benghazi. this is a copy of the resolution. it's about seven pages. it basically defines all the powers and duties of the select committee. usually, select committees end when they have completed their assigned task, but there are several select committees actually in the house and senate that are permanent. one example is in the house they have a select committee on intelligence, which is a permanent committee. the senate has the same type of committee. this select committee, according to its own resolution will, quote, cease to exist 30 days after filing the final report. now, one of the most well-known select committees probably in the last 50 years was one with a very innocuous title called the select committee on presidential campaign activities, which was a committee that investigated president nixon after the watergate burglary. another more infamous select committee, frankly, was the church committee which was set up in the early 1970s in which

many people blame for emasculating the committee on some intelligence failures to led directly to 9/11. the advantage of a select committee over one of the other permanent committees, as all of you know, there have been several committees trying to investigate benghazi terrorist attack is with a select committee, the staff that you put in place devotes 100% of its time to that issue. that is not the case with the other committees of congress which have many other responsibilities both in the oversight area and with regard to formulating reviewing legislation. this resolution set up a committee of 12 members of whom five are from the minority in the house. it sets up actually on two

pages, nine different tasks that it's supposed to perform. i'm not going to read all of those. you can look at them yourself. i would note three of the nine. one of them is they are supposed to investigate all policies decisions and activities to respond to and repel such attacks, includie ining efforts rescue u.s. personnel. and look at the accountability of policies and decisions related to the security of facilities in benghazi, libya, and the response to the attacks including individuals and entities responsible for those policies and those decisions, which gets to the heart of what peter brooks was talking about which is finding out what were the security issues that existed, what was the responsibility of the u.s. government of the state department to them, and who was responsible for making those decisions? something we still don't know today. the third and last purpose, i

would note for you, is any other relevant issues relating to such attacks, the responses to them, the investigation by the house into the attacks. that's basically what lawyers will tell you is a catch-all phrase that lets this committee look at absolutely anything related to the benghazi attacks. it has a very, very broad mandate. now, due to its constitutional oversight function, congress is entitled to information and documents from the legislative branch that in some instances the public isn't entitled to. there are certain exceptions, for example, in the freedom of information act, which apply to the public that don't apply to congress. but one thing we know from recent documents that were obtained by judicial watch in a lawsuit they filed is that they obtained through court order documents related to benghazi that had not been turned over to

congress. so it's pretty clear that this committee has a lot ahead of it. the chair of this committee tray gowdy is a former assistant united states attorney. that, frankly, is very important. it means he is a former prosecutor. he has developed in many prior instances, cases through investigation and then has conducted litigation in court. that's very, very important in telling you whether this committee is going to have the ability to actually conduct its investigation effectively. now, according to this resolution, he can issue subpoenas, he can order depositions under oath. he can allow members of the committee to question witnesses for more than five minutes. anyone who is familiar with how congress works, i've testified before congress as have members of this committee and i see some people in the audience who i recognize who also testified in front of committees, know that normally members of congress only have five minutes to

question you. i can tell you, it's pretty difficult for a member of congress to get real answers from a reluctant witness with only five minutes. the other thing that's important here is the resolution says that the chair can allow staff to question witnesses. that again is very key to being able to cross-examine witnesses effectively, particularly if they get some good staff members with prior prosecutorial experience. many members of congress don't know how to question witnesses. they think cross-examination consists of asking questions irately or crossly. that is not how you do cross-examination. it's an acquired skill. it requires laying the ground work. lulling a witness into a false sense of security, picking up on what the witness is saying and following up on contradictions

and conflicts and insisting they answer the question. you can't do that in five minutes and you can't do that without great preparation, and frankly, prior skill and experience in doing that the key thing here, too, is that this exit's will be able to, as i said, subpoena witnesses. if they refuse to answer or refuse to appear, there are two federal statutes that apply to this. i'll end with this. 2usc 192 says any witness who refuses to, quote, answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry can be punished by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in jail. the minimum being, by the way, a one month in jail. under 2usc-194, a statute that follows very closely after this, if a witness refuses to answer

questions or to appear as a witness such as, for example, lois lerner who was recently held in contempt by the court, what happens is the house or the senate certify through the relevant united states attorney that a witness has refused to answer or appear before a committee. now, in the case of congress and the house, the relevant u.s. attorney is a u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, a man named ronald makin. under the statute, his duty shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action. now note that statute doesn't say that the u.s. attorney may or may not binge that matter before a federal grand jury. it says that he shall. in other words, that he has to do it. unfortunately, the united states attorney for the district of columbia has refused to follow

the statute. for example, when attorney general eric holder was held in contempt of court under the statute he had a legal obligation to bring that con cement citation before a federal grand jury. he refused to do that. we don't know yet whether he is going to once again refuse to follow the law with regard to the lerner contempt citation, but if he does refuse to do so, then it will not be a good sign for this committee. if there are any witnesses that refuse to answer questions or appear before and they refer this matter to the u.s. attorney, it will be up to him to enforce it before a grand jury. unfortunately, the lawlessness that has become prevalent in this department of justice shown by the refusal of the u.s. attorney to comply with his federal statute is a very serious concern and one that, frankly, no matter what side of

the political aisle you're on, you should be worried about. to conclude, a select committee was long overdue with this. it has the power, resources and staff needed to try to investigate this and get to the bottom of the key questions that need to be answered. thanks. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. as nile mentioned, it fell somehow to me following u.s. public diplomacy is as a heritage expert to write about benghazi when it happened. ambassador stevens was in benghazi to establish at the facility a consulate and that in part as public diplomacy

activity, which you don't normally think of public diplomacy as a softer form of policy landing in this kind of terrible trouble, but that was the case in benghazi. so i started writing about it and have been following the issue ever since for the heritage blog and other publications. i was tremendously heartened when we finally did get the announcement of the house select committee because watching a committee hearing after committee hearing, and screaming at my television, ask a follow-up question, for goodness sake, becomes very tiresome. from one side, the obama administration side there are no more questions to be answered. we answered every question we've been asked. all the information is out. we put it all out. we handed over thousands and

thousands of documents. well, yes, they have. it's like looking for needles in a hay stack. sometimes from the other side of the aisle you hear no questions have been answered. that is not quite true, actually. the committees have answered quite a few questions. what you need all the time as hans mentioned, you need the follow-up. you need the person who can then ask, well, okay, secretary panetta, you went to the president, you told him we were under attack. what did you recommend that we do? nobody asked him that. didn't you come in with recommendations? who would dare face a u.s. president and say we're under attack and not say, and this is secretary of defense, what i recommend we do. these are the resources we have and this is what we will do. well, he was sitting in front of the senate committee and nobody thought to pose that. i was very encouraged.

i think at least we can get a fair distance of the way in getting a picture what happened in benghazi. trey gowdy is a great choice. the committee announced its first order of business will be to try to establish a timeline. there should be two timelines and they would have to merge at some level. the time line of what exactly happened in benghazi and the timeline of what exactly happened in washington. and try to fit them both together. not start at the top where they get people refusing those subpoenas, but at the bottom. ask the people who were in benghazi at the time, who were at the cia annex and at the u.s. diplomatic facility what they s

saw, who was there, what was their personal experience? what did the obama administration tell you when you came home about sharing those experiences with the congressional committees? they have stated they were, some were never questioned, some were very much discouraged from coming forward. that would be some of the security staff and others who have come forward have been punished for doing so. have been sidelined, denied promotions, denied basically professional activity after that. then what the committee needs to do maybe in an act of mental exercise, try to disregard what has been written about it and what has been, the narrative created in washington afterwards. the narrative created by the obama administration, try to disregard that and focus on what the people who were there and

who knew what they are telling you. because what they are telling you is true. personally, i was amazed we didn't get any of that after the attacks. there were no paper interviews, no interviews with anyone who was there. it's like they all dropped off the face of the earth. hopefully, they will now get a chance to tell their story. maybe behind closed doors and that's fine, as long as that story gets to members of the congress. i wanted to focus on four sets of issues that i think we need to, the committee needs to talk about. needs to dig into. why was chris stevens in benghazi in mid september of 2012? he was there to open a diplomatic facility. why did we need a diplomatic facility there?

it was an area rife with terrorist activities, as peter mentioned, where several other countries pulled out their posts and the red cross was under attack. this was the flag of al qaeda was flying over government buildings. this is dangerous area. chris stevens, when he took, accepted the ambassadorship in may of 2012 was tasked by secretary clinton to open a facility in benghazi. it was one of her top priorities. she wanted us to be out there. benghazi was in some ways much more of a libyan center of culture and politics and tripoli. and since the uprising of gadhafi. he was asked to produce a report on benghazi security which was due september 30th.

that is why he had apparently been putting this task off. he clearly did not choose well when he chose the weekend of september the 11th or the week of september 11th, it was a tuesday as far as i recall, to go there. but he did. he went with two security people because the security staff had been cut by the state department and the defense department from 30 down to nine. two, we saw we could afford him for personal protection left seven in tripoli to guard the u.s. embassy in tripoli. think about that. hillary clinton wants us in benghazi. libya is a high priority for the administration. security staff is cut. it does not compute at all. stevens was against this, and in fact, as we all know from his cables, had several occasions argued against cutting the staff. but he had been overruled.

so was the previous ambassador. the military security detail was there, was transferred from embassy security to training of libyan forces. so they were not actually available any more. in any event, he went. he was the best connected, the best expert they had. ambassador stevens was really the man of the moment in libya. he knew the country so well and had the connections in benghazi, too, to go and talk to them about how bad the security situation really was. now, there was a connection between the state department and the embassy at tripoli for weeks before his trip talking about what he was going to do. yet for some reason, when we got

to the accountability review board, which was set up by clinton to investigate all that was going on, they stated in writes he event independently of washington. he went there just to take a look on his own. this in spite of the fact they were given the information. so there was a whole area there of libya policy of hillary clinton's plans, her intentions that has not been delved into at all. her book which is just out probably does not mention this. there was a trip, she was planning a trip to tripoli herself that fall, which may have been a high priority for the ambassador, and it was. he was acting on her behalf. i'm sorry to say she certainly was not acting on his behalf

when the attack came down. she was informed of the attack within minutes of it happening. she was informed in person over the phone that this was happening. that the consulate was under attack. she was not informed that there was a demonstration going on. at the same time though, if you go back and look at her press release which came out that same eveni evening, she stated that there was this heinous video out there and people and the guys who were upset about it and some of that might have fed into this demonstration that was going on. well, no, there was no demonstration. everybody who was there knew it. so hillary clinton's role ambassador stevens' mission is one that we need and the libya policy overall is one that we

really need to hear much more about. the reason to downgrade diplomatic forces there, security forces, absolutely, needs to be dug into. this was very much done in disregard from the request from ambassador stevens. again, if you look at the arp report, it says that he turned down twice the offer from the defense department to extend their security forces. he didn't actually because they have already shifted them from his control over to a training mission. for diplomatic reasons, this was creating a problem, but there was no effort made to accommodate his concerns. what really troubles me, and one

of the things that troubles me about the accountability review board's report, which is referred to all the time by the administration, is that it does -- i mean it subtly lays the blame over on the victim. ambassador stevens went there on his own, he did not want more security, he was in control. he wasn't actually. i mean, he was not actually in control. he was trying to do the best he could to do his job. but under very, very difficult circumstances. the fact that hillary clinton and under secretary patrick kennedy who was actually the man who ultimately turn down the security requests, were never interviewed. well, the people who were head of the board, the accountability review board report, ambassador pickering and ambassador mullen, i mean they heard of this. they were also, i'm sure, very well connected to hillary clinton. they were not people who would

necessarily want to hang her out to dry, i don't think. in washington, people mix very easily and i doubt they would want that. so i hope that that report, very faulty as it was, very insufficient, will be taken to pieces. now, let's see. was there evidence there was an attack on the embassy? another area that the select committee will be looking at. how did this story of the radio and the attack, the demonstration turning into attack emerge? the administration, susan rice when she went on the talk shows the following sunday morning, categorically stated that this was a demonstration that turned into an attack.

she said that five times. well, the talking points she was given, which we know were created as a collaboration between the cia, the state department and the white house, never mentioned a demonstration. it mentioned a demonstration but not the video. the story of the video, the first one to mention that was hillary clinton herself. the demonstration, that idea came from the cia who, in hearings, from what we know, had various accounts what happened underground, some accounts said there was a demonstration, some said there was an attack. and the acting director said we are going with a demonstration. the white house would like us to put away from, and the white house said they want to point away from the policy failure and towards a demonstration gone

awry. now, that then ballooned into this big narrative that was perpetuated by president obama and secretary clinton even to the point of obama going to the united nations talking about how videos, anti-muslim videos are not in american tradition, and we don't approve of those at all. completely irrelevant to what happened. the administration was crafting a narrative clearly with a view to exert damage control before the presidential election. the committee will need to dig into specifically the set of talking points. one set came out as a result of the judicial watch's request

which showed us from deputy national security advisor ben rhodes that he would like this, not to show a policy failure in libya, but to show there was an uproar about this video created in america so it was really the fault of people back here. i think that was one of the reasons john boehner eventually decided on having a select committee because it showed the administration did not turn over documents when they were requested. this document had been requested before. it took a legal action to excavate it. finally, i think the committee will have to be very sensitive to the subtle and not so subtle threats that were made against people who wanted to come forward with their testimony.

they all suffered personal attacks, character assassination and professional consequence. closed-door hearings would be best, but they need to tell us why it was that within the state department and the cia they were severely discouraged from bringing their testimony forward. this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, adding insult to injury. they certainly deserve some restitution for what happened to them, but they need the assurance that they can speak freely. then of course, lack of the retaliation peter mentioned. the lack of a military response at the time, which the armed services committee and the house has not quite gotten to why there was no such response.

there are still people questioning whether we could have made an effort general lowell not very long ago and in very emotional testimony, stated we should have made an attempt. he was the intelligence officer in africom who was watching this from the aerial drone sent overhead. it was the only thing we ever sent. the aerial nonarmed drone that was flying over libya anyway was directed so we could have realtime video of what was happening on the ground. no other military force from outside of libya managed to get there in time to be of any assistance whatsoever. i mean, just think how different things could have been, even if somebody had been able to arrive at the cia annex which was a mile down the road and which was attacked in the morning, where

the diplomatic facility was attacked in the evening. the following morning, maybe someone could have gotten there and spared two american lives and chased off the people who were attacking them. maybe capture some of them. who knows? could have been a very different scenario. so we need to hear more about that, too. i could go on and on and on. i have so many questions. people who tell you they've all been answered, they are just not telling you the truth. i'm going to stop talking now so you can get to ask some of your questions. >> thank you very much, helle. a lot of terrific unanswered questions you outlined there. we've gone to what is a very, very big scandal and frankly growing bigger. now, i'd like to invite questions from the audience for our panel. please do identify yourself and any affiliation you might have. would like to kick off with a

question. this gentleman here. >> i'm joe kauffman. with congressman brighton steins office in the house. question. what recourse exists if u.s. attorney maken refuses to file the statute you refer to and bring uncooperative witnesses before a grand jury? >> what should happen is what happened with the attorney general. the house held the attorney general in contempt. the house of representatives hired its own lawyers. they are in court right now trying to get a federal judge to enforce that contempt citation. there's been a long fight

because after the contempt citation the president asserted executive privilege with regard to the documents the attorney general was refusing to turn over. they could do that again in this situation, but i frankly think the house of representatives should go ahead right now and appropriate the money needed to hire private counsel to enforce any contempt citations against any witnesses who refuse to answer questions. unless the administration wants to claim executive privilege with regard to any and all of those witnesses, those an enforcements should move much faster because in those an enforcements, if the administration isn't coming in and saying, well, there is a reason why this witness isn't testifying or not answering questions, then they ought to actually be able to get pretty quick resolution from a federal judge. what will happen there is, if a

federal judge can order the person put in jail until they answer the questions. >> hans, how does that affect documents? in terms of executive privilege? you're talking about individuals answering questions, but what sort of powers does the special committee have in terms of documentation? >> well, they've got -- they have the same power that congress has to get hold of, frankly, any document -- the only kind of document that the legislative branch has the ability to withhold from congress are things covered by executive privilege. even as you all know, a great example is in the area where you used to be, you used to work directly and that is classified materials. if you are a member of the public, obviously, you cannot get classified materials through the freedom of information act request, but congress has the

ability to get those kind of documents. they have committees that are speckly set up. these permanent select commit he's. they have special rooms where they can look at these classified documents. that is a good example where congress has the constitutional authority to get documents that the public does not. unless the president asserts executive privilege of some kind to cover any of the documents this committee wants to get on the benghazi case, the administration has an obligation to turn it over. >> that's certainly a possibility, right? >> yeah. it is a possibility. we know they put in a very broad claim of executive privilege in all the documents related to operation fast and furious because that's what the contempt citation to the attorney general was about. >> does that include the president's diary, which is a document that people have been talking about here? >> well, yeah. very well, he could. anything directly -- it's much easier for the president to assert executive privilege with

regard to documents in the white house, exchanges with close aides. it gets a little more brittle when that executive privilege claim starts going down into the executive branch. the further you get from the president, the tougher it is to make an executive privilege claim stick. an important issue here is to remember that what's going on in court right now is a federal judge is looking whether the executive privilege claim that was made by the president with regard to operation fast and furious, whether it is legitimate. the justice department actually filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit saying that this was a political question, and that the courts had no business determining the legitimacy of the president's executive privilege claim. the judge threw out that motion

in a rather curt the other, which they said i'm sorry this issue was decided 30 years ago when richard nixon tried to make that claim and the courts decided, no, they have the ability to make the decision on legitimacy of executive privilege claim. >> good morning, i'm mike doherty with levin d. from atlanta. about the media circus and getting the american public attention. we have media bias covering benghazi, and "60 minutes" boils it down to a bit of a fiasco. that to me feeds into the administration's agenda of circling, confusing and draining people's attention dry and it falls by the wayside. how are we going to reinvigorate a broad media attention to this about anything else? >> question for helle. >> that is a really good question. fox news has been on this case

from the beginning and done a terrific job. as you mentioned, cbs took a pretty good stab at it in the "60 minutes" report and flubbed some of it. poor lara logan got completely eviscerated as a consequence, the journalist during questions. i think i would encourage the committee, the select committee to inquire some expert communication staff. i think that they will need to be able to work with reporters from the main media to reach out to them in a fairly sophisticated way to make sure that the right bits of the story get out at the right time to the right people. we will be banging the drum here at the heritage foundation in our daily signal blog and

publications and programs like this. we are very, very grateful when people cover those and they get seen around the country. but you know, even with the kind of biased coverage we've seen of benghazi by the mainstream media, there is in the american people a great distrust of the story that has been pedalled by the obama administration. i've spoken to so many audiences about this issue. people are enflamed about it. they really are. it's a fairly broad spectrum of people. this is not just republicans. people do see that this is a huge issue, a huge scandal if you actually sit down and talk about it for a bit and let them express their views. and we have polls, opinion polling more broadly that

suggests this. i'm just hoping that reaching out and persuading some of the reporters from the big newspapers. even if you work for the mainstream media, if you are a good reporter, if somebody really wave as good story in front of your nose, it's very hard to resist it. i really believe that. i hope we can get the word out. >> most of these liberations won't be public, right? this will be done essentially in private. that's where it differs from a committee hearing is that i imagine they will have a press secretary but it's possible the chairman could agree to hold off on saying anything until the end, everything is done and the report is issued. i'm not sure there is anything in the legislation that talks about that or any agreements. my understanding is this will be different from a hearing, committee hearing in that deliberations will be done in private. >> from what i understand, that is true. i expect towards the end of this -- there will certainly be

a report. there will also probably be some public hearings, maybe as get further into the investigation. >> the one thing people should understand is they should not expect that there is going to be any public hearings any time soon. that's not the most effective way for this committee to do its job. the most effective way for the committee to do its job is to hire a staff of good lawyers with prosecutoprosecutorial exp. intense depositions where the witnesses can be cross-examined as much as possible. you start with the people who were on the ground in libya and work from there up to the top of the state department and the pentagon. i don't want to compare this to a mob operation or a drug cartel, but when the justice

department goes after and investigates, those kind of organizations, you start with witnesses at the bottom and you work your way up. because as you get information and documentation from these witnesses, you can use that to then confront the people above them and the people above them to find contradictory statements, to find conflicts, to find things that frankly are not true. doing this behind closed doors is the way to do this. that includes, by the way, any witness who says, well, i work at the state department but i was told if i talk to you, there are going to be severe consequences. the very next person subpoenaed should be the individual who was that person's supervisor who told them there would be severe consequences to them for talking to the committee. that is the next person subpoenaed to come over and have their deposition taken.

that is the way you do an effective investigation. in the end, you should have public hearings to present what you found. maybe to have the best witnesses who have come forward with honest information. from now until they get well into the investigation, you won't be hearing much in the press if they do it that way. >> just a follow-up. helle, with regard to the media coverage of this, and bearing in mind your own experience in europe and the uk, as well. is there a big difference between how the press will be covering this in britain, for example? and the united states? is there a cultural deference here in america towards the white house, towards politicians? it's easy for us to imagine in london a foreign secretary or government minister being forced to resign over a scandal like this. we haven't seen a single

official held for account. >> there are lower level state department officials who had some professional disciplinary put on administrative leave or something like that. nothing further has been done than that. i think you're right. fleet street has famous tradition for digging in its teeth into the british government and keeping at it. i would think if this was a british scandal we would have seen it treated differently. i do think so. think back to the iraq war when there were scandals there in britain which blew wide open. it's been quite deferential and unfortunately so. >> didn't secretary kerry immediately restore those four individuals? >> i think you're right, yes. >> i have a question for hans. i want to go back to the

executive privilege thing. if congress subpoenas individuals from the executive office and the president, generally the rool has been these people because of the confidentialities that take place between the president and his staff, they do not require congressional nomination or consent to be in those positions. because having worked on the hill and seeing these committees in the past, not having served on them myself, but been around them, there is going to be a tension between allowing these people to testify before congress or before this committee and exerting executive privilege. can you talk about that? i think that is going to be a critical issue here. i don't know if there is any precedent in terms of the willingness of individuals to be allowed to. i imagine, and i don't know if the committee has to have agreement on both sides of the aisle for who they subpoena. so what happens them?

if they go and ask for individuals of the press office and want them to come and testify, for instance, about the narrative that was presented to the american people by susan ri rice. how do you see that playing out and how does the president invoke executive privilege? >> a letter gets sent to congress saying, i claim executive privilege with regard to and then describes what that is. i can tell you from my experience with the justice department where i worked four years, the justice department has always taken the position, its middle management people and up can appear before senate and house committees. they've taken position we are not going to allow line attorneys to appear because that

will interfere with what they do but there have been instances in the pass where congress insisted getting testimony from particular individuals and they have agreed to do that. this committee has a broad mandate. there are nine different things they are supposed to look at and the last one is a catch-all that lets them look at anything connected with this. including, and this is important, that they've been asked to make any legislative recommendations that they believe are necessary to be sure this kind of thing does not happen again. i think that gives them a very broad spectrum of what they can look at. if the administration wants to prevent specific testimony by specific individuals, they are going to have to come up with a good reason to do that. if that happens, the committee needs to immediately publicize that. the administration needs to take

responsibility for what it's doing. in regard to documents, they have to exercise executive privilege in writing and tell congress which documents it doesn't intend to turn over and why it's not turning them over. by the way, if they end up in a lawsuit with them, one of the things the house will be able to do is ask for what is called a privileged log. when one side says the documents do not have to be turned over, one thing the courts require is what's called a privilege log. that is a list of all the documents by name, the date, the people involved and usually a one-line description of what's in it. so that the judge can make a decision as to whether or not it really is a privileged document, and the other side knows at least what to ask for even if they are not getting the substantive nature of the document. oftentimes privilege logs can give you some pretty interesting clues as to what it is the other

side doesn't want you to see. >> what sort of information would be in a privileged log? >> it will be a description of a -- a complete description of all documents that have been or being asserted that they can be withheld. for example, if there is an e-mail from the white house to a state department official that they are withholding, the privilege log would have to identify it saying who it's from, who it went to, the date, and some kind of brief description what the subject matter of is of the e-mail. again, so that the other side can try to dispute or make any claims they want to before a judge as to whether or not that really is a privileged document. >> gentleman in the back. >> j.c. derek of "world"

magazine. dr. brookes you mentioned the idea of no justice for the perpetrators of the attacks. i'm curious, can you talk about what reasoning, your thoughts on do you think it's more on the part of the administration they have ulterior motives or incompetency? what would be the reasoning for nothing? >> justice is defined a number of different ways. there are a number of people interested in justice whether talking about family members or colleagues or the american people for the destruction and taking of human life that took place in benghazi. that's your legal definition of it. it should be swift and should be proportionate. that is critically important. i'm worried about the signal we are sending to others since it appears these individuals who were responsible for this are living with impunity at the moment. now, you're right. that is a very interesting question.

i guess only the administration can really answer that question. i'll give you some potential thoughts for it. perhaps the investigation is still ongoing in terms of who, in particular, is responsible for this. the administration took over a year to put al saria on its terrorism list and name individuals such as fatalla as a designated terrorist. they definitely want to take action against the right people, the people who are responsible for that. that's a possibility. i don't know. i'm hoping the committee will look at some of these questions. another possibility is the political situation in libya. i think would be very much a stretch to try to say the libya operation militarily was successful, has been a success overall. any reading of the press recently shows the country is in

complete turmoil. there may be hundreds of militia groups. there are terrorist organizations. i think there is a dispute between the administration and others as to whether groups like al sharia are affiliated with al qaeda or not, or whether they embrace al qaeda's ideology. we've seen a number of groups come in and out of al qaeda over the years, but there's certainly, i think there's animus towards the united states from some of these groups. that's the reason they are on our terrorist list. there isn't much of a functioning government in libya. there is a government in tripoli. there's potential for civil war now between other forces and these militias. it's my understanding that when they smashed al libi responsible for the african bombings, i think it was last september, that the libyan government was very unhappy about that.

that this was the take down of the individuals responsible for the attack on the benghazi consulate was going to be done by the libyans or with the the libyans. but my sense is there isn't much of an organization or structure or capability within libya today to undertake something along these lines without major intervention of u.s. forces, special operations forces or intelligence officers or law enforcement. so it could be the concern that if there were major operation by the united states whether it's a drone strike, or an apprehension, that it would -- could lead to making the government even more fragile or bring it down entirely or create more chaos. once again, these are just possibilities. you'd have to ask the administration. it's possible also in terms of the investigation that there's just a lack of intelligence out there.

tripoli's different from benghazi. benghazi, i would say that the intelligence environment is probably not very permissive, very dangerous for americans. as we saw and witnessed in benghazi two years ago. so maybe we don't have the attention to support that. we've seen the people on the fbi website. i'm having a hard time not being a law enforcement individual reading between the lines on this -- on these individuals who are pictured. the fbi said make -- maybe hans can say something about that. but they say these people are of interest, we'd like to talk to them. that's what it says. it's very unique language that i'm sure has more meaning than i'm able to devine from it. or maybe they just got these individuals' pictures taken on surveillance cameras recovered from the -- from benghazi.

another possibility is maybe operational planning is ongoing. as i said at the end of my talk, i don't want this special committee to say anything publicly that would undermine our ability to bring these people to justice. i would like them to look into it. most of these proceedings, as i understand, will be behind closed doors. i'm sure classified information will be discussed. i don't want to do anything that would prevent them from looking into this. and i don't want them to disclose anything that would undermine our ability to do that. those are a couple of the reasons that are possible. once again, this is only -- and i would like somebody really to ask the administration about this. why, after almost two years, we haven't brought these people to justi justice. they may be reluctant to say something about it. then there's other possible reasons out there as well, including political ones. but once again, i don't know

what's going on. i think it's something that i would like to know about, as long as it doesn't undermine our national security. those are some of the thoughts. but once again, i'm really worried, i think we're in a very difficult environment today in terms of terrorism. the government is willing to say that they're very concerned about what's going on in syria, and the proliferation of these al qaeda affiliate groups or islamists that may have america in the crosshairs. i'm worried about not having sent a signal that an attack on an american embassy and taking of american lives is something that may go unpunished. once again, i'm willing to hope that something is going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of. and that ultimately, and soon, these individuals who are responsible for this terrible tragedy will be held to account. >> definitely setting a very, very dangerous precedent making

attacks on u.s. embassies. >> some people have said over the years about terrorists, especially islamist terrorists, that they can't be deterred. i don't necessarily believe this. especially their leaders. and i think this is found in the fact that osama bin laden hid out for ten years. he didn't come out -- he wasn't out fighting. who knows where he was between 2001 and his demise. but i don't believe that some of them cannot be deterred. certainly dissuaded or denied. and so i think it's incredibly important that justice be served. of course, it depends on how you define justice. but i think showing that you cannot attack diplomatic american facilities and destroy their property with impunity. >> a final question before we close the panel.

with regard to hillary clinton, the stakes are very high for her, with all the benghazi investigation. do you think that she's going to be very cooperative with this investigation? or is she going to try and shy away? how do you see hillary clinton handling what is potentially an explosive issue at a very sensitive time? do you think she's going to be confronting her critics head-on? or is she going to talk more about the benghazi issue? >> i think her book, which is supposed to be coming out here june 10th, which gave us a preview of it, suggests she's going to be on the counterattack. you know, her opening statement

is that she's not going to make any political hay on the back of dead men. and when you consider her own potential role in this, in the statement department, the mind sort of boggles. but she has expressed on a couple of different occasions that she regrets what happened. who doesn't regret it. but she's not suggesting she's willing to take responsibility for it. i very much think she would probably try as hard as she cannot to cooperate with the committee. or at least to do so in a very limited fashion. and i think that's why the democrats actually in the end agreed to be on the committee, so that she would have a posse on her side there. >> right. and do you see hillary clinton actually -- >> well, i don't know what her attitude will be cooperating or not. from a legal standpoint, it's much easier to subpoena a former

government official than a current government official. so once she stepped down from being secretary of state, that opened her up in a way that basically got rid of all the protections that current high officials in the government have of avoiding testifying before congress. >> all right. this is going to be an interesting few months ahead. thank you very much to everybody for joining us today. and thank you very much to our distinguished panel for an excellent series of remarks. thank you. in just a few minutes, we'll take you live to capitol hill

for a briefing on college affordability. harry reid and other democratic leaders will talk about legislation that would allow borrowers to refinance their old loans with the lower interest rates. the briefing is set to get under way in just a few minutes at noon eastern. we'll have it when it starts here on c-span3. president obama continues his three-nation european trip. he was in brussels earlier today, where he held a joint news conference with british prime minister david cameron. they addressed a number of issues, including the release of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. here's what the president had to say. >> all right. that's par for the course. but i'll repeat what i said two days ago. we have a basic principle. we do not leave anybody wearing the american uniform behind. we had a prisoner of war whose

health had deteriorated, and we were deeply concerned about, and we saw an opportunity and we seized it. and i make no apologies for that. we had discussed with congress the possibility that something like this might occur. but because of the nature of the folks that we were dealing with, and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important to go ahead and do what we did. and we're now explaining to congress the details of how we moved forward. but this basic principle that we don't leave anybody behind, and this basic recognition that that often means prisoner exchanges with enemies, is not unique to my administration. it dates back to the beginning of our republic. and with respect to how we

announced it, i think it was important for people to understand that this is not a distraction, this is not a political football. you have a couple of parents whose kid volunteered to fight in a distant land. who they hadn't seen in five years. and weren't sure whether they'd ever see again. and as commander in chief of the united states armed forces, i am responsible for those kids. and i get letters from parents who say, if you are in fact sending my child into war, make sure that that child is being taken care of. and i write too many letters to folks who unfortunately don't see their children again, after fighting a war. i make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents, and

that the american people understand that this is somebody's child. and that we don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back. that's part of the news conference with british prime minister david cameron. we'll show it tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. here on c-span3 we're live at the capitol waiting for harry reid and other senate democratic leaders. they'll speak to reporters about legislation they're proposing that would allow student loan borrowers to refinance their old loans at lower interest rates. it should get under way shortly. the senate finishing up work today on several nominations, including that of sylvia burwell to head health and human services. there will be a vote on that coming up at 1:45 eastern. that will pretty much wrap it up for sfoenators for the week.

there is a delegation to the normandy anniversary, the d-day anniversary, a delegation of nine senators heading to kolville where the president will speak as well. senator kasey of pennsylvania, jon tester, michael bennett, joe donnelly of indiana, and mazy horono of hawaii. that anniversary tomorrow, we'll have live coverage from the president, and french president we expect 4:30 a.m. eastern. the 70th anniversary of d-day, over on c-span. and, of course, online at c-span.org. we're waiting for the senators to arrive for their news conference on college costs. we'll also let you know that later on this afternoon we'll bring you live coverage on a senate hearing looking at the first responder wildfire

training. that will be coming up at 2:30 eastern.

there's $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt in the united states. senate leaders momentarily will be talking about a proposal to legislation to allow borrowers to refinance their old loans. it should get under way shortly. live coverage here on c-span3 as senators finish up their legislative work on the floor of the senate. a vote coming up in an hour and 45 minutes or so, and that would be on the nomination of burwell to be the head of health and

human services. the house has been out all week. they are back next week to resume legislative work. >> ready? good. student loan debt is an emergency in america now. this week, the democrats have

introduced the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act that can help young men and women who are struggling with student loan debt. right now, there's $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. 40 million americans are dealing with student loan debt. today it's causing young people not to be able to save up money to buy a home, not to be able to start small businesses, not to be able to make the purchases that move this economy forward. the federal reserve bank, the consumer financial protection bureau, the department of the treasury have all sounded the alarm. student loan debt is a drag on this economy. so this is truly an emergency circumstance. it is hurting people, household by household by household, family by family by family, and it is also hurting this economy. the democrats have introduced a plan bank on students emergency loan refinancing.

it's a pretty simple plan. the idea is just to refinance the outstanding student loan debt. we've proposed to refinance it from the current high interest rates. there are people out there with student loan debt at 6%, at 8%, at 10%, and even higher, depending on when they took out their loans. our proposal is to refinance all of that debt down to exactly the numbers that democrats and republicans agreed last year is the right number for new debt issued in 2013-2014. that would bring, for example, undergraduate loans down to 3.86%, fixed across the board. this is fully paid for. we proposed to limit the tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. the loopholes that let them pay at tax rates lower than their secretaries. and cbl has just given a score,

and we not only fully pay for it, actually, this bill if passed as written would reduce the deficit by billions of dollars. this is an issue about our economy. we are here because it is an economic emergency. but it is also an issue about our values. who do we invest in. do we invest in the billionaires who have already made it big, or do we take that same money and invest in young people who are trying to start their economic lives. it is time to pass this bill. time to get started for young people who are out there who are really trying to make something. so, they want a fair shot at an affordable education, we have introduced a bill to provide that. thank you. >> i want to thank senator warren for her leadership. we worked on a number of bills relating to college loans and college debt. this is the centerpiece. and senator warren has worked long and hard to put together an

approach that will give literally millions of americans, students and families an opportunity to finally get out from under the burden of student debt, which is growing so dramatically. it poses the basic question to congressional republicans, whose side are you on? we've asked this question over and over again. we asked this question when we wanted to extend unemployment benefits to the folks out of work. so they had a fighting chance to keep their families together, to keep their homes and to find a new job. we posed this question to congressional republicans on raising the minimum wage. we posed it as well when it came to paycheck fairness, whether men and women would be treated fairly in the workplace when it came to compensation. each and every time the congressional republicans have made it clear, they're not on the side of working families. well, we'll give them a new opportunity. an opportunity to decide whether congressional republicans are on the side of the 44 million americans who are currently paying off college student

loans. what we have with this legislation is a lifeline. i've been all over the state of illinois, chicago, down state, campus after campus, story after story, student after student, and it's all the same. students and their families are overwhelmed with debt in america. it compromises their lives. it reduces their opportunities in life. we're going to give them a chance for refinancing a lower interest rate, and finally coming to grips with this debt which has compromised their lives to this point. i want to thank senator warren for this leadership. there's a big question, will any senate republican step up and join us in this effort to help these students and the working families that support them. >> most americans don't realize that 40 million american families are paying interest rates that are exorbitant, and they're paying it to the u.s. government.

the u.s. government is charging people 6%, 7% when interest rates are at 3%. for their student loans. it is just incredible. and our bill rectifies that, as well as those private banks that are charging as much as 14%. what does it mean? it means maybe a family, a young family that's starting out can buy a home, which they've delayed because of student debt. maybe they can buy a car. maybe they can start a new business. student loan debt is the hidden anchor on our entire economy. because when young families can't get started because they have this huge burden of debt on their shoulders, it's no good. and so we want to give them a fair shot. every person deserves a fair shot to afford college and a fair shot at a reasonable

interest rate when interest rates are so far down. our fair shot agenda shows that we are for average families, and we can't get any of our republican colleagues to support those families. and it is sinking in to people who understand it. i want to thank all of my colleagues who worked so hard on this. elizabeth warren has been a leader here and al franken has had some very good ideas and is one of our sponsors. so is tom harkin, the head of the committee. and we're united. we are united. now, we pay for it by saying that people who make over $1 million should pay the same tax rate as their secretaries. we put in the buffett rule. it gives us enough money to pay for the whole bill and a surplus so this is actually a debt-reducing bill.

but if our republican colleagues want a different way to pay for it, that people shouldn't pay for exorbitant interest rates and pay for it in a different way, we welcome them to step forward and do it. make no mistake about it, this is a huge issue here in america. people on the college campuses are talking about it. and we are going to make this happen. maybe not tomorrow -- maybe not next week, but we will make this happen. because it's only fair, it's only right, and the vast majority of americans are on our side, democrat and republican. >> as you heard, today more americans than ever are really being crushed under this burden of student loan debt. it's hurting borrowers, it's hurting our families and our economy. and people are looking to congress to do something about this. yesterday i held a hearing on this issue, on the budget committee, and we have a young woman there by the name of

brittany. she said that -- told us that since she was in the second grade, she wanted to be a teacher more than anything. but to make that dream possible, and to go to college, she had to rely on student loans. now, today, brittany is dealing with the overbearing burden of high monthly payments to pay down that debt. after graduating, she said those crushing student loans have been the driving force of her decisions, and will continue to be for the next 25 years. decisions like buying a home or saving for retirement. she was there to ask congress to act, and to help people like her so that americans have a fair shot at pursuing their dreams. and that is exactly what senator warren and senate democrats are trying to do. the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act would simply let borrowers refinance their student loans. and put more money into borrowers' pockets when they do that, so they can make ends

meet, or put money down for a home or start a new business, or make the kinds of purchases that frankly will help boost our economy today. and this bill is fiscally responsible. it's fully paid for by asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. so the question today is, will republicans choose to protect loopholes for millionaires and billionaires or will they choose to help ease the burden for student debt. will they side for people like brittany and many more like her, or lower the interest rates on their loans. are republicans going to work with us to help families and the economy, or are they going to put politics first. i really hope that they choose the bipartisan path on this. just like they did last year with the bipartisan student loan certainty act. they're asking us to help them out with an increasing debt on families that they're having to pay for year after year after year, making them make choices that hurt their families, their communities and their economy. it's time for us to be on their

side. >> last friday i was in las vegas, had a meeting with all the student leaders of the universities in southern nevada. and they are afraid. the students they represent are afraid. when we talk about 44 million people having student debt, these young men and women i met with, they believe they do deserve a fair shot. and they haven't been getting it. that's what this is all about. we want to make sure that student debt is reduced, not increased. and you'll find almost every university around the country, they're talking about raising the tuition even more. which means they'll have to borrow more money. that's why this legislation is so vitally important to the stability of our great country. yeah? >> this is for you or for senator warren. >> okay. >> but my understanding of the bill is that it would take any additional revenue from the tax to refinance the loans.

>> you'll have the professor answer that. >> the cbo has now scored it. and the cbo has told us what the costs will be if people who are eligible refinance down to 3.86% for undergraduate loans. a little higher on graduate student loans. the numbers we agreed to last summer. the cbo has determined the cost of that. they've determined the revenue that will come in from the buffett rule, and determined there will be billions of dollars more that will come in in revenue, from the amount that we need to spend to refinance the student loans. so the additional amount will be used to pay down the deficit. >> how much? >> the cbo's got a number out there. there's still a couple of tweaks in the bill so we don't have an exact number, but we do know it is many billions of dollars. is that all right.

>> just fine. >> do you have any intention for taking on the issue again here? >> yes, my colleague from nevada has been stellar in this. he has talked about this at least once a week. what he's doing is scrambling to get a few more republicans. any time senator heller makes progress on this, we'll bring it back. people are just as desperate today as they were two months ago. yes? >> the video you saw of sergeant bergdahl we saw yesterday, some came out and said, it looked like maybe he was drugged. what was your impression? >> i don't know what was in his mind, or what medicine or things he had taken. he just didn't talk with a lot of -- didn't speak too clearly. but here's the point. the issue is, our great country

had a soldier who has been in captivity for five years. he tried to escape a couple times. the conditions that he lived under during this period of time were deplorable. the president of the united states, as commander of chief of the united states military, had a decision to make. he had an opportunity to bring home an american soldier, and he brought him home. and i'm glad he did. >> what is your impression of his health? there's the argument that they're making that his health was -- >> i don't know. i don't know. i'm not going to -- i don't know. what we do know, that his health is not good, that's obvious. but that's not -- let's assume he was in vibrant health and he was faking all this. he's an american soldier in cap sift for five years. the war's winding down.

let's bring him home. we did. and if there's any other issues related to him as was so clearly explained, when he gets in a condition that they can stabilize his mental and physical situation, they'll determine what if anything more should be done. >> do you think you and the white house are working better in congress -- >> listen, i know everyone here, the timeline was very, very brief here. this has nothing to do with bringing it down in a classified briefing. we all know the president had a very short period of time to make a decision. he made the decision to bring him home, and i'm glad he did. because based on my opinion, based on nothing in the classified briefing, in my opinion, every day that he was there was a day closer to his dying. >> how come you were the only one who got a heads-up the day

before? >> i'm not sure i'm the only one. this is making a big deal over nothing. the whole deal, is it friday or saturday? what difference does it make? what difference does it make? >> what do you think of the request by 1078 of your republican colleagues who called on the administration to declassify the five files on these prisoners who were released, and release the live video that you saw? >> that's a decision they'll have to make. that's not for us to make. and also, in answer to everyone's question here, the president did this in consultation as commander in chief with his highest military advisers, and there's not a single one that i'm aware of who disagreed with his decision. >> sir, on general motors reporting today saying there was no cover-up, that they fired people, senator mccaskill called for a hearing later in the summer -- [ inaudible ] -- do you believe the department of justice will bring criminal charges against the people who

were fired that were being held accountable? >> they were fired. do you want to put them in jail now? i don't know. let's have some hearings and determine if they did anything that was illegal before we start throwing them in jail. >> do you believe senator sanders and mccain will be able to come to a compromise? >> i sure hope so. i spoke to senator sanders a couple times today. senator mccain is working with him. it's my understanding senator schumer has talked to them last night and today. i'm confident and hopeful that they would work something out on a bipartisan basis. i've gone over the outline of what they're doing. i hope that sticks, because it sounded pretty good to me. >> could this lead into next week? >> let's wait and see what they come up with. we're a long ways from what they want to do, to what they're going to do. thanks, everybody.

a reminder if you missed any of this news conference, you can watch it online in our video lie braerg c-span.org. yesterday two hearings related to student loan legislation. the senate is expected to take up student loan debate next week. student loan debt. you can see that debate on the senate floor next week on c-span2. we are back on capitol hill here on c-span3 later this afternoon for a senate subcommittee hearing, looking at the training and resources available to firefighters and first responders in communities threatened by wildfires. witnesses include the deputy chief of the u.s. forest service who is responsible for fire and aviation management, a representative of the international association of firefighters, the mayor of an alaskan community recently evacuated due to a massive wildfire. that hearing is at 2:30 eastern. on c-span, the foreign intelligence committee takes up

a bill to rein in the nsa surveillance program. they'll hear contrasting views from nsa and fbi officials as well as verizon's vice president and privacy advocates. that hearing live on our c companion network c-span at 2:30. we wanted a building that was very accessible to the community. and it needed to be able to incorporate a future that we didn't -- you know, you can't predict the future. part of the problem with the old library is that we were tapped out on as many computers and wiring that we could fit into that structure. so our new building needed to have a lot of flexibility, and movement into the future. one thing we liked about the design is the designer combined

different geometric features. we have the triangular part of the building, we have a round auditorium that sits on the side of the building, a rectangular on the west side that we call the bar. and then the crescent wall that hugs the library on the north and east side. and all of these different geometric features are bridged together with skylights. so light flows through the building at all levels. and we have a total 360-degree view of our surroundings. >> i think it is vital for a community to have a library that brings people together. and this particular space was geared in bringing the community together. it's an opportunity for people to remember that the things that hold a city together, the public safety officers, the mayor and his various departments and

library really work together to build the city. i like that we have physically done that with our architecture. >> this weekend learn about the rich history and literary life of salt lake city, utah, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on book tv, and sunday at 5:00 p.m. on "american history tv." in london this week, queen elizabeth ii traveled from buckingham palace to parliament for the state opening of the parliament. she read a speech that outlines the priorities for the coming year. here's the coverage from bbc's hugh edwards. >> it's 10:30 at west minister. stand by for a unique blend of pageantry before the general election.

>> good morning. the queen arrives here in the traditional carriage procession, it's the start of a new session of parliament that the general election as we know is just 11 months away. so there's hardly any time to start an ambitious new program of legislation. having said that, there are significant items in the list of bills that we're expecting today. and we will be talking about those in due course. we'll also put the thing in the wider political context following the recent european

elections we saw on the rise, raising new questions for the other party leaders. plenty for david cameron to think about. he left 10 just about a half an hour ago. it is the coalition's program of government being announced today. the other bit of the coalition, the deputy prime minister also left in the last 45 minutes or so on his way to the houses of parliament. no words from them yet. we have had some words from others. >> the discontent with the way the country is run, we need the queen's speech to rise to that challenge. it will be making hard work pay, reforming our banks, building homes again in britain, freezing energy bills, meeting the big challenges our country faces. >> just a flavor of the debate that we'll get on the queen's speech in a short while. this is where the queen arrives at the sovereign's entrance, in

45 minutes' time. when the queen arrives it will be, i can tell you now, in a brand-new coach today. it is called the diamond jubilee state coach, built in australia. completed in 2010. not delivered until march of this year. all the little blacks and names inside show you that this is kind of a mobile showcase of british tradition and history, going back nearly 1,000 years. we'll have more to say about that later on. but continuing in that tradition, talking about the pageantry today, not just the politics in the house of lords, guests have already started to arrive for the biggest event in the parliamentary calendar. no one allowed in unless they're wearing the appropriate parliamentary robe. new faces today. we have baroness lawrence, who took a seat in the house of lords in the past year.

danny finkelstine there. some people reminding us maybe of a different age, there we have lord howe, chancellor, and next to him his wife baroness. and more recent, but still feels like quite a long time ago, we have another former chancellor, lord lamont there. they're all waiting for the queen's speech which will take place around 11:30, the speech to be delivered from this spectacular gilded throne. the queen's throne on the left. later the queen will summon members of the house of commons to this chamber to the house of lords to listen to that speech, and then, of course, unveiling the government's legislative program for the session. plenty of ceremony, tradition surrounding the state opening. we trace it back to the 16th

century. though this current ceremony dates from 1852. that's after the palace of westminster was rebuilt after the fire of 1934. plenty of politics today to talk about as well. my first guest, baroness, the first lord speaker, presiding over the house of lords, a position created back in 2006. thank you very much for coming in. matthew parris is with us of the "times," in the distant past a conservative mp. good to have you with us, matthew. as always on these days, nick robinson, the bbc's political editor. nick, just a thought here. a lot of people didn't think we would get to this point of this coalition, that we would last in 2014. here we are with the queen's speech. >> i sat in this chair, in this sort of studio bubble here on the days after the general election, before the coalition was formed. people will say, we won't have an election in months. whoever does the deal, it won't

last. i think i said, i don't want to say i told you so, but i did say it would actually. you're right, a lot of what this speech is right is david cameron and nick clag saying, we told you so. and what's more, for those who say we've still got nothing to do, we're just counting the days to the next general election, we've got quite a meaty bill. you'll see the big bill about reform of pensions, and not just hearing from the chancellor a few months ago in the budget, but also this idea of dutch style pensions. the message here is, we're busy, we're active, we're keeping going. >> we'll talk about the individual bills as we go along. baroness, when you were in the position of lordship, a few years ago, what were you doing now? >> getting dressed. because getting dressed took some time with the amount of gear that you had to wear. what i found was the rehearsal

the night before wasn't like real life, because you could trip over -- or laugh, or you didn't actually wear the robes. and the robes are enormously heavy. and i was always just terrified of the steps that go down there, of tripping over, and the whole of the house having to pick me up and commentating about it. >> i'm sorry, but we might have been talking about it. but we were worried about you. but you seemed to enjoy it. >> well, i hope i put the correct face on it. because one is very conscious of being part of something that had a long history. althou although, of course, i had to say that my part of it was made up by chamberlain two days before the state opening. there had never been a lord speaker before. they had to deal with how this differentiated from the lord chancellor. >> we'll be seeing him in a short while.

he plays a key role today. matthew, as we look at these images, it's all about today, pageantry, tradition, is politics undersold today because we're so close to an election or not? >> no, in a sense the politics is being oversold. there's not much politics here, except for the run-up to the general election. there will be nothing of political policy, or nothing much in the queen's speech. we just have a very long run-up to a general election ahead of us. this is all about positioning and jockeying and getting one over the other on the other side. you'll see in the queen's speech just basically one up on you, nick, or one up on you, dave, or one up on you, ed. the pageantry is all, we should just enjoy the pageantry. i found difficulty getting here and ended up in a whole crowd of beef eaters.

>> thank you very much. >> there are many beef eaters. >> that's right. >> this is part office christmas party, part school pride day, part tradition. people wait all year to bring their husband or their wife or their partner to celebrate their involvement in the houses of parliament. for the past few days of meeting people, they're repainting the walls and cleaning the carpets. it's a big occasion for the whole village. >> it's good to get our bearings. the chamber is packed there obviously now. let's get our bearings. so we understand what's happening when the queen arrives. she'll be arriving at the sovereign's entrance in a short while. the foot of the victoria tower, that is the tower that contains all the parliamentary archives. thankfully the reason i'm holding off, it looked pretty grim this morning, but looking a little better now in terms of the weather. from there, her majesty will

make her way up the staircase into the robing room itself. very soon we'll see members of the house of cavalry forming a guard there. the gentleman at arms there ready to take the place, too. the doors behind them, that's where the robing room is. no cameras allowed in there. that's where the queen will dress in the parliamentary robes before the procession in state. because once they're in the robing room, there will be a few minutes to get ready, then they will emerge in this magnificent room. this is the royal gallery. so accompanied -- they will go past all these guests, drawn from diplomatic and military circles. they will head along this gallery to the chamber of the house of lords. but they'll need to pass through that tiny little room you see just in the distance there. that is the prince's chamber. that is exactly above where die

forks was caught in november of 1605. they go through the chamber, and then into the splendid chamber of the house of lords. created back in 1847. that is where the queen will take the place on the throne. she'll give the signal to summon the house of commons, to give the speech. it's exactly halfway through the central lobby, the heart of the building. my colleague nick young is there for us. >> reporter: that's right. the queen, of course, will stage through to the house of lords. but this is where mps assert their authority. the first procession through here today will be the speaker of the commons. announce it on the way by police officers. then that cry of hats off strangers, telling members of the public here to take off their hats in reference to him. later, that ancient procession,

the man will go straight up to the door of the commons chamber. it will be slammed in his face. he then has to knock three times with the ebony stick to be allowed to go in. and then he summons mps to go in to hear the queen's speech. a couple of the rebellious members always refuse to go. >> peggy, thank you very much. we'll be back with you in a short while. talking about the tradition, the black robes procession isn't the only tradition rooted in history. there's an interesting little story i'll tell you about one member of house of commons never gets to hear the queen's speech, in a ceremony that dates back more than 300 years to the civil war, when relations between the sovereign and the commons weren't quite as nice as they are today, one mp becomes the queen's hostage. and the mp jim fitzpatrick explained the history, and told a few secrets of the time he was detained at her majesty's pleasure.

>> every time the sovereign comes to parliament to perform the state opening, we have to send the hostage to buckingham palace, just like today, to ensure that the monarch is safely returned. because they have one of our own. the tradition of the hostage comes from the execution of the monarch at the end of the civil war. and this depicts the start of the civil war almost. this is the king arriving at parliament to arrest five mps. he's been told to underman his authority. so at the end of the civil war, after the defeat of the royalists, charles was put on trial for treason. he was put on trial on this step in 1649. he was charged with treason, he was found guilty, and the next morning he was taken out and executed. as a result of that execution,

the royal household demands a hostage every time the monarch comes to perform the state opening of parliament. if anything happens to the monarch, the same fate will befall one of our colleagues. we're driven by a carr. we're outfitted with top hat, tails and trousers. when i was there, i was greeted by chamberlain. he made it absolutely clear i could do whatever i wanted in buckingham palace. i could have a gin and tonic or cup of coffee. or i could join him and watch the state opening on bbc. which is what i did with him. and we waited for her majesty's return. they don't actually lock me up. but they made it quite clear that i wasn't going anywhere. when i expressed my anxiety to the armed forces, he told me if anything happened to the majesty, we would have just shot you. and i don't think he was kidding.

because i'm detached from the main body of parliament, you also feel like you're part of the history, part of the tradition, which obviously gives a sense of achievement. so i was quite happy to come back, of course. but it was quite a meeting. >> from that interesting bit of tradition to what's going on right now inside the palace of westminster, because the detachment of the cavalry, lifeguards have already taken their place and lining the staircase, forming a guard up to the queen. and there we have the guard, one of the oldest of the bodyguards, raised by henry vii in 1485. the oldest military in existence in britain today. not the most senior. we'll see some of them later on.

the guard ready to go in. they've already performed, by the way, a ceremonial search of the cellars. that is, of course, linked to the dieforks incident. they performed the search of the cellar earlier today. the ceremonial searches have happened. they're now making their way into the royal gallery. and then they'll line the royal gallery ready for the great procession state which will come later on after the queen's speech. this for you now gives you a sense of the queen's root, if you like, where they will be following these footsteps, because they'll be leading from that staircase, and then along the royal gallery into the prince's chamber i told you about a short while ago.

baroness hayman still with me watching these images. so far, go into plan. this is the nice thing about this event. it is rooted in tradition. and yet lots of these people have real modern stories to tell. >> absolutely. as i say, it is wonderful. partly is the timing. and the precision. and the way you feel that you're fitting into a very well-oiled machine. but also, actually, it's flexible. and it does change. and, you know, when i was made lord speaker, and the lord chancellor had done that job before, the lord chancellor still had to be incorporated into the ceremony. they had to find out something to do with me. and the day was saved by the fact that there was a spare nase. because there's a spare kept in the room next to my office, it was okay. so they created a bit of

ceremony. and when you were commenting on it, because i saw it, it looked as if it had been going on for a hundred years. that is some of the real skill. >> that's the uniqueness of it. >> it's still the heart of the uk. they'll discuss the ramifications of that, the senators. mr. robinson, you'll turn your back on all of this, are you? >> i look forward to scotland's parliament being able to make all the big decisions rather than westminster, when we look

at all the mps tripping through from the house of commons all the way to the house of lords. it reminds us that only 4% of parl a men t-- parliamentians a parliament. not only do we get the government we want, the parliament that we always want, but something more befitting the century we're in rather than 100 or 200 years ago. >> do you think it's outdated? >> this is a constitutional monarchy. the queen, she's abdicated from a lot of the powers that previously were sovereign possessed. but the queen still has the power to appoint government. and that's why she's come today, at the request of the government, to read out the government's program. and it seems to me, still, that these perhaps symbols are of enormous significance, and underpinning the fact that we

live in a constitutional democracy, in which powers are very clearly separated. and from my point of view, much better that we should remain together, because the stability which has been provided by this parliament for so many years, it's something which affects the whole of the united kingdom. i don't want to give that up. >> the queen will have a role, she still has a role with the scottish parliament. >> of course she does. she plays a role in the opening of the scottish parliament. but what we're looking at this year is a significant improvement to governments in scotland. a basic democratic point. today we're witnessing the opening of a parliament, governed by the third and fourth placed parties in scotland. that's not a normal democracy. in a normal democracy, the most popular party with the most votes makes the decisions. westminster doesn't work like that. that's why we need to change it. it's out of date. and today's a really good example, showing us how out of date it is. >> that ignores the reality,

because in scotland we have our own government, with responsibility for a whole raft of affairs, of domestic affairs, which this parliament has performed to scotland. it's wrong to say that the percentage of directly elected people have influence over scottish politics is only 4%. of course, the present government, and indeed the labor party, the conservative party and liberal democrats have also, in the event of a no vote in september for which i will argue as fervently as i possibly can, the powers are given. >> we'll hear those proposals in the queen's speech, that it's so important here. >> you'll hear about it. the whole question of independence. >> thank you very much. despite this day of ceremony, there are, of course, political arguments, too. >> thank you. outside the palace of westminster, we have the queen

alexandra's state coach arriving. this is one of the first big moments of the ceremony today. it is bringing the imperial state crown. we have it on display inside the carriage. closely guarded. there are very senior figures. we'll talk about them in a short while. on behalf of the state, all of these powerful emblems of royal authority. they will be carefully taken out from the coach, and taken into the royal gallery and put on display until the queen arrives. because they are symbols of royal authority and power. so the coach. being brought into the victoria tower. this is the sovereign entrance of the palace of westminster. this is one of the royal parts of the palace of westminster.

this is an interesting task as well. because we have people here representing those who used to row the royal barges up and down the thames. used the thames the main mode of transport. they were called the watermen. there are 24 of them still under the command of the queen's barge master, who is standing there waiting to help bring out the state crown. there we have the crown jeweler, handing over to the barge master. this gentleman has been the controller. he's responsible for lots of the royal events and ceremonies and organizing them. it is his duty to take this great symbol of the queen's authority, the imperial state

crown. we see it at coronations. to take this in to the regalia room. and then taken up the room. it will be placed on a much grander cushion and then taken upstairs to put on display. just behind you can see the sword of state. another part of the regalia that is an integral part of today's ceremony. and there it is, just on the left, partly hidden there. the cap of maintenance. the cap of maintenance just a reminder of the gift that the pope used to make to those monarchs that he favored in days gone by. so they will be turning left

here just for a few minutes to make sure everything is polished and spick and span before they have the formal procession up the staircase there. and the household cavalry already in position as we know to provide that guard of honor when the queen arrives in 20 minutes time, 15, 20 minutes time. so now that the crown is there being safely looked after, let me introduce you to my new guests because i have the sg secretary of state for culture. tom break, the liberal democrat, the deputy leader of the house of commons and jack straw with me, labor's former foreign secretary, former home secretary, former lord chancellor, a could go on, jack. i'm beginning to think actually is there anything in the state openings you haven't done. >> i've not been the queen anyway. >> it's good to have you all with us. thank you very much.

what does today represent. >> today above all represents the fact that we live in a constitutional monarchy, and it took many centuries to get this balance of power established, but personally i think that we do pretty well in terms of our constitutional arrangements and, of course, it always needs to be improved, but the fact that we've had stability in this country effectively since the civil war in the 17th century, we've not been through the convulsions every other european country, almost bar none, has been through as well as countries across the world. it's based on this constitutional settlement. it was hacked out in the 17th century and then running through to the 18th. >> we're talking about a settlement that is referred to sometimes as the crown and parliament. >> yes. >> and there we have the crown. that is the crown that represents the settlement, if you like, which is the queen in relation to the legislature and the fact that this is in many ways a pretty unique kind of

carving up of the powers and responsibilities. >> yes. there are plenty of constitutional monarchies in europe and some elsewhere, but i think we've -- i would say this, but i think we've managed this really well, and as a result we've had this is it built, and, yes, it is the crown in parliament, so acts of parliament go through both houses, but they don't become law until they receive royal assent still pronounced or promulgated in ancient legal french. >> what's happening now is andrew ford, the controller in the lord chamberlin's office is handing over the crown to this gentleman, a very important figure. he's in charge of the royal parts of the palace of westminster, and he would be one of those greeting the queen when she arrives in very shortly. it's on display in the royal gallery, the crown, because it is there to demonstrate very publicly the queen's authority.

the reason that she's coming to parliament today, to open parliament and deliver that queen's speech. so the crown is on display, and if we also see what's happening next because we see that the cap of maintenance and the sword of state are also being placed on display, not quite as important as the imperial state crown, but they are also powerful and ancient symbols of the monarch's authority. so they'll be put on display and very shortly once we know that the queen and the duke of edinburgh are safely on their way from buckingham palace, the crown will be moved into the robing room ready for the queen's arrival and ready for that procession in state. so all of that is being done and waiting patiently to pick up again, we have tom with us. does this kind of ceremony really fit in in the 21st century britain? >> yes, i think it does. i agree 100% with what jack just

said about the constitutional importance of this. i came to parliament in 2010. that's the first opportunity i had to watch the queen's speech and be a participant in the commence up close, but even now many years on i still find it an enormous source of pride about our country. i think, of course, there's politics today. i'm sure we might get onto that later, but what's far more important today is actually this is a moment of national pride for us all and you sort of put the politics aside for a while and reflect on what this actually means about our country and our constitutional arrangements in government. >> your perspective, tom, what is it? some of your colleagues in the past have said to me, you know, we should move away from this kind of stuff in the 21st century. what's your take on this? >> we shouldn't forget there's a practical side to this in terms of the queen's speech and the content which, of course, sets out what the government's program of action is and it's an opportunity for the coalition government to set out its program, but also an opportunity

for the liberal democrats within the coalition to highlight some areas which we think are a priority such as child care and pensions. >> in all of this debate today, because there will be, of course, a debate on the speech itself later on, are we really in a position -- you were in government for many years, jack. are we really in a position where we say that with 11 months to go anyone is pretending that you can introduce, you know, a substantial program of legislation with that kind of time table or not? >> you can do it. i mean, i've been involved in doing it. i mean, this is quite a light legislative program compared with previous once and the government may want to make a marriage of that or it may be a consequence of coalition disagreement. i don't know. one of the things i do, however, feel really strongly is there's an opportunity here which i hope the government will take to ensure that the legislation that does come forward is better scrutinized on the floor of the house of commons. now, criticism i have of my own administration, we started this, although i always objected to

it, was to time table bills too tightly. there's been a bit of lightening of this, but there is going to be a lot of space available. what would be damaging for the reputation of parliament is if the same tight time tabling takes place and then the rest of the time is, frankly, devoted to general debates which are inconsequential and which an engagement doesn't take place. >> i think where jack is right is the scrutiny is absolutely important, and it is always right for any bill that comes before parliament, that you have enough time to scrutinize it, that it's fully transparent, and there's enough opportunity given for that. where i will pick up a bit what jack said is that i don't want to preempt what her majesty will be saying shortly, but i think you will find that this is -- there's more in this bill -- in this speech than there was in labor's last queen's speech. >> okay. tom, a quick word because i know the queen is just leaving the palace. >> yes, i think what people will find actually, that this is a program that's suitable for an 11-month session and that there is really -- there is meat in

it, and i think perhaps the suggestion this is a parliament that has nothing to do i think will be proven wrong. >> okay. so just a few seconds ago, this is what was happening at buckingham palace. this is the brand new diamond jubilee state coach i was telling you about. made in australia principally by the person who was in charge of the work on the australian state coach. we're being told this is a much more sumptuous affair and, in fact, a much more interesting vehicle in many ways because it does contain all kinds of little samples, if you like, not just in terms of timber and other things, which represent lots of the iconic locations throughout united kingdom, cathedrals, castles, royal residences, and all the rest of it. that coach we're going to see today is, if you like, a kind of mobile museum of british tradition going back 1,000

years. talking about that long tradition, we have the lord chamberlain, as i mentioned earlier, taking the imperial state crown from the royal gallery into the robing room because, of course, they now know that the queen is on her way, and it's not a long run even if that great coach from buckingham palace along the mall down to parliament square. so just a few minutes to go before her majesty arrives and the crown being taken into the robing room in preparation. nick? >> we asked tom whether he was comfortable with the ceremony. i think it's interesting, wee just gone through a moment of rejection of the political class in elections. not by everybody but by a substantial slug of the electorate chose not to vote or not to vote for any of these three guys' main parties in the uk. now, we heard from the smp angus robertson say we want to put this all behind us, all this ceremony and stuff. i think what's interesting is people don't seem to me to be

rejecting this particularly. back in the mid '90s there was a move, jack will remember it, in new labor to say in modernizing britain, does it mean putting this behind us and doing something rather different. it seems to me the political rejection is more about what politicians do and say and how they behave rather than this. >> well, i don't know. let's have a look because i'm just being told -- sorry, jack -- i'm just being told the prince of wales, duchess of cornwall are just arriving. this is the irish state coach. just catching the strains of the national anthem. that's the band of the welsh garts dire guards directed by major kevin roberts. providing a guard of honor for the queen and the duke. they will be arriving soon. here we have the prince of wales and the duchess of cornwall. they attended the state opening for the