make are there. but do you foresee that on an ongoing basis entitlements will always be here and we have to prioritize down the list to make sure that entitlements are always there? will that change in 2033 when the fund are exhausted? how do we move forward and will the entitlement always be on top of the list? >> sounds like that's for me. well, first of all, the controlling point that i tried to make earlier, we need to grab every dollar that isn't nailed down and many that are. we in the interest of being able to do the things that we need to do as a nation, we need to work on improving the delivery of health care in a fashion such that the cost per individual of delivering health care in our country, not just for the elderly through medicare, but really everybody is -- that the rate of growth of cost is

reduced while we maintain quality. that is part of the overall picture. the problem with health care thus far, and i have my own ideas about what we ought to do for health care and you can look at www.ced.org and read about it, the problem with the cost of health care is in significant part that technology enables us to do a lot of marvelous thing but the technology is expensive. and so part of what is going forward is how do we improve outcomes in our health care system including doing things that are just coming online that turn out to be very costly but can do very wonderful things for people. that's going to be very difficult, but we need to -- we need to work on every front and improving the efficiency of the delivery of health care is probably tops at the list of what we need to do. >> and just touching on your

broader question, i think one answer i've heard a lot from people have done this for a number of years is that the entitlement programs go directly into people's pockets, especially something like social security and so it is much harder to reduce those on the priority list than it is for things like paving the roads and doing the scientific research that leads to discoveries 20 or 30 years down the line. so i think that's one of the dynamics that probably won't change anytime soon. but is inherent in the way the budget is made up. >> hello, gentlemen. my question to you is regarding the national debt. you discussed the national debt as if it is a burden and it is a burden to us and it will be for generations to come, i believe. but can't it also be used as a national security tool? because a country such as china, as you use in your example, would not want to go to war with us, because of our economy and how that could drastically hurt

their interests financially in us. what are your thoughts on that? >> i agree with you, that that is the flip side of it, that supposedly that the globalization of the economy out there makes us all more interdependent. but it also creates greater risk and uncertainty, still out there, and i think it creates the possibility of increasing financial crises out there as we're seeing already in europe, with the euro now, we're seeing with the global oil prices coming down, everybody says, the fact that this is wonderful, i like the fact too i filled up last night at $2.15 in northern virginia, but i tell you, i don't like big variabilities. and i'm not totally convinced that all -- that with big debt and without us having control over that debt that it may be true that china will be not

interested in creating any problems with us, because we're interdependent. but we don't control their government. and that's the risk i see. but i think your point is well taken. >> thank you very much. >> adding to that, just one point. if you want to write a movie screenplay or a novel, the way you develop your plot is that some other country decides that it is going to use their holding of our public debt to try to crash our economy. the reality you mentioned that if they crash our economy they destroy the value of the debt that they hold is the argument against that. the real problem is not the movie screenplay. the real problem is you're in the movie theater, and somebody starts smelling smoke. in financial markets, it's like the smoke in the movie theater.

you do not want to be the last person trying to get out the door. and so when people perceive, if people -- if and when people perceive that u.s. paper, particularly u.s. government paper is not a smart thing to own, that's when things come down in a very, very big way, very quickly. that's the problem i worry about, not china trying to take down the u.s. economy. >> okay, left. >> amy coleman from the harvard university extension school -- >> i'm sorry i picked on harvard earlier. >> a number of political analysts and i'm thinking particularly of shawn k. and andrew basavich talk about american -- and that public opinion needs to shift towards the reality of what is possible in budget reform. do you have any insights into the sort of roadblocks, political or otherwise, in getting the public to acknowledge the limits of

spending cuts and the necessity for additional tax revenue to get the budget under control and how we can get more candidates to run with the realities worked in their campaigns? >> just to add to that, i think there is some additional basic public polling results that show that the average american has no idea what, you know, you all answered very well earlier, which is the major pieces of the budget, there is the common refrain of you ask people how much they think we are spending on foreign aid, they'll say 5%, 10% of the budget. and then you ask them how much they think we should be spending and they'll say, 3% of the budget and then tell them we're spending less than 1% of the budget on it and they're often quite shocked. how do you think we can improve that public education aspect and translate that into the policy action that she's talking about? >> i have a quick response and that is that building upon what joe already mentioned earlier and that is the number one is to make it such that we have

campaign finance reform, they're not spending all their time raising money. why do i say that? because this last midterm election i was struck by the lack of discussion about the budget. and the federal deficit came down, that was good news. but you never saw in any of these campaigns out there a discussion about the things we're discussing here today. you didn't hear a discussion about debt. you didn't hear a discussion about deficit. you didn't hear about that. why is it? because quite frankly i always remember some congressman tell ing me one time at a town hall meeting, you got to cut government spending, i don't want you to -- i want you to get this deficit under control, but keep your dirty hands off my medicare benefits or as an example. because to them, that's their benefit. i paid into social security. that's my benefit. what are you talking about cutting or reducing social security benefits?

i think we have a -- members of congress have a responsibility in terms of when they're running for office, to try to use this as an opportunity to educate, but let's be honest. it is not a popular thing to go out and campaign for an office and say, you know, we have to look at medicare benefits or social security benefits because that, as shai said, that's in my pocket right now or raise taxes. it is a challenge. >> i used to work for congressman lee hamilton, who some people know from his role in this september 11th commission, but he was a very broad ranging guy and i was with him one time, he was talking to a group of his constituents. and they were getting on him, and this was the late 1980s, the budget was not the issue really that it is today, though people were very worried about it. and somebody said, you know, why doesn't the congress do something about this problem? and he was trying to express himself and finally he found a point he wanted to make, he said, reducing the federal budget deficit is the second highest priority of every member of congress. >> the second highest.

after they take care of the highest priority they don't have a chance of doing anything about the budget deficit. one of them comes from a location in a coastal community that needs the harbor dredged by the federal government. the other one has a large retirement community and they want to protect med care, you know. >> 535 first priorities. and every one of the members of congress can give you his program, but the problem is we don't need 535 programs, we need one that a majority of those 535 will agree with. and that's the problem we've got. >> you both did mention there needs to be more done with helping just entering the workforce.

for more of attending technical schools and education? >> i give credit to the president for emphasizing two-year technical colleges. he's tried to move in that. my wife teaches out here in virginia. but at the same time, i think the bottom line is -- here we go again -- where is the funding coming for that? it's coming out of that thing we call cap nondefense discretionary budget. there's very little for changing investment. i don't think there's a sense that we shouldn't be.

it's the resources, once the first priorities are met, aren't there, unless you're willing to raise taxes or change those other two-thirds of the 50% that medicare, medicaid that reduces and then there would be an opportunity. the bottom line is the resources are restricted. also i think there's a sense here that this shouldn't only be a federal responsibility. there should be both state and private and local responsibility in getting the private sector involved in it, which i realize is another whole discussion. >> hi, i have a question. among the solutions that have been discussed to balance the debt and the budget, is the balanced budget amendment. do you see this as a possible solution in the future as either practical or sustainable? >> great question. that was on my list to ask.

joe? >> very briefly, i am not a big fan of a balanced budget amendment. the typical formulation that you come up with of the balanced budget amendment is okay. if you're not going to balance the budget, you need two-thirds vote or both houses of congress, something like that. having observed two-thirds vote of the congress and what it takes to get the last votes and having seen directly or indirectly members of congress saying, okay, you want my vote, here's what i want, by the time you get done bargaining with all these guys, in effect you say, okay, if we're not going to have a balanced budget this year, let's have a party. i got my price, he's got his price. if you're not going to be able to comply with that, go ahead and really do it. as an economist, there are times when the economy is doing well and a budget surplus is appropriate.

there are times when the economy is not doing well and the budget will be in deficit no matter what you do. go back to 2008, 2009, 2010, we didn't have a prayer of balancing the budget in those years. you need a two-thirds vote to get away with a budget deficit, you're going to have a party. or you write into the constitution of the united states that it's okay not to have a balanced budget if the gross domestic product has declined for two-quarters and is lower. i can't imagine writing a definition of the gross domestic product in the constitution of the united states. i cannot think of a better way to desecrate the primary document of the founding of our republic than to get into nonsense like that. economics jargon does not belong in the constitution. put me down as leaning no on the balanced budget amendment. i was on the floor of the house when a balanced budget amendment was being considered, and a member of the house had the

floor. i was sitting next to leon panetta who was the chair of the budget committee at that time and was managing the time against the balanced budget amendment. this member of the house said, and so i ask the chairman of the budget committee, if we're not going to have a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, how are we going to solve our budget problems? and leon said, just do it. i wrote a letter to nike and i said, you guys have got to do something for my boss and i never got a response. i was very disappointed. but that was the right answer just do it. >> with concerns to the military and military spending, a large portion of congress's budget does go towards military spending, and even with current

cutbacks to military spending, do you think that more cutbacks should be done towards the military in order to help reform the budget? >> very good question. let me drill down a little bit here because this will be coming up as an issue this spring with a review that the pensions and retirement security for the military commission comes out. what we're finding out and leon panetta, the former chairman and others and outgoing defense secretary, mr. hagel also recognizes, the same problems we have in the overall federal budget are the same problems in the military. the fastest growing components of the defense budget are not the tanks and weaponry. it is paying the benefits, the healthcare benefits, the pension benefits, the benefits compensation to go with having a voluntary service out there. and so i believe that if you're going to talk about defense, controlling defense, you have to go back in and -- here we go.

same issues. wait a minute, i signed up in a voluntary military because i wanted those benefits and now you're talking those benefits away from me. the same issue that's endemic to the overall federal budget is the same problem that's causing the defense budget to grow. as that grows then, our real fighting capabilities get strained and that's what worries me. so i do think there's room for improvement in the defense budget but it's in the areas which means us getting right back into the pockets of those people who have served. >> coming back to the just do it slogan, there's been a sequester or what we in washington call a sequester which are basically automatic cuts or squeezing the amount that you can spend on certain categories and defense is one of the pieces that's had those cuts and caps on it. i think that was put in place because congress couldn't come to an agreement on the actual spending reductions that were necessary.

if you look at both the defense and domestic discretionary accounts, those are the ones done on an annual basis and include infrastructure and education, both the defense part and the domestic part as a percentage of the economy are at all-time lows. i think a lot of people in one party or the other don't want to acknowledge that, for whenever one they care less about. the cutbacks have already been made either voluntary or involuntary. it's really the other pieces of the budget that we've been talking about, the entitlement and interest payments that haven't been addressed and the interest payments are the result of the tax side and the spending side. bill, do you want to add anything? >> for the millennials -- don't throw anything at me. i was the one drafted in the vietnam period. there are days when i'm wondering whether or not we ought not to bring back the draft. i'm sorry. go ahead.

>> i'm sure that's a popular sentiment in this room. >> you guys mentioned that entitlement seems to be one of the biggest problems with the budget today, yet we can't touch them due to the political ramifications. what does congress have to do to address some of these special interest groups like aarp and groups like that in order to bring about entitlement reform? >> i didn't suggest that they -- first of all, i'm not talking about cutting. this word you cut gets thrown around a lot. i'm simply talking about slowing the rate of growth. i also was saying at the outset, for those who are in retirement or near retirement, even paul ryan's budget of last year that was making changes did not affect people that were within ten years of retirement. what i'm talking about, i'm talking about you guys, i'm talking about changing the

formula now, raising the age of full retirement now. i'm sorry if you're 20 -- you got 50 more years in my book before you can retire if you're 20. i think we should raise it to 70. those are things that do not affect current recipients but will affect, admittedly, you in the future. you're not getting the benefit now. it's easier for me to calculate a benefit for you in the future that you don't know what it would have been had we not made the change i guess is what i'm trying to say. it's politically less risky. i do think we have to make changes and they can be made and they're phased in over time. so yeah, i'm not saying we shouldn't make changes, and i'm not saying you can't make changes. >> things like raising the retirement age on social security, you could call that a cut, but society is living longer and certainly there are distribution issues there and generational issues but it's

hard to keep letting people retire at the same age for decades upon decades when people spend more time in retirement. >> just to add, social security is actually the easy program to deal with. healthcare is both growing much more rapidly and it's a lot more complicated. in terms of social security, we can make small changes that take effect and grow over a longer period of time, that by the time you get to the years when this issue is likely to be critical, will have made a significant contribution. i would just add, with respect to folks who are now in the retirement ages or close, we could have those who are affluent pitch in a little bit and help as well. that, i think, would be entirely appropriate. i'm more concerned about my grandchildren than i am about myself at this point.

i'm willing to throw some money in the kitty. >> hello. i'm from harvard extension. i was wondering, i'm in environmental studies major and given that we only have one planet and a finite amount of resources, meaning that both human and economic growth is not infinite, how do you think this should change our current growth-based market in the future? well, we have seen enormous improvements in technology historically. when i was your age, son, every other day in los angeles i have been there very seldom but i remember seeing the photographs. you would have such smog that you could not see any distance whatsoever from the top of a building.

we've cleaned that up. part of the reason why folks are ringing their hands, we have a fixed amount for gas lien, there's not as much money going into the kitty for doing the highway repairs that we need. now, we need to go a lot further. we will probably have to make some difficult choices, but we've got to look across all the tools that we have at our disposal. one of which is raising people's consciousness and getting them to conserve to the extent that they can do so. second is making the devices that we have more efficient, and a lot of the consumption that we

do is in buildings. that means to some extent going back and retrofitting, to some extent it means being a lot more conscious with what we build and there's a lot of that going on. also with respect to vehicles where we've achieved a great deal going forward. but one of the things that we could do that would improve our outcomes with respect to the environment, would give us a lot more headroom -- >> watch this event at c-span.org. we leave it now to take you live to the pentagon for a briefing by air force secretary deborah lee james and chief of staff mark welsh. joining us today is deborah james and chief of staff general

with respect to economic growth within environmental constraints if we were able to have rational policies that sent people clear signals and made them pay the costs of the consequences of their own decisions than i am about convincing people to make the rational decisions about policy in the first place. we have the potential to do it. >> optimistic about this congress the congress accomplishing anything. i've been struck from a republican's perspective, i've been struck by the discussion that's been coming up about the gasoline tax. putting it back on the table. even from republicans. no surprise when the price of gasoline has dropped why wouldn't we have -- it's a good time to be talking about a gasoline tax.

it's a good thing, if it'd been in there and hadn't gone down, but the price had still gone down. the american public wouldn't have been upset and putting in that money. i do think it is clearly one of those provisions that is a form of taxing carbon tax. i think in that whole area infrastructure, carbon tax, i think there is an opportunity at least i haven't seen for quite some time. >> a little less than ten minutes and looks like five more students want to ask. let's take them two at a time and try to get through all of them before we wrap up. >> thank you. good afternoon. i just want to thank you for coming today. paul mccormick. as we talk about how we can't pay our bills and we can think of or talk about a lot of programs that are not necessary or some that are excessive, is there a way that we can form a department in our government?

maybe not right now with congress because they're too busy trying to fund raise. but is there a group that we can start up that can look into these different programs and, you know ax them temporarily or permanently to make way to pay for things that we actually have to pay for? >> great question. let's get one more. >> okay. my name's stephanie martins from harvard. both of you mentioned a need for tax increase and as part of a tax reform. so right now, 30% makes a big difference for the middle class. would the reform being suggested by both sides include an increasing taxes for the higher income folks and corporations? how exactly do you see this tax increase? >> so we've got the department of axing and tax increases. you guys want to take a stab? >> i'll come here and joe take the taxes. tax expert. no more departments, please. in fact -- i think we can do away with some departments.

but there has been for quite some time the concept of some sort of sunset commission. kind of like the defense department where they're reviewing the particular bases out there and putting them on the list and taking oift the it out of the congressional decision making process and to a astute group of individuals who understand. i'm a little -- i'm always nervous when we set up these commissions that are kind of "x" outside the legislative process. but i think something along the lines of a sunset commission review all the programs and that are out there that we're doing. more importantly, i think it's not just reviewing them. but can't we consolidate programs streamline programs? remember, again, there will be groups such as federal workers who work in these programs that will not always be happy about consolidation, which means that they may be losing their jobs too. but i think something along

those lines, you're going to hear more about in terms of sunset -- >> the government accountability office does a lot of this work already, just there's no formal process by which to enact or make sure those recommendations get attention. joe, do you want to talk at all about the taxes? >> actually, what i would refer you to is the bipartisan policy center's cue prop report. which includes the chapter on tax reform which would explain to you how i think you should do it. it could be done. realistically speaking, number one, people with very low incomes don't have an awful lot to toss in the kitty. and number two, they would have a very hard time maintaining reasonable standards of living if we asked. on the other hand, if you went only at people with very high incomes, you would be increasing tax rates to the extent that you might very well have affects on

incentives that you wouldn't like. it has to be a question of balance. and the way we did it in the bipartisan policy center proposal started at zero impact for people with the very lowest incomes and it rose gradually. and people with high incomes did per person kick in and relative to their incomes kick in the most. that was a balanced solution. and frankly, i liked it a lot. i worked on it with one of my colleagues on the commission. and i'll give him most of the credit for the plan. and i would commend it to your attention. >> great. let's take -- over here. >> kate from drake university. on monday, we had a speaker who suggested bringing back earmarks. >> bringing back what? >> earmarks. >> and if that would -- and -- >> was that -- was that my boss

who said that? >> yes. >> i figured it was. >> yes. >> he's the democrat, i'm the republican. okay. now, i know where jason's coming from on this. i'm sorry. >> aaron marks from elan university. you stressed the importance of education. i was wondering why it was put on the back burner of kind of the budget. >> great. i bet you want to finish the earmarks then -- >> earmarks. i believe earmarks are the grease that makes the wheels turn. and i think what jason would say and what jason's point is that if giving that congressman a water plant, waste water treatment plant in his district if by agreeing to do that, he is

elm boldened to do something like raise the retirement age on social security. the swap. then it's a small, small price to pay for getting, addressing the bigger issues. and i also think there was a time. don't want to get too far into the budget geeky stuff here, but we have capped the level of spending for the next five six years now, i guess on that portion of the program where earmarks could occur. in other words having an earmark doesn't increase spending. it's within it. it takes away from where things should be more targeted. but if from my perspective, i'm not a big fan of earmarks, but if giving that earmarks gets us to doing some of the fundamental changes that we were talking about here tax reform, social

security, medicare then it's a very small price to pay. >> joe do you want to comment at all about the education question? >> yeah. my sense is that and i am not the world's foremost authority on this. but there is a lot of resistance in the elementary and secondary area to folks in washington telling folks in dubuque how they should educate their children. truth be told, you know, there's a science of education. there's a body of knowledge. we all have some interest in providing assistance, financially, particularly to localities that have a hard time financing a quality education on their own. so there is a federal role. but what i would perceive to be the greatest source of

resistance to policy making in washington is the sense that we ought to allow people to make the choices of how their children should be educated on their own. and that's a barrier that sometimes can be hard to breach. bill, i don't know if you have any -- >> you're fine. >> great. let's take the last question, please. >> from the university of san diego. and i just -- my question was about education, as well. with the student loan rates being so high, like the lending rates in comparison to other lending rates, like, do you see a fix that kind of takes into account the default risk but also keeps college affordable? because right now, it's really hard for a lot of people and it's racking up a lot of debt personal debt. is there a middle ground? >> i -- yeah. >> and this is referring, i guess, in part to there's a proposal by elizabeth warren. senator elizabeth warren to change -- to tie the interest

rate that is paid on student loans to the federal funds rate. and so lowering it from something like 6.8% today down to maybe under 1%. but the opponents argue that student loan borrowers are much more risky than people who are dealing with the federal reserve. and so i don't know if there are any. >> be careful what you wish for. you know i've been around when the federal funds rate was in the high teens. >> yes. >> i think we've got competing objectives on the one hand. we believe in increasing access to higher education. we believe that there is a public benefit to higher education. when i was much younger, we used to say that, you know, society benefits when kids get a good elementary education. society benefits when kids get a good secondary education. when they make it to the post secondary level for the most

part, they are increasing their future income. so that should be paid those costs should be borne by the individual. i don't know that we totally buy that anymore. i think we believe that there is some public benefit there. bill raised a concern which i think is very real, which is if you tell people that they can go to any post secondary institution that they want, take any program that they want and the federal government will be on the hook for the repayment of the loan you can wind up with people making decisions that are not necessarily the best for society. and that includes the people who found the institutions and take in the kids and make the promises and take the federal money and then you know, leave the kids high and dry. >> i don't have a good answer for you. because i -- i'm still thinking this through. maybe side bar here. i have this uncomfortable

feeling that the good intentions of the federal government student loan program which used to be a guarantee program that was basically done through the private sector and has a direct loan program out of the federal government, which adds to the federal deficit, by the way. i have an uncomfortable feeling that the good intentions has been somewhat circular in the sensz sense it's helped to drive up the cost of higher education, not lower the cost of higher education, which it's kind of like a ratcheting effect. and so i would, i know, i apologize. i'm sorry, got the debt. you're going to have to pay it off some day, or not. but i do think that there has to be a fundamental restructuring of the student loan program going forward. again, here we go. if you've got a student loan not going to affect you. i'm talking about your son, your

go ahead. >> thanks to all the students for the great questions. while we have these two very are distinguished individuals here who i have learned a lot from the last five years, i wanted to ask a 15-second question, which is what have you learned in your years in public policy students who are interested in these topics could use to their advantage? >> oh. i guess my bottom line would be that it is possible to achieve some very important things for the american people, for the country. i've been through a couple of experiences that have been extremely gratifying, both of them have been totally washed away. and that is, i guess the other lesson, which is this is an eternal battle. we are going to have to fight hand to hand day-to-day to maintain anything that we have

achieved. >> first of all, like joe, i think that number one, first of all, the fact that you are here is emboldens my spirits to the extent that young people are still interested in public service. congratulations. thank you very much. a child of the '60s we never think we grow up but it's natural, it happens. so one of my guiding principles from the beginning has been and -- that one does not grow old by merely living a number of years. you maybe heard this. one grows old by giving up their hopes, ideas and aspirations. and what i would suggest is, don't get cynical about the process. participate in the process. run for -- there may be president, may be a president in here. may be state legislatures, senators congressmen, dog

catchers, i don't know. but participate in the public arena. i think you're the future here. the things we've talked about today really impact more than it impacts joe and me. but, please, thank you for doing what you've done. >> on behalf of the washington center let me thank all of you for a very informative and thought provoking discussion. we'll be continuing the conversations in our seminar. let's give them another round of applause. thank you very much. loretta lynch president obama's nominee to be the next attorney general heads to capitol hill wednesday for her confirmation hearing. we hear from ms. lynch live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. that's here on c-span 3. and thursday, the committee hears from other witnesses about the nomination of ms. lynch.

loretta lynch is the current u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. her current tenure started in 2010, but she previously held the position from 1999 to 2001. ms. lynch is a graduate of harvard university and is 55 years old. oregon governor john kitzhaber was inaugurated. he served governor for eight years from 1995 to 2003 and returned to the position four years ago. in his inaugural address, governor kitzhaber talked about robert f. kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign inspired him to public service. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you very much there are a lot of people i could recognize and deserve recognition. i want to briefly recognize my two sisters who have come here

today, and, of course, my son logan. i also want to thank general from the oregon national guard and rich evans, the superintendent of the state police. and all our first responders for everything they do to keep us safe. i expect a lot of you have tonight is game on your mind. some of you might even wish you had tickets. i certainly wish i had. but it is amazing how this game has managed to unite the state. i saw a guy on friday in full blown front-on beaver regalia. black sneakers, orange pants black shirt, orange jacket, black hat with an orange beaver on the cap and a great big go ducks yellow sticker on his chest. [ applause ]

and i'm always amazed at the athletic events with all of these people packed in together, republicans and democrats, urban, rural, all races all walks of life. and it doesn't matter. they're united in the common cause of making sure that their team wins. and sometimes i wonder what it would take to unify team oregon around the same kind of common purpose to deal with childhood hunger or education or creating jobs in rural oregon. and that's what i want to talk to you about briefly this morning. i remember standing in this chamber in 1979, 36 years ago, right back at the seat where fagan sits i think it's desk 35 getting sworn in as a freshman member house of the representatives. right before we swore in as our 32nd governor. i remember the first time i got to sit on this and that was 30 years ago as a newly elected senate president presiding over the 1985 legislative session.

and looking out at this magnificent chamber and at the names that are engraved on the walls, people like whitman and john gray and john jacob aster. the men and women who built the foundations of our state. well, as it turns out, i spent most of my adult life in this building, and i love it very much. and since i've just been sworn in for the very last time ever i thought i would take a few minutes and reflect about what i've learned over the last 36 years that might be of some value and why i did it and hope to achieve in the next four years which will complete the arc of my political career. so i thought by sharing a little personal information although, thanks to our friends up here, i don't think there's very much left out there. but i have great faith in them. my political career really was the result of two things. the first was the fact that 67

years ago i was born to parents who were members of what tom brokaw called the greatest generation. and second was that 47 years ago, robert kennedy ran for president of the united states. now, my father was born in iowa, my mother was born and born in 1915. and my mother was born in joseph oregon in 1917 and they met in 1939. and they got married the next year, november 2nd 1940. and when the u.s. entered the second world war, my father was drafted and left his wife of less than two years and boarded a troop transport called the robert sherman in new york harbor for the dangerous trip across the north atlantic. and just before the ship sailed, the red cross volunteer came onboard and told my father that his first child had been born. that was my sister anne whom he wouldn't see for almost two years. my father landed in france and marched all the way across europe to berlin. and from the day he was drafted

including the 17 months he was with patton's army in europe my parents wrote to each other almost every day. i thought it was a poignant tribute to their 65-year romance they kept those letters. and in 2002, my father edited them and put them in a volume he simply called "the war letters" and gave a copy to me and my sisters. this was a remarkable document covering the period from august 1943 to november 1945 and chronicles the lives of two ordinary people regular citizens and new parents and the amazing sacrifices they made to win the war and to rebuild the world in the aftermath. and before he died, i used to call my father up every year on june 6th the anniversary of d-day and thank him for saving the world. that is exactly what that generation did. but not only did they win the second world war, they created our system of higher education. they built a transmission grid, gave us the civil rights

movement and landmark environmental legislation. they put in place the great social programs in the last century, social security and medicare and medicaid. and in the spare time, they cured polio and eradicated smallpox and went to the moon. so i grew up in an era where people still believed in government. and believed that it was a vehicle through which we could do amazing things for the whole society that we couldn't possibly do by ourselves. like bringing electricity to rural america. like the g.i. bill like building the interstate highway system. i still believe it. and i'm here today because i still believe in our government, and that it can be a force for good in our lives. but i have learned that those kinds of remarkable accomplishments are only possible if they're driven by a sense of common purpose. the sense of common purpose of the greatest generation was very clear and unambiguous. it was to defeat nazi germany and the axis powers to rebuild

america and do all they could to make sure their children were better off than they were. today, things are a little bit more ambiguous. our problems are more complex they're often inner related. there's little low-hanging fruit and almost no quick fixes in a nation addicted to fast food and instant gratification. but i can tell you that a need for a sense of common purpose is just as important today as it was 70 years ago on may 8th, 1945 when germany surrendered to the allies. a sense of common purpose is the one essential ingredient necessary to build community. which allows people to come together and do collectively things that would be difficult or impossible for them to do by themselves. and it's that sense of common purpose, which offers the adhesiveness that holds us together and allows us to act in concert as a community. that brings me to robert kennedy and the influence he had on my life. i was a 21-year-old college

student when bobby kennedy ran for president. and it was a remarkable campaign, unlike any i've seen before or after. it was a campaign that truly focused on equity and opportunity. it was a campaign about unrepresented farm workers in california. it was a campaign about poverty and hunger and children starving to death in the mississippi delta and the pine ridge reservation. and it was a campaign that asked difficult and disturbing questions, questions about a gdp that measured wealth but not well being. questions about how we could allow this to exist, these contradictions in the wealthiest nation in the world? and questions about how we were as americans and low human beings. and it was a short campaign. lasted 82 days from when he announced until when he was assassinated on june 6th which interestingly enough was the 24th anniversary of d-day. i was inspired by that campaign

because of his sincerity because of his passion, because of his courage to speak from the heart and say things that needed to be said. and for the moment he died in los angeles, i knew this was where i wanted to be and commit myself to public service. now, to me, the central message in bobby kennedy's last campaign was this if a sense of common purpose is essential to build community, and if community is what allows us to come together to do collectively things that we could not do individually, then the strength of a community is inversely proportional to the level of disparity or inequality that exists within it. but robert kennedy was doing in that campaign was calling out the disparities and the inequalities in our society and asking people why we allow them to exist. and that made a lot of people really uncomfortable in 1968. that was 46 years ago. and asking the same questions today still make a lot of people really uncomfortable.

but those questions need to be asked and need to be answered because disparity is the enemy of community. it separates us, it divides us it reflects inequality. it reflects a lack of fairness. it says somebody's being left behind, that somebody is being excluded. and if you are the person being excluded from the community then there's no sense of common purpose. without common purpose, you can't have community. and if we don't have community, we don't have the capacity to meet the challenges that face us today as a society and as a state. last week i had the honor of speaking at our state business summit. and the theme of that summit was in it together. in it together. a commit am the to ensure that all of us have the opportunity to achieve a greater share of prosperity. and i must tell you that i am proud to live in a state where the business community would make a commitment like that. and also to set goals for

collective action around education, around infrastructure, around rural economic development to make sure that we deliver on that commitment. but even if we're successful in meeting those goals, and i support each and every one of them we will not succeed in getting all oregonians a greater share of prosperity unless we are willing to have the courage and honesty to question one basic fact. and that is the inherent contradiction between a growing economy and the increasingly desperate plight of hundreds of thousands of our fellow oregonians. indeed sometimes i feel a bit disingenuous using the word "economic recovery." because i am certain that that term doesn't have much meaning for hundreds of thousands of people in the state today. we currently measure economic recovery in two ways. how many jobs we're creating and how fast the state gdp, the creation of wealth, is growing. and by those metrics, we are doing really, really well in oregon. we've gained back all the jobs

that we lost during the great recession. and as measured by growth in the gdp, we had the fifth fastest state growing economy in the nation in 2011 and the fourth fastest in 2012. but here's the question. how does that actually translate into the well-being of our fellow oregonians? in terms of their ability to support their families to meet their basic needs and feed their kids? and the answer is not very well. not very well. it's not that we aren't creating well-paying jobs. we are. but we're not creating them as fast as the ones we lost during the great recession. and this is actually something that's been going on for a long time. between 1945, the end of the second world war, and the mid-1970s, productivity in our country grew 96% and wages grew by 94%. between the mid-1970s and 2011, productivity increased 80% and wages increased 10%.

so the point is our workers are more productive than ever before, but they are not sharing equitably in the wealth that they're helping to create, and that trend is increasing. and it seems to me that should be troubling to all of us because one of the basic premises on which our nation was founded was the belief that in america, hard work is actually rewarded with a better life. but for a growing number of oregonians, that is simply not the case. in the midst of our economic recovery, a growing number of people are trapped in low-paying, part-time jobs on which they cannot possibly raise a family and with absolutely no hope of moving out or moving up. why? why? why are one out of five oregon children still living in poverty in this state of ours? why are over 30% of our children facing food insecurity on a regular basis? why is unemployment among latinos 27% and among african-americans, native americans, hawaiians pacific

islanders and those with disabilities, over 30%. and most importantly, why is this acceptable to us in the state of oregon? i think we can all agree that this situation is not only unfair, but it divides us and adds to the disparities in our community and makes it even harder for us to come together in common cause. now, the answers to these questions are complicated. i know that and know one person least of all me, has all the answers. but if we begin to ask the right questions, if we begin to ask the right questions, i know we can make progress because an oregon economy that moves some of us forward and leaves others behind slows down progress for all of us. as author thomas pinshaw observed in his novel if they can get you asking the questions, you don't have to worry about the answers. and if the only questions we're asking is how fast is the state gdp growing and how many jobs are we creating then we don't have to worry about their

quality, about where those jobs are or what they pay or whether they're connected to career paths. or who's getting them or the environmental costs of creating them. but if we are willing to come together and ask these hard questions and hold on to the common purpose that it is our intent to lift up the whole community, not just part of it then i am confident that we can move ahead. 40 years ago i finished up my internship in denver, colorado, and i moved to roseburg, oregon. a freshly minted 27-year-old invincible er doctor who was young and really naive and really idealistic. ten years later in 1978, which was four years later, ten years after bobby kennedy was killed, i ran and was elected to the oregon house of representatives, ready to try to save the world like my parents had. and i've learned a few things along the way. first i've learned that saving the world is a lot harder than it sounds.

it doesn't happen with a flash of lightning or a clap of thunder. and it doesn't flow from inspirational speeches although inspiration is important. robert kennedy was very inspirational, but i have absolutely no idea whether he would have been a good or effective president. but what i've learned is that to achieve what robert kennedy dreamed would have taken a lot of hard unglamorous work in the trenches, making compromises, dealing with egos balancing conflicting agendas, being patient and tenacious even in the face of setbacks, showing up hanging in there, not giving up. i've learned that the role of government is not to fix things but to create a space where people can fix things for themselves. and i've learned that you cannot advance the common good from salem but only by engaging people where they live and showing them that they have a stake in the problem and some sense of ownership in a solution. and my friends we are doing that every day here in oregon through our regional solutions committees, our coordinated care organizations, our early learning hubs, our watershed

councils, and yes, through the oregon business plan. and here's something else i've learned. and i really believe this. people in our state and across this land want community. they yearn for a sense of belonging and some greater common purpose. so after 36 years after 36 years, i am certainly no longer young, and i'm certainly no longer naive. but i am still idealistic. i still believe that all of us want to rise above our own worst day and give something back to our families and to our community. and i still believe in the power of individuals acting from courage and conviction to change the world in which they live for the better. so let us commit ourselves to that. let us commit ourselves to the proposition that we're going to ensure that everyone in this state has an equal opportunity to meet their basic needs, to strive to achieve their full potential, to have hard work actually rewarded with a better life and to leave their children better off than they were both

economically and environmentally. it's not going to happen overnight. it's not going to happen in the next four years. probably not in the next ten. because although much progress has been made a long road still stretches out before us. and some of us are not going to see the end of that road. but i can tell you as the father of a 17-year-old son i know that it is the contributions we make to that future along the way that will ultimately matter the most in the end. i want to close my remarks today with the words of oregon poet ken stafford. who very eloquently captures the challenge and the responsibility, and i think the opportunity before us and what he calls lloyd's story. it's a true story actually. lloyd reynolds the international citizen of portland, spent his last days in pain silent unable to write or

to speak, lying in a hospital bed. on his last day at home as his wife scurried to pack a suitcase for the hospital, lloyd made his way outside to the garden. and there she found him on his knees, awkwardly planting flower bulbs with a spoon. lloyd, she said you'll never see those flowers bloom. he smiled at her. they're not for me, he said. they're for you. the salmon coming home they're for you. the calls of the wild geese, they're for you. the last old trees they're for you and your children to the seventh generation and beyond. they're all blooming into being for you. good words to hold on to. as we start this 78th session of the oregon legislature. thank you very much.

with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekend, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best-known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and real america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv

industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> coming up tonight on c-span3 the house select committee on benghazi holds its third meeting on the 2012 attack. then u.s. trade representative mikechael froman. later energy commission chair sheryl lafleur talks about energy policy at the national press club. the house select committee on benghazi where members heard from representatives from the state department and the cia. the committee is examining events surrounding the september 2012 attack on the u.s. compound in benghazi libya, that killed ambassador stevens and three other americans. after this 2 1/2-hour hearing, committee ranking member elijah cummings of maryland said he has spoken to former secretary of

state hillary clinton, and she expressed a willingness to testify before the committee. >> welcome to everyone. this is the third hearing on the benghazi committee. the committee will come to order. the chair notes a quorum of two members for taking testimony is present. the chair will further note -- well, before i note that -- consistent with rules and practices of the house without objection -- well, that point has now been rendered moot. so you have been reappointed to the committee. and all members can participate

fully. okay. okay. all right. the chair will recognize himself and then the ranking member for purposes of making an opening statement. the committee on benghazi exists because the house of representatives voted for it to exist. and in the process made it very clear what is expected. if you have not read the house resolution authorizing this committee, i would encourage you to do so. for those asking for a road map or a scope of the investigation or want to know what the committee intends to do the resolution passed by the house of representatives, i hasten to add, with seven democrats voting yes, answers all of those questions. the resolution asked this committee to investigate all policies, decisions and activities related to the attacks, the preparation before the attacks, the response during

the attacks, efforts to repel the attacks, the administration's response after the attacks, and executive branch efforts to comply with congressional inquiries. the operative word in the resolution is the word "all." and the word "all" is about as comprehensive a word as you could use. so it stands to reason if you're asked to conduct a full and complete investigation into all policies, decisions and activities, you need to access all witnesses and all relevant documents. because the final task assigned to this committee is to write a comprehensive report complete with recommendations on how to prevent future attacks. and to write a comprehensive report, you need access to all witnesses and all relevant documents. it is essential we talk to every witness with knowledge and examine all relevant evidence. if six people witness an important event you cannot credibly report on that event by

examining one out of the six. frankly, you can't credibly report on that event by interviewing two out of the six. each witness has a different perspective. each witness may have observed a different fact. each witness has a different vantage point. so to do your job, you have to interview all witnesses. so, too, with documents. it is interesting but not relevant to note the number of pages agencies produce to congress. what is both interesting and relevant is whether the agency has produced all documents responsive to the request. giving congress 10,000 pages of material out of a universe of 10,000 pages of material is good. giving congress 10,000 pages of material out of a universe of 100,000 pages of material does not get us any closer to issuing a final report in a timely fashion. and make no mistake, time is of

the essence. the world is not a safer place as some of you may have noted even this morning. it is not safer than it was in 2012, so the sooner we make recommendations related to the improvements that make lives better for the women and men who serve us abroad, the better. moreover time does not make investigations or witness recollections or memories or evidence better either. the purpose of today's hearing is to hear from some agencies and entities about the state of compliance with requests for documents and access to witness. and we have had some success. the state department provided the committee with 25000 pages of documents previously provided to the oversight committee but now with fewer redactions. in addition, this production included finally, 15,000 new pages of documents. these documents include significantly more traffic from state department leadership and

in previously provided information to congress. these new documents are a reminder that no previous standing committee compiled or had access to a complete record of events, which is precisely why the speaker constituted a select committee. to produce a complete, definitive record for our fellow citizens. additionally, as of recent the cia made available some of the documents we requested in november. and while it is good to finally receive the new documents the pace at which this process is moving is not conducive to the committee concluded its work expeditiously, and frankly, it should not take a public hearing. to make progress on these requests. our hearing should be about substance, not process. we should be analyzing documents, not waiting for them to appear. i want to read a quote. i can promise you that if you're not getting something you have

evidence of or you think you ought to be getting we will work with you. and i will appoint someone to work directly with you starting tomorrow. with you mr. chairman to have a review of anything you don't think you've gotten that you're supposed to get, let's get this done, folks. that was secretary john kerry. and that was in april of 2013. so my objective is simple. i want to be able to look the family members of the four murdered americans in the eye and tell them we found out everything that we could. i want to be able to tell my fellow citizens including the man from oregon who sat beside me on the plane yesterday who used to guard facilities across the world as a marine that we made improvements that make women and men who serve us in dangerous places safer.

and i want to be able to look my fellow citizens in the eye regardless of their political ideation and say this is what happened, and this is how we can make sure it does not happen again. so there will be no mystery to my questions today. there will be notrickery. i want to know when the agencies are going to comply with the request made by this committee so we can finish the work assigned to us because i have zero interest in prolonging the work of this committee. and by the same token, i have zero interest in producing a product that is incomplete. so in conclusion, i want to be as clear as i can possibly be. we intend to access all of the information necessary to do the job the house instructed us to do. and we need to access that information now. talking to only some of the witnesses will not work. and accessing only some of the documents will not work. if you want all of the truth, then you need all of the information. and we will do it in a respectful way worthy of the

memory of the four who were murdered and worthy of the respect of our fellow citizens. but it is going to be done. and the sooner the agencies make these documents and witnesses available to us, the sooner we can do what we were asked to do. and with that, i would recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i agree with you that we need to have all the information. we need to have all the documents. we need to have everything that you just talked about sooner rather than later. mr. chairman and my fellow committee members, i'm a bit saddened to report today that there are major, major problems with this committee's work. democratic members have grave concerns about thepartisan path this committee has taken over the past year a path we believe

undermines the credibility of the investigation itself and the very things that the chairman just said he's fighting for to make sure that we come up with a credible report. we spent months trying to resolve these problems privately. but we can no longer remain silent. when the committee was established last may, many questioned whether it would devolve into unseemly partisanship. many worried that it would become a repeat of the oversight and government reform committee. where ridiculous allegations were made with no evidence, no evidence to back them up. excerpts of documents were leaked out of context to promote false political narratives, and democrats were cut out of the investigative process.

i know because i was a ranking member, and i was cut out over and over and over again. in response chairman gowdy assured the families of chris stevens, sean smith, and glen daugherty that this investigation would honor their loved ones by being bipartisan, fair and based on the facts. one of the things that i said to the father of tyrone woods is that i would do everything in my power to seek the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god. the chairman said that he would transcend politics, and that's a quote. he stated these words and they meant so much when he said them. he said, if we engage in a

process that is not fair according to the american people, we will be punished, as we should be for that, end of quote. unfortunately, since then, democrats have been excluded from core components of this investigation. people may find it difficult to believe, but eight months into this investigation democrats and republicans on this committee have not spoken jointly with even a single witness. instead, we were stunned to suffer that the chairman and staff have interviewed at least five individuals on their own without including democrats or even notifying us. we learned about these interviews from the witnesses themselves and from press

accounts, not from our republican colleagues. even worse when our staff inquired about some of these interviews republicans downplayed their significance. they said these interviews were not important, that one of them said nothing quote, of note, and that the committee did not plan to use them. but when we spoke to these witnesses, we got a different story. they shared key facts that undermine allegations the committee is investigating. let me repeat that. when democrats had a chance to interview some of these individuals, they provided factual information that counters allegations this committee is investigating. rather than bringing this information forward when the committee first obtained it the information was buried. the chairman is right.

we need all of the facts. facts that may not be consistent with some of the things that we're hearing. because the families of those four americans deserve that, and the american people deserve it. the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. these are not actions of a bipartisan investigation. to have secret meetings and witnesses. the way to honor the four americans killed in benghazi is to seek the truth and not to ignore the facts that contradict a preconceived political narrative. a credible investigation recognizes the importance of collecting these facts and putting to rest false allegations rather than allowing them to fester. to try to address these

problems, we ask the chairman to hold a vote on basic committee rules. we just want some rules. we want it to ensure that all members, both republicans and democrats, and i emphasize that both republicans and democrats, could participate fully in the investigation and would no longer be excluded. some may recall that our hearing in december was delayed because democrats were meeting with the chairman beforehand to discuss these problems. as a matter of fact, there were some of our republican colleagues that drifted into that meeting. following that meeting the chairman promised that we would hold a vote on the committee rules. we even met with the speaker and he gave his blessings. but no vote has been held. what is so disappointing is that

this has been going on for months. we wrote private letters to the chairman laying out these problems in detail. hoping to resolve them. we explained that this will not be a credible fair or factual investigation until the committee holds joint meetings, interviews and discussions with potential witnesses and includes all members in key aspects of our work. that is not an unreasonable request. in fact, it is exactly how several other committees currently operate such as the house armed services committee. and those -- there are those who will say that, well, maybe it's not in their rules. well, the house armed services apparently has not decided to move to common ground. they decided to move to higher ground. but today after eight months, we still have no committee rules. so we have no choice but to make

these letters public. as we explained last may when we agreed to join the committee, we need someone in the room simply to defend the truth. but we cannot defend the truth if republicans lock us out. until this changes, the committee will be viewed as nothing more than yet another partisan expensive and time-consuming campaign to continue politicizing this terrible tragedy. finally, mr. chairman, let me say a few words about today's hearing. many people are concerned about the glacial pace of this committee's investigation. but rather than blaming federal agencies we should acknowledge that the reason for the delay lies in the committee's own actions. the fact is is that the committee waited six months before sending its first request for new documents, six months. it took the committee almost a month longer to request witness interviews from the state department. and even now, eight months into the investigation, the committee

still has not sent a document request to the department of defense, and it has yet to request a single witness interview from the cia. although i continue to believe that the best way forward for our committee is to reach agreement on a truly bipartisan approach, i can no longer say that i am optimistic that this will happen. nevertheless, our door is always open. and we will always be willing to sit down in the pursuit of the truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. with that, i yield back. >> mr. ruben you are recognized for your five-minute opening statement. >> thank you, charnl gowdy. ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor to be with you and thank you for providing me with the opportunity to give testimony to your committee this morning. my name is joel ruben and i'm the deputy assistant secretary of state for house affairs in the department's legislative affairs bureau. in this role i serve as the department's chief liaison to

the house, responsible for ensuring that the multitude of foreign policy issues that house cares about from fighting terrorism to preventing a nuclear iran, to expanding our economic alliances in asia, to supporting your constituents when they travel overseas, are dealt with both efficiently and effectively. i've served in the federal government for more than a decade including both as a hill staff and as a civil servant in the state department during the bush administration. i work closely with committees and leadership in the house on a daily basis, ensuring that the department's relationships and communications with the house are strong and that's why i'm here before you today. as you know, the state department has a strong record of cooperation with your committee, something which we're proud of and something that you yourself recently acknowledged mr. chairman. statements for which we're grateful. this is consistent with our work prior to this committee's formation. as the department has provided nearly two years of stated cooperation with congress on benghazi by responding to

requests from ten committees through hearings with several officials including former secretary clinton and by providing more than 20 witness interviews and more than 55 congressional briefings in addition to responding to hundreds of inquiries. since the formation of this committee in may of last year, we have provided four briefings and witnesses for two more hearings plus today's. and crucially we have produced more than 40,000 pages of documents related to the tragic benghazi attacks, all of which are in the hands of your committee today. since our most recent conversation with the committee last month about its top priorities, the department has been hard at work on implementing your most recent request for documents and interviews. our problem has been slowed somewhat by the holidays and the briefing we provided to you on january 13th but also by the breadth and timespan of the document request itself. nonetheless, we will begin producing documents soon to the committee to meet this request. to put it bluntly your priorities are our priorities.

therefore, in addition to the priority documents we will be providing soon we also look forward to continuing to work with your staff to ensure that your requested interviews can proceed so long as they do not jeopardize the department of justice's investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the benghazi attacks. it's important to remember that from a management perspective, we cannot respond to every request for a hearing, a briefing documents or interviews simultaneously. but we can and will prioritize our resources to process your request in the order you identify as most important to you. as the committee most recently did in december. turning to your december request for interviews, your staff informed us that of the 22 names requested, the committee's priority was to interview the diplomatic security agents who served locally during the attacks. we understand the committee's interest in interviewing these agents, and i'm sure that the committee does not want to take any action that would create

risks to their personal safety or their ability to do their jobs. we at the state department have concerns that the requested interviews will pose precisely such risks. we also want to avoid interfering with the department of justice's ongoing investigations and prosecutions. as a result we've been in ongoing conversations since december with your staff, counsel for the agents and the department of justice to try to find a way forward that accommodates your request without endangering these men and their families without negatively impacting national security, and without harming the ongoing investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the attacks. we're hopeful that an accommodation can be reached. in closing, we are proud of the significant and steady progress we have made on the committee's documented interview requested. we are grateful to the committee and its staff for your collegiality, and we look forward to continuing to work with the committee on its most recent priority document and interview requests of which you will be seeing additional

tangible responses in the near future. thank you and i look forward to the committee's questions. >> mr. higgins? >> mr. chairman ranking member cummings and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss cia's continuing cooperation with the committee's investigation. i apologize in advance for my cough. since the committee's creation cia has enjoyed a positive and productive dialogue with the committee and its staff. as of last friday cia had fulfilled all of the requests to date. specifically, since last june cia has certified the committee's secure work spaces granted access to sensitive compartmented information for 15 members of the committee staff, reviewed roughly 40000 pages of state department documents for cia equities and through the director of national intelligence provided the committee with finished intelligence products related to libya during the period in question. last friday cia began production of more than 1,000 highly sensitive documents requested by the committee. i understand committee staff will begin reviewing those

documents tomorrow. with regard to committee requests to interview current or former cia officers we will work with the committee to respond to such requests in a timely fashion. working with classified information and interviewing covert employees can pose unique challenges. we are committed to providing the committee with access to the information you need while safeguarding intelligence, sources and methods. we look forward to continuing our dialogue in the weeks ahead and i look forward to your questions today. >> the chair now recognizes himself for questions. mr. ruben have you read the house resolution? >> pardon me. yes, sir, i have. >> what is your understanding of what this committee's been asked to do? >> my understanding is that the committee's been asked to review the incidents related to the benghazi attacks and all of the -- as you described it, the beginning, and all of the aspects that it speaks. >> so your understanding is that we have been asked to look at all policies decisions and

activities that contributed to the attacks? >> certainly that's our understanding, and we support providing the information related to that request. >> that affected our ability to prepare for the attacks? >> well if that's the -- if that's ultimately the decision -- >> well, you've read it, right? you've read the resolution right? you're not disagreeing with my interpretation of the resolution, are you? >> no. and we defer to the committee's direction on how it wants to proceed. >> including executive branch efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of these attacks, did you read that in the resolution? >> sir, i don't have it in front so i can't quote it. >> i'd be thrilled to get you a copy of the resolution. for the meantime you're going to have to my word that it also says executive branch efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of these attacks. that's in the resolution. can you tell me specifically how our interviewing witnesses is going to jeopardize the preparation. prosecution. >> sir the department of justice has been clear --

>> i'm asking you. it was in your opening statement. i'm asking you. you tell me a former prosecutor how our interviewing witnesses that have already been interviewed by the arb already been interviewed by the best practices panel and frankly already been interviewed by the state department. the video that you showed us last week, that agent interviewed the witnesses in preparation for a video. so if the arb and the best practices panel and your own agency can interview people in preparation of a training video, how can congress not interview those witnesses? >> sir, no one has said that congress cannot interview these witnesses. >> you just said it would jeopardize an ongoing prosecution, and i just asked you specifically how. >> my understanding -- and i am the chief liaison to the house for the state department -- is that our colleagues at the department of justice have been in touch with your staff -- >> specifically who told you that? >> my colleagues within the state department who work on -- >> i'm looking for a name because i've got to clear up this misconception that simply

talking to a witness who's already talked to three other investigatory bodies, that somehow or another congress cannot talk to these witnesses even though apparently everybody else can. i'm curious how that jeopardizes an ongoing prosecution. >> sir, i'm not an attorney. i'm not a prosecutor. what i am is the chief liaison to the house for the state department. and what i am conveying is that the justice department told us that this could have an impact and they would like to have a conversation with you and your committee about that. >> when you -- do you believe that congress has the constitutional authority to provide oversight? >> every day i do that with my job, yes, sir. >> so you do agree with that. what is your interpretation of the phrase "all policies decisions and activities"? >> in what context? >> in any context. how about contributed to the attacks? what is your understanding of all policies all decisions, all

activities. >> the approach that we are taking at the state department is to provide materials to the committee at the direction of the committee. the request for interviews that you have reiterated here today, i am explaining that. the justice department has said that they would like to have conversations with the committee for the concern about the protection and welfare of these agents on an ongoing investigation. >> i want to ask you something, okay? because there are 12 people up here who may not agree on another single solitary thing, but every one of us agrees that we don't want to do anything to jeopardize the physical security of anybody who works for this government, nor does anybody on this dais want to do anything to jeopardize an ongoing prosecution, okay? can we stipulate that, that nobody wants to do either of those things? >> certainly. >> will you also stipulate that you can talk to witnesses while preserving their identity and not jeopardizing an ongoing prosecution? >> i am confident that in the conversations between the justice department and the committee that those modalities

can be discussed. i am not the expert. >> mr. ruben, do you see the justice department at this hearing? >> no, sir. >> do you know why they're not at this hearing? >> no, sir. >> because we don't have any issues with them. that's why they're not here. you just cited a reason to deny access to witnesses that even the justice department hasn't cited. so what i want you to do is help this committee gain access to precisely the same witnesses that everyone else from the arb to the best practices panel to your own agent who compiled a training video had access to the witnesses. >> sir as i said in my opening statement, we are happy to have the conversation with you and your staff on how to engage on this. and that is something that we're open to. we have never said no. >> well, and i appreciate that. i appreciate that. but i want to make sure that i and i have a clear understanding with each other. if six people observed an

important event and you were being asked to write a final definitive accounting of that event, how many of the six would you want to talk to? >> sir, i understand -- >> that's not a trick question. >> i know it's not a trick question. and i understand the point. and this is why we are here. >> well, if you understand my point -- >> provided the quantity of documents and worked in collegial terms. >> mr. ruben, we're going to get to the quantity of documents in a minute. i notice that you said 40,000. that's an impressive number. that's 40 copies of dr. zhivago 40 copies of "crime "crime & punishment." that's a lot of pages. 40,000 out of how many? that's our question. how many documents? is 40,000 half? is it all? is it two-thirds? >> we have made a comprehensive search. and as you know, the state department spans 275 missions overseas. 70,000. >> i'm not asking you to bring any ambassadors back. >> -- comprehensive amount of --

>> i'm not asking you to bring any ambassadors back to search for e-mails. i'm not. not a single one. how many employees does the state department have? >> roughly 70,000. >> 70,000? >> correct. >> all right. and we have asked for e-mails from seventh floor principals. do you think that is a reasonable request when you have been asked to study all policies, all activities and all decisions? >> in your -- in your committee's december letter where it named principals -- first -- in fact all of those principals have -- there are e-mails, there are documents related to them in that 40,000. and in addition, you and your -- >> is it your testimony that we have all of the e-mails that we've asked for? >> well you and your colleagues prioritized former secretary clinton's e-mails and that is our priority as i stated. >> well, i would say multiple e-mails. if there are multiple e-mail accounts, we want all of the e-mails, okay? >> and we agree and we are as i said earlier -- >> you may have noticed my colleague from maryland used the word "glacial."

i find that -- i find the use of that word interesting when you vote against constituting a committee, when you threaten not to participate in the committee when you continually threaten to walk away from the committee when you can't identify a single solitary person that you would issue a subpoena to when you are prepared to have an asked and answered website before you got the 15000 pages of documents that you just provided, when you expect members of congress who are having conversations with people on airplanes to stop the conversation and say let me go get a democrat, you heard the word "glacial." we're going to pick up the pace. we're going to pick up the pace. i have no interest in prolonging this. none. >> sir -- >> so you're going to have to pick up the pace with us, okay? >> absolutely. and this is why we're here today. we have made two witnesses available since the fall of last year. we are prepared at any time. proactively as you and your

colleagues now -- >> i appreciate that. are you familiar with the subpoena that dates back to 2013 that the oversight committee sent with respect to the arb? >> yes. >> okay. arb is a statutory creation, you agree? congress created the arb? >> yes, it did. >> do you agree congress can amend, enhance or alter the arb? if it's a statute, sure. congress can change it, right? you agree congress should provide oversight over one of its statutory creations? >> yes, sir. >> how can we do that if you will not give us the documents related to the arb? how can we possibly do that mr. ruben? >> sir first, of the 40,000 pages of documents that the committee has received, many of those are, in fact related to the arb. >> mr. ruben, i appreciate -- i really do i really do i appreciate the word "many." i appreciate the 40,000. i keep coming back to one word that's in the house resolution, and that word is "all." >> sir -- >> do we have all of the

documents? >> what we have communicated to you and your staff and what we've been grateful for is the committee's explanation of its top priorities. and we would be very honored to continue to have those discussions. if the arb, as you've noted here becomes a top priority, that is certainly our priority. >> you have 70,000 employees. what we're not going to do is identify one tranche of e-mails and then two months later go to pose or do a witness interview with that witness and then two months later get another tranche of e-mails. when our colleagues on the other side who by the way, had no interest in forming this committee whatsoever but are now ironically complaining about the pace of the committee that they had no interest in forming whatsoever, it's time for us to pick up the pace. and i'm looking to you to help me do that. >> and that's why we're here, and that's why we have continually engaged proactively with you and your committee, and we're happy to continue to do

so. >> okay. >> and i would mention the 70,000 employees are engaged in their jobs. >> i appreciate that. i don't want any ambassador security guards, i don't want anybody taken off of an important job. but compliance with congressional inquiries is important. and if you have time for common demonstrations or culinary diplomacy, i think you have time to comply with a legitimate request for documents from ng co congress, and i'm sure you would agree. with that, i recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. ruben, i'm going to try something different and try to let you get a complete sentence out in response to a question so we can hopefully elicit some information. first of all, the document request, the first document request that this committee sent out was on november 18th. the committee was formed in may. so -- sorry my math's a little on off here, between may and november, that's five or six

months before the committee made a document request. now, the chairman would have everybody believe that they've been begging for documents from day one, and you've been stonewalling them, and that's the only reason we can't proceed. but fact number one is from may to november, there were no document requests from this committee, okay? if we're not interested in dragging it out, that just boggles the mind. that you wouldn't make a document request. now, putting aside for the moment that there have been nine separate investigations, and gosh i don't even know if anyone could count up the number of document requests that you have received from those nine separate investigations or the number of documents that you have, in fact, provided but the reason democrats on this committee are concerned about the so-called glacial pace is that's a long time to wait for a document request, if you're in a big hurry. the second interesting thing about the little back-and-forthright there is as near as i could tell and it was hard because you were being cut off so constantly you have not

said no to any request to interview a witness, is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> so let's just be clear about this. this stonewalling effort that the chairman just described includes a situation where you have never said no to an interview request. and the interview request has been relatively slow in coming. so maybe we will get to the point where you do say no. you were making the legal point and i'm ranking member on the armed services committee, and we've been through this with investigations before where the justice department always gets a little queasy when somebody else wants to interview a witness. as a former prosecutor, i know mr. gowdy would have felt the same way if somebody came in and said hey can i talk to your witness? you always get a little nervous about it but it doesn't mean that you don't do it. and i just want the record to be very, very clear here. the state department has not said no. now, if we get to the point where they do, then we can have a conversation about it.

so that whole little back-and-forth to sort of create the illusion that the reason the committee is moving so slowly is because of your unwillingness is very unfair to you and very unfair to the state department. there may come a time in this committee's investigation when you are being uncooperative and then we can have that conversation. we ain't there yet. and these are the issues that mr. cummings raised that gives us a concern. why was this committee formed in the first place? now, one of the things that i really want to make clear from mr. gowdy is he's never going to get every single question answered, and he's never going to get every single document. i've been a legislator for 24 years, prosecutor. i have not yet encountered the event in human history where every question gets answered. it's frustrating, it's irritating because part of it is if you interview all six of those witnesses you get six different stories and then you can't figure out how to reconcile them. we are not going to get every single question answered and to

lay that promise out to the families involved the people whose lives were destroyed by this, that somehow we're going to answer every question when no other investigative committee in the history of the world has ever been able to answer every question i think is unfair. that's not what we're doing. we have nine separate investigations that have been done. so withhat the democrats are concerned about on this committee is whether or not this committee has a clear purpose, okay? or is that purpose purely political and partisan? because the other thing that i'm readily going to admit is that benghazi was an awful incident in our nation's history. and the people who are in charge when it happened, you know they've got to feel very, very bad about it happening. it is the nature of being the president that bad things happen on your watch. when george w. bush was president, 9/11 happened. when bill clinton was happened, somalia, among other things, happened. 18 dead americans.

when ronald reagan was president, we had two suicide bombings in beirut. jimmy carter went through the iran hostage crisis. there is no question that benghazi is a bad bad incident in the obama administration. it has always been my suspicion that the purpose of this is to focus on that bad incident as much as possible for partisan and political reasons. now, we gave him the benefit of the doubt, said okay, let's see. formed may, no document request till november 18th. we're in january. we don't have a vote on the rules. you know we get occasionally a loose time line for the interview that seems to want to drag it out as close to 2016 as possible. look, if we want to do honor to these families, then let's do a realistic investigation. and then we have the final fact. i'm sorry mr. chairman, it is not just people that you ran into on an airplane and didn't tell us. there were specific witnesses that were interviewed by the

republican majority, and they didn't tell the democrats. and in a couple of instances, those witnesses contradicted the information that the majority was seeking. again, information not provided to us. now, i serve as the ranking member on the armed services committee and buck mckeon and i when he was chair we've had our disagreements, but i'll tell you, there's never been anything like that where evidence on the other side we just sort of exclude from the minority party. all of those facts add up to this being a partisan and political investigation. now, if we want to change that and actually start trying to work together, that would be wonderful, but as our ranking member pointed out after we raised these issues of interviewing witnesses and not telling democrats, not only was it changed, you're attempting to write it into the rules of the committee that that would be permissible. so that is our concern.

the slow pace of this. again, we started in may. we had our first document request in november. interviewing witnesses without interviewing democrats. all of this points to a goal and objective of this committee that doesn't have much to do with finding out the truth and doesn't have much to do with preventing future attacks. now, i hope we get better at that, but i've got to tell you, what i just witnessed between the chair and mr. ruben here you know trying to make it look like they're being stonewalled when they're not hardly encourages me. and again i'll just conclude by emphasizing the fact that mr. ruben pointed out they have not said no to interviewing a witness. and i agree with mr. gowdy. as members of congress we're constantly bumping heads against one administration or another. we want to interview every witness. when you get to the point where you do say no, well, then maybe we'll have an argument but you haven't said no. the documents -- you're trying to generate the document request, as i understand it included a request for two years

worth of information from about i don't know 14 different people all around libya. and in the year of e-mails and texts and everything else, that's a heck of a lot of information to find. good luck finding it. and i see no evidence that either of these gentlemen are not trying their best to find it and provide it for us. i don't know if you're going to find everything. but it is clear that there is no stonewalling effort here. that the reason that we've moved so slow is because the decisions made by the committee. now again, and, you know i tend to be a little bit more impatient than our ranking member. that's why he's got the top job. he's better at it. you know, for me about a week ago when i learned about all this stuff it was, you know, time to say hey, what's the point? what are we doing here? but mr. cummings is a patient and thorough man. and if the committee will now begin to include us in these things, stop accusing the state

department of stonewalling when they're not and pick up the pace a little bit i guess it is still possible this committee could -- could serve the purpose that it stated. and yes, we have all read what the republican majority voted for in creating this commission. they want everything. and, you know, it's going to take time to get everything, i would imagine. but the mere fact that the house of representatives controlled by the republicans voted for this doesn't change the possibility that it is more of a partisan political investigation than a legitimate efforts to find the truth. so i hope some of those things change. number one, at the top of the list, and i'll just close with this, it's got to be bipartisan. you can't be interviewing witnesses, particularly when we come to find out that some of those witnesses who were interviewed were being interviewed to attempt to establish, you know, a line of -- well an argument, and it

turned out that that one is directly convicted that line of argument, and then you don't tell the other side and mr. gowdy's pointed out he's a prosecutor. you do that in open court you get a piece of information like that, you don't provide it to the other side as a prosecutor or a defense lawyer, you go to jail. all right? because that is a violation of the laws of the court. i would hope that congress would at least live up to that. so i sincerely hope that we do better. i look forward to the documents. i don't envy you of your job. there are so many documents in the world. but i hope you will provide them, and i hope you will, you know, provide what this committee asks for when they get around to asking for it. i yeed back. >> the chair will recognize the gentle lady from alabama, ms. roby. >> i thank mr. smith after the hearing for giving you a little bit of a break. i'm going to ask you a series of questions to follow up with the chairman about the processes. we keep talking about this 40,000 documents, this universe.

i want to get a better perspective from you. is that the universe of documents -- is that your position that 40,000 is it or is 40,000 one quarter or one half? can you give us an idea of what this universe of documents looks like? >> thank you, ma'am. the 40,000 is the accumulation of two-plus years of searching of gathering of documents from across the entire state department. we have provided these. we provided -- >> right. i'm trying to get an idea of in the entire universe of documents that we have yet to receive as mr. gowdy said, we are looking for all, what portion of that do the 40,000 -- because the 40000 is a lot of documents. so what -- where does that fit into the universe? >> it's 40000 pages of documents. i said 40,000 documents. i meant to say 40,000 pages of documents.

that is the significant amount. that is what we have found. that is what we have searched for, and that is what we have found. >> but you don't really know at this moment where that is. and i don't want to get hung up on that. i really want to spend the time talking about the processes that you're using to gain access. so let's start with are you using a centralized location to ensure that you're properly capturing all of the documents or is it mined out to different bureaus? >> i appreciate the question. thank you. at the state department, we do not have a single person responsible for document requests. when we have a document request, it comes from congress. the requested information sought -- essentially means that all individuals at the state department who may be related to that information have to go looking in their files. oftentimes these are desk officers responsible for country issues, people working in our

military affairs bureau, nuclear nonprolifreration bureau. >> can you tell us right now how many people you have working on the production of documents that have been requested as it relates to benghazi? >> regarding the collection of documents, i can't tell you how many state department people over the past several years have provided documents specifically because it's across the entire -- >> so there's not a benghazi group, so to speak? there's not a group of people that have been tapped to say you are in charge of document collection for the incident regarding -- incidents that happened and the deaths of the four americans in benghazi? there's not people that have been tapped for that? >> it's a fair management question. and what happens is when we get the information from across the building there are people who review the documents. we had a discussion with the committee where we came to an agreement with the chairman and the committee that we would, at the state department provide

minimal redactions of the 40,000 pages of documents. those redactions are made by experts who look at equities -- >> back to my >> is doctor a group of people. yes or no? >> again, the production is an effort that is awe cross the entire state department. >> but no, there's not a benghazi group. then i would say with 40,000 pamgs of documents, not knowing what universe, you know, in the yun version of documents, what per ser tang that 40000 pages is, why has there not been up to 70,000 employees before.

whempb individuals are asked to find something by congress, people move on it. it's a question of however, the comprehensive nature of acquiring all the information available. and we want to make sure that we do that well. if we have one or two individuals, they may miss things. >> i'm not asking about one or two. i just wanted to know if the state department took this seriously enough that they were willing to identify a grown up of em pli yees from the 70000 whose sole just was to ensure in the daysings weeks months

leading up to the attack and what happened afterwards. i want to move on. i want to know how these searches were done by the vujs as you have sated across the state department. do they do a keyword search? do they type in libya or benghazi or tripoli for any and all records that relate to benghazi? is a staff member deemed relevant? >> what do they do? >> it's actually as you described. it means going and searching the files. searching the electronic, the hard files and) looking for documents ÷hat are relevant.

and what that means in practical purposes, that topic is shared with the department and individuals at the department have to go search for whether they have information. >> why is so much time being spent redacting material from these documents? >> the state department has an agreement in place with the committee and we're very happy with minimal redarkss. >> some of these documents have been highly redablgted. >> ma'am those are not necessarily state department redactions. we cover foreign policy across

the board. >> every document is digitally stamped. so this leads us to conclude that the records are in electronic formalt. why is it that the department has produgsed in paper format despite requests for electronic come pills. >> >>. >> there's no order to the paper documents. they're not in day order, they're not by person rngs they're not by office or bureau.

just boxes of documents. we want to get to the truth. so the quicker you can get us this information, obviously the belter. particular lid because of the volume. but there's no rhyme or reason to what you're sending to us. so provide them in some sort of order? >> ma'am, this goes back to the original questions is that you asked. and we're trying to provide documents in as quick as a manner as possible in a manner that are relevant: >> you're taking a lot of time to redakt information. it seems you could at least put them in some kind of order. i look forward to your, you know furtherer participation with this committee and your willingness to provide us these responses. quickly.

i would appreciate that you get back to us on the electronic formats of these documents. mr. chairman i yield back. i want to pick up where my colleague left off. i believe that in the questioning, the chairman said the doj had no problems with the interviews that this committee wants to conduct. but i do hold in my hand a letter from the department of justice that is dated november 21st of 2014. it states that they do have concerns.

i would ask unanimous consent. >> i'm happy to reconcile those two if the jentle lady from california would like me to. >> i'd like to continue with my questioning and me comments and perhaps at the end of the hearing, there will be an opportunity for the chairman to have further time to speak on his time. >> very well. >> so i think that it's clear that the d.o.j. has expressed some concerns. and that ilgts's wrong to suggest that witnesses are being held from the committee. i believe it's a case that no one has said that there are witnesses that cannot be interviewed by this committee. i just thought it important to show that as far back as november that the d.o.j. did communicate with this committee and express those concerns.

could partisan ship be set aside? and i can only speak for myself in se that i put those concerns aside in the hope that there would be an open and honest investigation that was free of parts and motives. but, boy it looks like i was flown on that one. and that he would outline the questions that still needed to be answered. eight months later, our

committee still lacks that scope, the transparency and, more than ever, the credibility. now, i'm convinced that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are in search of this mythical creature, the unicorn, and the yunl concern being some kind of nefarious conspiracy that does not, in fact, exist. over the last few months, the ma e majority has systematically robbed democratic members of meaningful participation in this investigation. apparently, our only use is to sit up on full committee hearings and be allowed to ask a kwu e few schism questions. the chairman has refused to convene an organizational meeting ant the increasingly part san direction that this committee has taken. in fact, yesterday the chairman

told us that we could only have a vote on kplit tee rules if we agreed to vote on his rules, even though we think that they're unfair. i don't know what kind of logic that is that you can have votes as long as it's to go for what i want. we've been left in the dark. worse, the pla jorty has manipulated facts and negatives. when convenient they've left out key witness testimonies that don't coobama rate that they're seeking to prove. and when the facts don't add up they just continue to make more fanciful claims. for example back in september an art kal reported that former