code that everybody else is talking about. income and corporate. if we could create -- my ideal world would be the democrats would create a program that creates an okay medicare structure. and everybody gets the okay medicare structure. but above that, people who have wealth, if you want to be progressive, ought to be able to spend what they want to spend above what that good medicare structure is. you want to put progressive progressivity on the table, you put it on the table in terms of fica. the amount that people pay as their income goes up is not appropriate. it doesn't reflect what was originally proposed. that will pull some wealth out of the upper end. where you put it into the fica tax and it makes the social security a whole lot wholer. you can do it in medicare.

i know it destroys the concept of entitlement. entitlement is killing us. what you want is the ability to get a good socially supported health benefit for everyone. above that, why do you have to say people who have the wealth can't spend it? no. let's tax it, progressivity. let government play with it and then provide you with a better benefit. still not what you could have had if you were able to use your own money. if you want to get the wealthy, cap the entitlement. don't give it to everybody open ended based upon the dynamics in society. you let people spend their own money above and beyond an adequate and appropriate social safety net both for senior living and for health. that's what the debate ought to be about. that's why i included social security and medicare under the tax heading.

>> quick questions? this one right back here. can you tell us your affiliation? >> brian johnson, american petroleum institute. when the math is figured out, a lot will rely on politics. we know that. and chairman camp put out a thoughtful tax reform proposal territoria territorial, last fall, technical discussion draft even. is it at all telling or discerning that when asked earlier chairman of the senate finance committee said he didn't know what chairman camp put out and doesn't think anyone does? >> i don't think he referenced it just to chairman camp's program. he talked about the commission that was created by president obama. he talked to a certain extent

saying that members weren't knowledgeable about the details. i didn't think that was shocking. >> i would interpret it as just saying i'm not ready to come forward with my details yet. >> i thought of this because you mention that it's not related to your petroleum institute but it jogged by thinking. this is a long shot. it won't happen but the right thing to do. if we can get agreement which as of now we can't that we need a significant amount of revenue as part of deficit reduction, it would be great if somehow whether it was the tax reform process or subsequent process could find a way to get some kind of tax on carbon into this mix. you could use part of the results for deficit reduction. you could use part of it to offset the effects of higher

energy prices on low and moderate income people or use it to lower the income tax rate. i'm one that's increasingly nervous about what will happen worldwide by our inability to deal with climate change which in the long run may be more serious than our inability to deal with various fiscal issues and the fact that we need some revenue here maybe there could be an opening for a bipartisan a agreement to also make progress on that. >> one last question? a question over here. >> thank you, all of you, for making a very complex subject more understandable. there has been discussion about

sequestration. as you know, under the provision, there is a requirement under the warren act to provide 60 to 90 days notice if you're going to have a significant or massive layoff. that happens to occur two days before the election. here's my question. do you think, one, it's appropriate and necessary and secondly, do you think it's possible to get some bipartisan agreement if on nothing else, to weigh that warren act provision. i understand the bipartisan policy center's conclusion is will result in a loss of a million jobs and that would be unnecessary if some frame work as you suggest is agreed on in lame duck. i agree there's not enough time to agree and vote and score in lame duck but what about

removing the egregious consequences of secretary westeration. >> i understand what you're saying. even that dread knot after the election is not anything anyone going into the election wants anyone to talk about. >> if it has potential for changing what people believe to be the possible outcome of the election, it will affect behavior. i think just quickly on the tearatoria tear tour territorial question, the u.s. didn't go through devastating wars and rebuild its entire economy. that's why we fell behind in steel production and a bunch of

other areas. we talked about all of the cars being made overseas. honda just announced certain models are being shifted from being made in japan to bring into the u.s. we're the cheapest country in the world to build cars that you can drink water out of the tap right now and that's why it's coming in because of the currency differentials. we are now going to be able to look at changing to be more like the rest of the world. value added under another name in certain possibilities. question of territorial versus worldwide are all archaic. it takes energy to get someone to vote yes on something. i'll just say this again. there are only so many yeses out of members. you're going to have to prioritize what you ask them to vote yes on. it's easier to ignore something that is supposed to happen than to force people to vote yes to stop something that wasn't going

to happen any way and everybody knows it. that's why they voted to put it in. >> final thoughts? >> despite a bit of skepticism here, i think this is a huge opportunity for genuine tax reform. however we work the mechanics of the lame duck, this is a chance that shouldn't be missed to make our tax code a lot fairer and at least as progressive and more pro-growth and we shouldn't mess it up. >> thanks to the panel for joining us and thank you for coming. [ applause ] >> to the rich but we ought to think about spending the riches' money in changing medicare and social security as well.

on wednesday, jpmorgan chase ceo jamie dimon testifies before the senate banking committee about the company's loss.

live coverage on c-span and c-span radio. the house financial services committee will hold its hearing on the public policy implications of jpmorgan chase's recent trading loss on tuesday, june 19th. live on c-span3 and c-span radio. tonight espn president john skipper on the network's expansion to different media platforms. cnn chief national correspondent john king on the ways technology has changed cnn and cox business senior vice president phil meeks and their small business focus on the communicators tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> pulitzer prize winning author david maraniss traveled the globe to write his new book to examine the president's family tree. there will be a preview with exclusive pictures and video including our trip to kenya with the author in january 2010. join us sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern and later at 7:30 that

same night. your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for david maraniss on c-span2's book tv. >> last week attorney general eric holder was asked about the government's fast and furious operation aimed at arresting members of drug cartels. committee republicans said that leaked wiretaps show the senior officials knew the operation involved a tactic known as gun walking where smugglers are allowed to move guns across the boarder with mexico. during this hearing, the attorney general responded to questions about the department's enforcement of voting rights laws including efforts to stop florida from removing names in the florida rolls. >> i recognize myself and then the ranking member for an opening statement. welcome attorney general holder to today's oversight hearing of the department of justice.

regrettably, the obama administration has shown a disregard for the constitution and rule of law in an effort to impose their agenda on the american people. and there are many examples. efforts to block congressional inquiries about the administration's action undermine the balance of power on which our nation is founded. the department of justice still has not provided enough information about operational fast and furious so that the american public and congress can judge who in the department bears responsibility for the decisions that led to agent brian terry's death. the justice department issues subpoenaed to shed light on why this program is authorized and who had knowledge of the inappropriate tactics. the department of justice also failed to provide relevant information that would have revealed the extent of justice

kagan's involvement when she was solicitor general. if she did give counsel on the health care bill, which was her job, then she should recuse herself rather than evaluating the law as a member of the supreme court. the justice department has refused to let us interview her former assistant. neglecting to enforce or defend the laws enacted by congress is another violation of the administration's constitutional obligation to the american people. under this president, the justice department has engaged in a pattern of selective enforcement of the law in order to advance its own partisan agenda. for instance, the obama administration has sought to prevent state and local authorities from enforcing immigration laws. at the same time, the justice department has refused to bring cases against sanctuary cities that violate federal law by prohibiting their officials from

communicating with the department of homeland security about illegal immigrants they encounter. such sanctuary cities directly challenge the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws. the administration's unwillingness to uphold immigration laws led to injuries and even death. the administration refuses to defend the defense of marriage act, a law enacting by congress and signed by then president bill clinton. this was a significant piece of legislation that was approved by a vote of 342-67 in the house and 85-14 in the senate. regardless of how one feels about the substance of the bill, the department of justice has an obligation to defend the laws of the land. efforts by the administration to override election laws enacted

by states also raises concerns. the department of justice has challenged common sense voter i.d. laws that require voters to identify themselves before they are allowed to vote. the department of justice recently moved to block implementation of voter i.d. laws enacted by legislators in texas and south carolina. the proposal was based on a similar law passed by the ann legislature which was upheld by the supreme court in 2008. the justice department challenge to the law ignores precedent which affirms a state's right to enact laws to protect integrity of its elections. the department of justice even threatened to sue florida for trying to remove ineligible noncitizens from its voter rolls. why would the department of justice not want states to remove ineligible felons, ineligible noncitizens and the dead from their voter rolls? the administration's actions

aren't just wrong, they are arrogant, undemocratic and insult to the rule of law. the administration's disregard for the constitution and rule of law not only undermines our democracy, it threatens our national security. the justice department has not taken the initiative to prosecutor leaks of national security secrets. recent leaks about a cyberattack against iran are in the words of senate intelligence chairwoman dianne feinstein, "very detrimental, very concerning and hurt our country." for the past 3 1/2 years, this administration has engaged in a pattern of objects instructionism, unaccountability and partisanship. the american people should have confidence that the department of justice fairly enforces laws. that confidence is lacking

today. this hearing will explore how that confidence can be restored. that concludes my statement. >> thank you, chairman smith. welcome attorney general holder. the opening statement is an opportunity for both of us to set the tone for this hearing. but never in the career of chairman smith as the chair of this committee have i heard so many erroneous statements and having never heard them before, i can assure him and you that i will be going over his statements and help him arrive

at a more factual and impartial conclusion. having said that, we welcome you once again to the house judiciary committee. this, by my account, is the eighth time this congress -- that the attorney general has made himself available for questioning and this level of access is extraordinary. particularly when we compare your record to that of your immediate predecessors. now, with respect to the continuing investigation into operation fast and furious, i want to thank you for your patience and diligence. to date the department of justice has provided over 7,600 pages of documents to the congress. you made additional law

enforcement sensitive materials available to us in dozens of briefings. you permitted us to question senior department officials in hearing and in transcribed interviews and you yourself have appeared before this committee once every six months since the controversy became public. i hope that the tone of today's discussion reflects the many courtesies that you and the department of justice have shown us in the past months. i also want to commend you and the department of justice on a series of important accomplishments in the field of civil rights and voting rights. a couple of issues that i have paid special attention since i first became a member of the house judiciary committee.

enforcing section five of the voting rights act. the department has aggressively enforced section five, which ensures that states with a history of discrimination can't create additional barriers to minority access through the ballot box. the department has already block blocked discriminatory voter i.d. laws in texas and south carolina and i would encourage you to look at other similar troubling laws taking effect across the country. stopping illegal purges of the voting rules. last week the voting section wrote to the state of florida demanding that they cease and desist from purging voters from the rolls. the practice was not submitted to the department under section 5 and would not have been

approved if it had been. protecting the rights of members of the armed service in terms of their voting. the department secured court orders and consent decrees in 14 jurisdictions to better enforce the military and overseas voter empowerment move. restoring the integrity of the civil rights division. after the office of the inspector general and office of professional responsibility completed their review of illegal partisan and partisan hiring practices under another administration their final report included recommendations for improve transparent hiring process at the civil rights division itself and under the

leadership of assistant attorney general tom perez, the division has fully adopted each of those recommendations and is now predominantly staffed by attorneys with actual experience in the field of civil rights law. enforcing the fair housing act. and equal credit opportunity act. the department's $335 million settlement with countrywide financial last december compensated families who were charged higher fees and interest rates because of their race or national origin. this enforcement action makes clear the department will not hesitate to hold financial institutions accountable for lending discrimination. there, of course, are areas which we hope the department

will improve. but today four years after the worst economic upheaval since the great depression, we are still looking to hold some of those wall street barons accountable. and according to one -- let me conclude. my time has ended. i thank the chairman. and yet what we want to do here today is having a thorough and fair discussion and i'm going to ask that our colleagues on this committee conduct themselves in a manner that is worthy of the attorney general's present appearance here. i thank the chair. i yield back the balance of my time. >> our only witness today is

united states attorney general eric h. holder, jr. on february 3rd, 2009, attorney general holder was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general of the united states. attorney general holder has enjoyed a long career in both the public and private sectors. first joining the department of justice through the attorney general's honors program in 1976, he became one of the department's first attorneys to serve in the newly formed public integrity section. he went onto serve as a judge at the superior court of the district of columbia and u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1997, mr. holder was named by president clinton to be the deputy attorney general. prior to becoming attorney general, mr. holder was a litigation partner in washington d.c. mr. holder, native of new york city, is a graduate of columbia university and columbia law school. mr. holder, we appreciate your presence today. we look forward to your testimony and please begin.

>> good morning, chairman smith, ranking member conyers and key members of this committee. i would like to outline our plans to build upon this record of achievement. i'm proud of the work that's been done by the department's 116th,000 employees as well as our government and law enforcement partners worldwide to help fulfill promises i made before this very same committee about three years ago. shortly after i became attorney general, i pledged to strengthen the department's efforts to protect the american people from terrorism and other national security threats, to ensure that every decision and every investigation and every prosecution would be guided by the facts, by the law, by nothing else. i also reaffirmed my commitment to move aggressively to prevent and to combat violent crime and financial fraud to seek justice for victims, to protect the most vulnerable among us and safeguard the environment and to

uphold the civil rights of all of our citizens. in each of these areas, the department has made tremendous and i think in many cases historic progress. nowhere is this more evident than on our national security efforts. in the last three years the department has secured convictions against scores of dangerous terrorists. we've identified and we've stopped multiple plots by foreign terrorist groups as well as homegrown extremists. we have strengthened essential surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities in a manner that's consistent with the rule of law and our most treasured values. just last month we secured our seventh conviction in our article three civilian courts in one of the most serious terrorism cases that our nation has faced since 9/11. an al qaeda sponsored plot to conduct coordinated suicide bomb attacks in the new york city subway system and roughly two weeks ago we obtained a guilty verdict in the case of a former member of the u.s. army who intended to bomb u.s. soldiers

in a restaurant in texas. on the same day another texas man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for attempting to become a part of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. now, in addition to our national security successes, the department has made strides in protecting americans through violent crime. through innovative programs, we have developed comprehensive elaborate approaches in remedy consequences of violence among and directed toward our nation's young people. by forging and strengthening partnerships between our united states attorney's offices and federal, state, local and tribal and international officials, we're combatting gun, gang and drug fueled violence more effectively than ever before. alongside key law enforcement allies and counterparts in mexico and other countries, we have orchestrated a series of coordinated strikes against violent drug cartels arresting

thousands of members and seizing billions of dollars in assets. we're implementing strategic plans to address shocking rates of violence against alaskan native women through tribal communities and we are using every resource and tool at our disposal including the power of research and scientific analysis to protect our nation's law enforcement community, which in recent years has seen an unfortunate and totally unacceptable rise in the line of duty deaths. many of you worked to raise awareness about the tragic fact that violence against law enforcement officers is approaching the highest level we have seen in almost two decades. as attorney general and as brother of a retired police officer, i'm proud that the department has responded to this recent crisis with resolve and with robust action. just last week i met with the major city chiefs police association at a summer meeting to discuss the ways that we have developed and implemented a host of important programs such as landmark valor initiative which

is providing law enforcement partners with latest in training tools and resources and bulletproof partnership program which has helped more than 13,000 jurisdictions approach life saving bullet and stab resistant equipment in order to help protect those who risk their lives to keep us safe. put simply, our commitment to officer safety has never been stronger and as recent achievements prove, the same can be said of our resolve to protect american consumers. since the start of this administration, the justice department signaled an unwaiv unwaiverunwaive unwavering commitment and address the consequences of the recent economic crisis and this work is paying dividends. last year alone the at the present time's consumer protection branch working with u.s. attorneys offices across the country obtained 90%