you. we have pride in you. governor romney, that doesn't mean -- he loves you all, i don't doubt that a bit, okay? governor romney's a good, decent man. in my experience, he's a patriotic guy, he's a religious man, he raised five beautiful kids, has a beautiful, bright wife. but he has a fundamentally different view of how to make this country go. it's the same view the last administration had. a view that says, it says as long as you look out for the guy at the top, as long as you give them the most significant tax breaks you can, quote, to invest, as long as you have lax wall street oversight and you don't try to regulate them, as

long as you do those things, everything's going to be okay. workers, small businesses, communities, they can fend for themselves because everything's going to be okay. it will come down from the top. it will work. just -- no regulation, basically, and give us more tax breaks. because we will be the job-creators. look, here's the crux of governor romney's argument, why he's suited to be president of the united states. he doesn't argue, so far at least, that he has foreign policy expertise. he doesn't argue he's an expert on national security. he doesn't argue those things. that will probably come but he's not arguing that now. he's saying he's best-suited to be president of the united states because his experience and expertise as a businessman. he says he's the most qualified guy to run the country because of his business experience. he raised it, not us.

so let's take a look. let's take a look at that. how does that experience -- and he's been very successful -- how does that experience suit him to be president of the united states of america? i'm going to give you an example of that experience today. and over the course of this campaign, i'll be giving you multiple examples of that experience. i'm going to give you a number of ideas. but today i just want to take the one thing. as dave said, in the 1990s, there was a steel mill in kansas city, missouri. haven't been in business since 1888. romney and his partners came in, his fellow investors, and eight years later, the company was bankrupt. romney and his partners added to that company, i think it had like $13 million in debt when he took the company over. and he added, on top of that, another $520 million in debt.

eight years later, it was in debt over $500 million. 750 workers lost their job, their health insurance, their life insurance, and much of their pensions. now, of course that happens sometimes, we know that. i saw it in scranton, i've seen it in wilmington, in the steel mills, i've seen it in the valley here. but let's look at this. what's troubling about this story is that the 30 executives they put in place to run the company, they walked away with $9 million. the 30 executives. and romney and his investing partners walked away with $12 million. that's romney economics. two sets of roles. one for his wealthy investors, and the other for everybody else. now look, folks. some of romney's defenders say it's not fair to criticize romney for this. and they go on to point out that it's not the job of investors,

not the job of bain capital or any other company like that, it's not their job to create jobs, it's their job to create wealth for the investors. that's true. it's their job to create wealth for the investors. if it creates jobs in the process, good. if it costs all the jobs in the process, okay. it's to make sure their investors get a return on their investment. but that's not the job of a president of the united states of america. the job is much bigger than that. the job of the president of the united states is help businessmen. businessmen who need a payroll. businessmen and women, small and large, who have to worry about everything from environmental controls to whether the street is paved to all the things that affect their ability to do business.

in our view it's government's job not to run their business but help them. help them have an opportunity. to have the best infrastructure so the road to which you can drive up to buy the automobile. and by the way, parenthetically, imagine, imagine if our republican friends hadn't stopped us from our infrastructure bill. imagine if we were rebuilding the roads and bridges in the valley that needed to be built. how many thousands and thousands of jobs would be created. and how much that would increase the productivity of every business in the valley. that's government's job. is to help people looking for jobs. to look out for the entire nation, not just one segment of the nation. that's the president's job, folks. that's what presidents are supposed to -- that's what good republican presidents have done and good democratic presidents have done. ladies and gentlemen -- [ applause ]

we're not anti-capitalist, for god's sake, it's the system that built the country. we hope investors do well. but you can't build an economy, economy of the future where the only people that do well are the investors and everybody else pays the price. you can't do that. workers get laid off, that's true. companies get shut down. everyone suffers when that happens. that's no way to build the economy. that's no way to create job-creators. there's consequences. dave and i were talking about when i moved down to delaware to clairmont, delaware, a community like this. the heart and soul was worth steel company. they had about 5,000 employees. when that shut down, when that

caved, then got involved with the chinese, now it's being rebuilt. the whole community, the whole community collapsed. and suffered. and have been rebuilding since. we're tough in clairmont. you're tough here in ferry. you're tough here in the valley. we are not stopping. and most times -- and by the way r. if the job is to make sure investors do well, most times when investors do well at the expense of a company's employees and everybody else, you all end up paying for it. let me tell you how you pay for it. not just if you work there. people that have nothing to do with, not associated with it, never worked at the steel mill dave talked about, but businesses, successful businesses the other end of missouri, businesses here in the valley, taxpayers in pittsburgh, you all pay for it. why? why?

they pay for the so-called success of the investors. here's why. because we don't let people just go out there and beg in the streets, we have unemployment insurance. taxpayers pay for that. we don't let their kids of guys who lost their jobs, health care and those women go without health care. we provide it. but everybody pays for it. everybody pays for it. the taxpayers pay for it. and by the way, the reason dave said that those folks lost most of their pensions and not all of it, bain didn't have anything to do, best of my knowledge, of taking care of pensions. there's an outfit. when dave's company went under, only the higher house of cards fell and romney's investors walked away with 12 million bucks. cost rippled through the entire