forward to that to continue. >> [inaudible] our winning the war in afghanistan? >> i think that what is clear is that we have lacked as clear of a strategy and a mission as is necessary in order to meet our overriding objective, which is to dismantle and disrupt and destroyed al qaeda and prevented from being able to project while once -- violence against the united states and allies like canada and our bases in operations around the world. when i came in, i had to make a

series of immediate decisions about sending additional troops to ensure that the election could take place. . right. that means broad consultation, not only in the u.s. government but also with our nato allies and partners. i am going to take a very deliberate process in making those decisions.

i just want to be absolutely clear, because there is a lot of discussion about this, that there is no immediate decision pending on resources, because one of the things i am clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources. you do not make determinations about resources or about sending young men and women into battle without having at least clarity about what the strategy is going to be. where one to proceed and make sure that we do not put the cart before the horse. >> very quickly, i want to try to answer that directly been built i do not think notwithstanding the continued problems in many parts of the country, the fierce efforts of the insurgency, i do not think

the taliban constitutes an alternative government or immediate threat to replace in the government. in that sense, we can see the progress that has been made. we are obviously concerned about the strength of the insurgency. we welcome the renewed american effort and effort of some nato countries. our emphasis in canada for some now predict some time now has really been the necessity -- canada for some time has really been the necessity of seeing the government handing greater responsibility for the security of that country. afghanistan is a very beautiful or difficult country. all of our militarys have done a tremendous job moving the ball

forward. in the end, we have to be clear that the security and sovereignty of afghanistan can only be done by afghans themselves. whatever we do on both sides of the border and with our nato partners have to have that as a long-term objective. eric? >> [inaudible] canada and other nato allies have deadlines to leave afghanistan. read the u.s. will be left -- the u.s. will be left. [inaudible] u.s. protectionism is hurting. [inaudible]

>> @ aneesh start with afghanistan. i will reiterate what i said earlier. we are in the process of making a strategy -- a series of strategic decisions that will be sustainable and will be doing so in close consultation with our allies and our partners. we are tremendously grateful for the extraordinary sacrifices of the canadian military. they have fought. they have had staying power. they have absorber losses that we all agree before. i am not worried -- they have

absorbed losses that we have all grieved for. i'm not worried about what will happen post 2011. i want to make sure that given the amendments that have already been made in that are continuing, that we make sure that the canadian present fit into a coherent whole. our goals are to eliminate al qaeda as a threat and it is important to recognize that ultimately afghan security has to transition onto the shoulders of afghan -- the afghan government and security forces. the degree to which we are training them is something that i am certain will be part of many long-term strategies. on the economic front, the issue of american stimulus

package, i'm glad to hear the canadians see this as -- the recovery package as being so significant. the provisions that were there, we made sure that they were wto compliant. that does not mean there was not a source of contention. prime minister harper has brought this up with me every time we have met. he has been on the job on this issue. our teams have been working together. it appears that there may be ways to deal with this by

latterly and potentially multilaterally. it is my understanding that [unintelligible] that might be one solution. in addition, we are pursuing on a bilateral trek efforts to make sure that these tensions diminish. i do want to keep things in perspective. u.s./canadian trade continues to be robust. canada continues to be a huge trading partner to the united states. businesses in the united states and canada benefit from that trade, including consumers. these are legitimate issues that have to be raised. i think it is important to understand that on the scale of our trading relationship, and

these should not be considered the dominant element of our economic relationship. >> first of all on afghanistan, i think it is important to rephrase your question. canada is not leaving afghanistan. will be transitioning to a civilian he meant tearing development -- -- we will be transitioning to a civilian humanitarian development. that is in place. we've had a robust engagement for some time. we have increased their troop levels as a consequence of that. you heard what i said earlier. what is essential is that what ever we and nato are doing, and we make sure that the country can stand on its own 2 feet, particularly on the securities side where they have their primary response ability. -- responsibility.

the president indicated we have negotiators who were looking at a range of options. we talked about some of those today. we will be getting more detailed directions. i grew president. we should not lose the horse before the tray. i would emphasize that it is critical at a time where we are trying to see a recovery in the global economy. protectionism is a significant threat. we continue to demonstrate to the world that canada and united states can manage relations in a way that is extremely positive. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> in a few moments, fbi director testified on capitol hill about the bureau's role in fighting terrorism. later, house debate on changes in student loan programs. tomorrow morning we will be joined by the co-chairman of the progressive caucus,in a couple of hours, and look -- arthur brooks offers his assessment of the obama administration and we will take your questions about a bill on how student loans are at minister to prevent you can call into jim bishop -- tim bishop.

"washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live and thence to tell you about. -- and then to tell you go. we will focus on a canister and. one of the witnesses will be retired general john credit. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a house meeting continues its look a private insurance companies. witnesses include executives of the six largest health insurance companies. >> in 1971, he obtained the top- secret pentagon papers. 18 years later, still writing about the vietnam war, he won a pulitzer prize. this weekend he will discuss his latest book, "a fiery peace in a

cold war." >> robert miller told the senate committee today that the fbi need to be involved in certain interrogations' in iraq. he testified for two hours. i want to say to >> of i did this wrong, hear about it a family gatherings.

and the photographers understand what i'm talking about. today we hold our second hearing in this congress on oversight of the federal bureau of investigation. of course, we welcome the director robert mueller back to the committee. as senator sessions and i were saying to director mueller just before we started, there is a briefing under way on afghanistan. that's why a number of senators have to be gone. others may be delighted to be here. i see senator grassley, my old friend of decades here, probably would rather be here than finance these days. but i appreciate director mueller's continued dedication to work with congress to ensure the fbi can last month, general holder

announced a heightened role for the fbi with the formation of a high detainee interrogation group. -- to interrogate the most dangerous terrorist suspects. the group brought together experienced interrogators and analysts and subject matter experts and linguist from across the intelligent community. -- intelligence community. i understand the internal debate that went on in this matter. it is being greeted to improve the ability of the united states to interrogate terrorists effectively. it is consistent with the values that make america different than other countries. effectively and do it not only within the to be consistent with our law but to make american

values different than other countries. i think it is a welcomed signal that the administration has chosen to house hbi. without resorting to extreme methods that violate our laws and make us safer. in march when the director was before us, i noted his important statement last year commemorating the 100th anniversary of the fbi. in fact, i had a copy of that and put it in the congressional record. the director says it's not enough to stop the terrorists, we have to stop while maintaining civil liberties. it's not enough to catch a criminal, we must catch him while respecting his civil rights. it is not enough to prevent foreign countries from stealing our secrets, we must prevent that from happening while upholding the rule of law. the rule of law, civil liberties

and civil rights, these are not our burdens, they are what make us better. they are what made us better for the past 100 years. i agree with them. the committee is soon going to turn to discussion expiring provisions of the usa patriot act, what needs to be done in that regard. during the past few years, audit provisions including the previous patriot act statute brought to light misuse of certain tools provided by the patriot act. for example, national security letters allow the government to collect sensitive information such as personal financial records. this congress expanded the nsl authority of recent years. i raised concerns about how the fbi handles the information it collects on americans. i know with no real limits imposed by congress, the fbi could store this information electronically and use it for large-scale data-mining operations. we know that the nsl authority

was significantly misused. in 2008, the department of justice inspector general issued a report on the fbi's use of nsl's revealing serious overcollection of information. it closely tracked the use of section 215 of the original patriot's act which addresses order for business records. the greater oversight of this section is required, including broader access to judicial review of the nondisclosure orders that are so often issued with section 215 demands for records. finally, i raised concerns over the misuse of exogent letters to maintain phone records of including reporters without warrant, without emergency conditions and without a follow-up legal process. director mueller assured us appropriate steps have been taken to prevent a repeat of that abuse.

he's helped to address concerns of records illegal le obtained, but these letters may have been inappropriately retained by the government. i'm hoping you would agree as we consider the re-authorization of expiring provisions of the patriot act, we should keep in mind the proven effectiveness of audits and reviews and considering oversight by congress. it also concerns review of the traditional law enforcement role. the fbi just released a 2008 crime statistic. in the work of law enforcement and the trendlines are to be commended. we hope the preliminary indications of this year show the continuation of these trends, despite the economic down turn in the financial crisis and assistance able to put in the economic stimulus package to state and local law enforcement will have to keep crime down throughout the country.

and may congress pass the enforcement recovery act which gives investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to aggressively detect and prosecute mortgage fraud and financial fraud that contributed to the massive economic crisis. director mueller, i want to thank you personally and the bureau for the help you gave us in putting together that important piece of legislation. the testimony of your deputy, others came up here, extremely important to make sure we wrote a law that would actually give law enforcement the tools that need to combat this really vicious and malicious form of fraud. i think we need a similarly aggressive approach combatting health care fraud, another insidious form of fraud that victimizes most vulnerable americans that drives up the cost of health care for all of us. with senator grassley here, i

might note senator grassley was my chief co-sponsor on that piece of legislation. made sure we got it voted on the floor. it was applauded when it was signed into law by the president. so i applaud the department for its commitment to reducing waste and excess of the health care system. i thank the director for coming here and once again i thank the hard-working men and women of the fbi. i look forward to your testimony. senator sessions, you wish to say something? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you director mueller. not often enough in our country do we have people holding positions for which their background and learning and experience equip them for exceptionally well. i believe you are one of the most capable leaders we have in our country. you are utterly experienced in

the matters you work with every day. i thank you and all the agents that work tirelessly to make sure we are not subject to another attack in our country. i know a lot of us were amazed last month when abmeghri, thank you for speaking that this was an unconscionable and unacceptable decision to release that murderer in the political environment he was released in made it even worst. every now and then a leader like yourself needs to speak out on those kind of issues and i appreciate that. the number of issues i would like to talk to you. i'm on the armed services committee and i need to be at this briefing on afghanistan. it's at a critical stage now, so

i won't be able to stay throughout this hearing. some of the questions i'll submit to you in writing and ask for before i leave. last month attorney general holder announced he was establishing a high valued detainee interrogation group. the interrogators will operate out of the fbi under the guidelines established by the army field manual. and according to department press release the group would be subject to the national security council for, "policy guidance and oversight." beyond the announcement and a few press reports, we know very little how it will operate, either administratively or operationally. we need to learn a little more about that. that is an odd mix due of fbi entire heritage and background and training focused on civil law enforcement in america. prosecution of cases in federal

courts primarily in this country. we always had military commission. they were referred to in the constitution. we had them before that deal with people who are unawfully at war with the united states. they are not treated in the same way. i don't understand this at all. it really is an odd mixture to me. this blurring lines that shouldn't be blurred. last week we had testimony from the national academy of sciences strengthening forensics in america, and they question whether law enforcement should be involved in any of the forensic activities. i think perhaps the greatest technological development in criminal justice history is the fbi fingerprint program and this availability to every law enforcement agency in america. and it's used hundreds of thousands of times every week.

this would be an issue i think we need to talk about, whether fbi would be required, if that policy were to be affected to somehow transfer this out of the oversight that you have so ably given it for so many years. this week the committee will consider legislation to shield journalists from being compelled to testify or produce any documents in investigations relating to certain protected information. i believe this information will do considerable, this legislation as written, will do damage to our national security. there are reasons, very good reasons that nations have to maintain certain amount of secrecy. i think we need to be aware of that and hope to ask you questions about that. so thank you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony. we'll probably submit some written questions to you later. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. we'll keep the record open for any other statements. director mueller, please feel free to go ahead. >> thank you, and good morning senator leahy and senator sessions. when i updated you in march, our developing efforts to protect our infrastructure. this statement folks us on criminal threats as well as our other priorities. i pete say in fighting crime, the fbi continues to focus on areas where our skills and expertise will have a substantial and lasting impact. today's fbi is not an intelligence service that collects but does not act, nor are we a law enforcement service that acts without knowledge. we are a security service fusing the capability to understand the breadth and scope of threats

with the capability to dismantle those same threats whether they be terrorist or criminal. on the counterterrorism front, al qaeda continues to present a threat to the homeland. domestically through our joint terror and task morses and overseas through our legal attaches, we try to develop any al qaeda operatives with access to the united states. we are also alert to homegrown, radicalized terrorists. we work with our communities to identify and disrupt these threats. closer to home we are focused not only on terrorist threats but also on the threats posed by violent crime and white collar crime. to address these threats we moved from a quantitative to qualitytive approach. we are using intelligence to identify the great st threats to each of our communities. to be effective, we need to collect intelligence that reveals any links between our

existing cases, and also fills in gaps in our knowledge base. intelligence gathering differs from city to city and state to state, just as criminal and terrorist threats differ. and just has partnerships have been key to our effort against terrorism, partnerships are particularly important addressing criminal threats, as well. partnerships have enabled us to achieve notable successes in the fight against public corruption, our top criminal priority. taking as an example are our efforts along the southwest border where we have focused efforts and concentrated agents. with 120 of the 700 agents we have fighting for corruption, assigned to the southwest border we already have over 100 arrestses and 130 indictments and over 70 convictions in this fiscal year. we are seeing success in the fight against violent crime, as well. earlier this week, we released the uniform crime report depicting crime statistics for

2008. for the second year in a row there has been a decrease in violent crime. while the report does not give the reasons for that decrease, i do believe that the drop in violent crime says much about the efforts of state, local law enforcement and the efforts in order to fight crime in the community. despite the positive trends in this year's report, a violent crime continues to plague many communities, especially small to mid-sized cities. games are more think and multiplying and migrating in the suburbs and rural areas. the fbi focused efforts on the most commonly apple gangs

and s criminal enterprises. our goal is not to disrupt their activities, but to dismantle their organizations entirely. we are also focus on economic crime, primarily mortgage fraud, health care fraud. these are not victimless crimes. the impact -- if they in fact all americans. -- they impact all americans. we currently have more than 2400 pending health-care fraud investigations and more than 2600 mortgage fraud investigations. our investigations are focused with task forces and targeted law enforcement actions. we have been generating cases that also successfully commit those responsible for the cases generating cases, but also successfully

committing these responsible for those cases and in general combatting fraud. in april this year, 24 individuals were charged as a result of a joint fbi arrest investigation that identified an extensive mortgage fraud scheme based in san diego, california. the scheme involved 220 properties with a sale price of more than $100 million. joint investigations such as this successful investigation and prosecution mean that additional resources for identifying perpetrators of fraud and additional prosecution options for bringing them to justice are essential. similarly in june, i joined the attorney general and secretary sebelius announcing indictments of 53 persons targeting fraud schemes that threatened medicare. these schemes involve persons who arranged unnecessary or nonexistent treatments for straw

patients who were willing to go along with the scheme for money. our partnerships in this instance, department of justice and nhs, ensure the prompt resolution of health care fraud cases and contribute to the prevention of fraud and abuse. in closing, i would like to thank the committee, members of this committee for your support of the men and women of the fbi. we continue to look forward to working with this committee on these and other threats and challenges facing our country. mr. chairman, senator sessions, i appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, director. incidentally, there's been some mention in the lockerbie matter as i said, several of us, myself included, were at a meeting over

the long weekend the first of september, and the labor day weekend on the meeting of the united states, united kingdom and parliamentary group that meets every two years. we raised with our counterparts from england the strong and bipartisan displeasure with the release of the lockerbie bomber. i raised the point it was very unusual for you to speak out as you did and that i strongly agreed with what you said. in my opening statement i talked about retaining the housing of the interrogation group in the fbi. you have a long history of

conducting investigation groups. there was testimony about abdue zabbia after he was captured. they used fbi techniques that proved useful time and time again. khalid sheikh mohammed was a mastermind in the 9/11 attacks and discovered jose padilla. something he had to point out a number of times when the record has been misstated. what lessons in the long history of fbi interrogations would you import to this high value interrogation group now that it's going to be housed at the fbi? >> why don't you start by saying the concept is to have this combined group administratively housed within the fbi.

speaking specifically of the fbi, we had a tradition of negotiation and interrogation over a period of years that is dependent principally on building rapport. we believe we are scovel at it. many of our agents spent years on the streets as police officers before they come to the bureau conducting interrogations in many environments in many ways and have some expertise. there are some substantial capabilities in terms of interrogation elsewhere in the country. other organizations, particular intelligence organizations. i believe the concept is to bring together this expertise in terms of what techniques work legally and are appropriate under the current statutes and regulations, but more particularly put together, not only the capabilities of an interrogator, but also assure for each of the agencies you have subject matter experts, if

it's terrorism or some counterintelligence arena you have subject matter expertise, as well as expertise and background of the person to be integrated so that capability is used to full effect in gaining the information you need. i will say at the outset that what one wants to do is give the policy maker the options on the table for how you proceed, and to the extent possible, if there is, and the possibility or anticipation of a court proceeding in the united states, open that option. by the same token, i must say the most important thing for us, whether it be the fbi, cia or intelligence community is to gain that intelligence information that will prevent attacks in the first place as opposed to the prosecution of somebody who has successfully undertaken that attack. >> you have oversight to make sure their methods are legal and effective? >> yes, we will.

>> what about the army field manual? does that give guidelines? >> yes, that is the manual that is being used to conduct investigations particularly overseas by the military in places like afghanistan and iraq. has a set of procedures. there may be other procedures there that are not contained within the army field manual that may be wholly useful and legal that should be undertaken, as well. that's something that has to be explored. >> but your department has the oversight in that? >> our department has -- yes, the oversight in terms of we are putting together. i hope fbi leadership with cia as the deputy. i've had conversations with leon panetta. we are agreed this is a valuable contribution and it's going to be a joint effort.

>> in that regard, and you've been very responsive to this committee's jurisdiction for oversight, i assume you will be responsive to oversight requests to the committee on how this group is working? >> absolutely. >> i realize in that regard there will be areas that will have to be responded to in a classified fashion as well as others that could be done in open fashion. >> may i mention two other aspects of it, mr. chairman? that is the importance of having a uniform training and building training curriculae each of the training institutes builds to understand the best possible training capabilities, but also pulling together the science, the capabilities that are known in acedamia so we can build the best possible legal techniques to proceed.

>> when congress included the 2006 patriot act re-authorization, we had a requirement in the justice department office and inspector general, in regard to the use of national security letters, section 215 orders for business records, the inspector general found some significant abuses including widespread misuse of exogent letters. you told the committee about the important steps and we discussed privately, too, the fbi has taken light of these audits, the changes procedures. the justice department sent a letter to me that oversight provided in 2001 and the specific oversight provisions added to the statute 2006. to help ensure the authority is being used as intended. would you agree with that the

audits mandated have been helpful in encouraging the fbi to improve its procedures and make sure these are being used the way they should be? >> at the outset, i say we have for several years now, i have used totally revised procedures that answers and responded to the criticisms of the inspector general. most particularly in office of integrity and compliance within the fbi which has now become a model for such offices. whichever mechanism reviews it is of less importance to me than there be periodic outside review. my belief is that this could well be handled by the annual reviews that are done by the national security division of the department of justice who has an oversight role in this particular arena, but i do

believe that there should be some outside review, periodic review. my suggestion would be it be rolled into that review which is already undertaken by the national security division department of justice. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> thank you. with regard to the threat of terrorism and al qaeda, do we have any reason in this country to feel that that threat is less today or can you tell us if there are any indications that, in fact, the threat may be growing? >> as i think i have repeatedly testified and discussed, the threat is always there. the concern is that we become complacent. i tend to look at the al qaeda threat in three areas. one is rising directly out of

the federally administered tribal areas, where you have individuals, any plot controlled by individuals in that area, you then have individuals in other countries, whether it be the uk, united states or elsewhere, who have been radicalized in some way, shape or form who may travel to pakistan to obtain additional training, which is the second level. i call that a hybrid threat and come back on its own, not controlled necessarily by the al qaeda hierarchy or individuals who have no contact with al qaeda in pakistan, but subscribe to the same extremist ideology that present a threat. it has continued to present a threat over the last eight years and presents a threat today. >> with regard to the shield

bill, you and a number of intelligence community colleagues opposed the predecessor of that bill in a letter stating, "the high burden placed on the government by these bills will make it difficult, if not impossible, to investigate harms to the national security, and only encourage others to illegally disclose the nation's sensitive secrets." are you aware of any nation that has not found it necessary to maintain secrets regarding their national security? >> i can't purport to be an expert. i do not know of any. >> throughout the history of the modern nations, they all have intelligence agencies and have to operate with some degree of secrecy, isn't that true? >> true. i do believe that we are somewhat unique in that there is

a first amendment which many countries do not have, as well. >> are you saying the first amendment prohibits the united states government maintaining secret investigations of al qaeda or other things of that nature? >> that is not at all what i'm the share of the members of the committee what kind of road is in place about agents hawkeye mayor -- and the agents. an agent with out and interviewed a newspaper person -- went out and interviewed a newspaper person. >> it cannot be done without the approval of the attorney general. >> the attorney general his or

herself? >> yes. >> this is a high protected standard. >> excuse me. i want to make certain -- i know now is in the doj i was involved in one of these. i wanted to make certain that it is my role to it buys the attorney general. it is the attorney general's responsibility to sign those. >> the point is this is institutionally deep in the culture of the department of justice. it is very sensitive matter to enquire about. it should only be done after the most careful review. it would have to be met before . review and there are standards

set out in the u.s. attorney's manual that have to be met, are there not, before such things -- >> that's correct. if you look at the record, and i know from submissions from the department, the numbers of occasions which approval has been given is minimum kuhl over the years. >> that is correct. it almost is not done unless it has to be done for some very significant reason. i'm not sure that's always wise, but i think the err has been on the side of protecting the media if there's been any error in recent years for the most part. let me ask you about this entire, whether they will be mirandaized. the president said we will not give miranda to people we arrest who are at war against us, but it appears that is exactly where we are heading. if this commission or group that

was formed to study it, they have required and opine d that most prosecutions would be in federal courts and not in military commission. or the presumption is they would be in federal courts and not military commissions. isn't there, just yes or no, a significant difference between the evidentiary standards of a military tribunal and a federal court prosecution? >> well, it may well be. i do believe there is a great deal of confusion about this. we have been working over in iraq and afghanistan -- >> there may well be? is there a difference between a military commission with regard to miranda warning and a trial in united states district court? >> there may be. >> yes or no. i think there is. all right. if you are going to try a case in a federal district court,

director mueller, aren't you required to comply with the rules of evidence that are enforced in that court? >> yes. >> if you are going to bring a witness in who confessed to a military interrogation and try to try them in federal court and they haven't been mirandaized and they confess, can't the defense lawyer likely prevail and suppress the confession? >> he would try and likely prevail. >> these cases are going to be tried in federal court, we need to be mirandaizing? >> i don't believe that follows. most of the individuals picked up in afghanistan and iraq have not been mirandized. there are occasions, very few occasions where the determination has been made to

mirandize somebody to hold out the option to try that person in another court. >> oh, to hold out the option. if you are going to try them in federal court, they should be mirandized, right? >> if you want a particular statement at a particular time, generally that has to be mirandize. >> i think that is correct. >> i agree. >> if you have a presumption these cases are going to be tried in federal court, why wouldn't the rule be pretty normal in the field by military interrogators and others to give miranda warnings? wouldn't it be making a mistake not to? isn't that likely to reduce the amount of intelligence they gather? >> i think you can determine what kind of information the person has regardless of what court -- >> who is going to look at it, director mueller? >> the national security

council, in terms of is the intelligence more important than holding out the option in federal court, and sitting and looking at that, you would want that option available if it could be available and not to the detriment of gaining the intelligence you need to prevent terrorist attacks. >> i think it gives a lot of pressure to give miranda warnings on many, many cases with the presumption they are going to be pride in federal court and not military commission. this is going to reduce the amount of intelligence obtained on the battlefield that we've never given miranda warnings before in the history of this country of those who are at war against us, and it represents a significant problem. i don't agree with you on that. you can minimize it and we'll ask some written questions, but i feel strongly about this. this is an alteration of

military efforts, war through civilian prosecution. it's a dangerous trend, in my opinion. >> director mueller, isn't it a fact -- i just want to cut to the chase here. if soldiers on the field, they've been in battle and captured some people, they don't get the miranda warning, do they? >> no. of course not. >> i want that clear. i had letters from people that listen to this hoopla and say how can you capture somebody, give them a miranda warning? my son goes in the marines, you were in the military, of course we don't do that. >> i would say the presumption came into place on july 20th of this year that these cases would be tried in federal court and that inevitably required a far large increase of miranda

warnings than ever has been done in the history of this republic. >> i might note we have an awful lot that are never going to see a federal court and never be held anywhere else. when you are in a battle and you capture somebody, you don't give a miranda warning. senator cole. >> i believe, sir, if you ask the commanders in the field, in afghanistan or iraq to determine whether or not the issue of whether or not you give miranda warnings is ever interfered with their ability to do their job, they say no. it's important to have the fbi there and fbi expertise there. >> you think the fbi needs to be involved in interrogations in iraq now? >> in some, yes. >> you are going to pick and choose? >> let's hold that for the next round. >> i think this is an important issue. >> we have modelled entirely the classical distinction between war -- >> senator sessions, i allowed

you to have twice as much time as i took in questions. i want to make sure we have a number of senators who want to have a chance to go. >> i excuse myself to go see what we can help win this war in afghanistan. >> then next to senator grassley and go next to senator fine tine, then we'll go next to senator hatch. senator cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to thank the fbi for the serial murder string in milwaukee that spanned 20 years. the fbi was instrumental to this investigation resulting in a major arrest, as i'm sure you are aware. on behalf of our chief, our mayor, victims' families and our city, we would like to thank you and the fbi. >> thank you, sir. it was a joint effort. i appreciate it. >> thank you so much.

as you said in your remarks at the outset, major crime across the country is showing some decrease but seems to be centered in the largest cities across our country. we in wisconsin have experienced the same kind of decrease in milwaukee. it's been major and recognized and very much appreciated. in cities of medium and smaller size around our state, we also have experienced significant increases in major violent crime. for example, in racine, the number went from 95 in 2005 to 106 in 2008 in. madison, the number went from 391 violent crimes in 2005 to 542 in 2008.

in other cities like lacrosse we had similar significant increases in violent crime from 2005 to 2008. as you indicated, it also seems to be a pattern around the country. to what do you attribute it and what are some of the thoughts you have about addressing this serious issue? >> let me just say there may be three things. first is that the quality of policing in cities makes a substantial difference. secondly, i do believe the spread of gangs can have a huge impact in the rise of crime, in particular. cities the ms-13, latin kings, you name those, and to the extent they gain a foothold in a community, and you see crime rising, and lastly, although the vinyl crimes statistics have gone down over the last couple of years, i do believe that we will face some resurgence in the future. you have a number of persons being released from prison and

in some cases because of the shortage of prison space. you have a number of persons who spent substantial periods of time and been arrested 10, 15, 20 years ago and coming out to an economy where it's difficult to find a job. consequently, i do believe we have to watch this closely. to this end, we are working closely with our state and local counterparts. my belief is always that we do a better job working in task forces. and combining the capabilities and skills of the local police departments and sheriff's offices with the fbi, atf and dea. that maximizes our capabilities of addressing a particular violent crime program in a particular city. >> i appreciate that. what would explain the difference between the decrease in violent crime in the major cities around our country, including wisconsin, and smaller to medium-sized communities. >> i'm not sure anybody can put

their finger on it. i'm not sure one answer fits all. it may be the quality of policing, it may be the impact of taking out a particularly violent gang in a particular city. it may be a combination of utilizing social services along with the efforts of the federal and state and local law enforcement authorities. i don't think there is one answer. we tend to look at crime and say what is the fix for crime generally in our cities? too often, it is individualized and i do recognize the pattern in our larger cities has gone down more substantially than others. to a certain extent, i think the argument can be made that it is the quality of policing in those particular cities. >> director mueller, in your testimony you emphasize the importance of the fbi's coordination with local law enforcement by maintaining regular contact with the officers who are on the street day in and day out, and to work as you indicated, shoulder to shoulder with them. i think we all agree fbi

coordination and local law enforcement is a critical component of fighting and preventing crime. for example, fbi agents are currently working with the racine police department to target violent street gangs and drug organizations within that scene. the presence in the community is also important to further principles to policing that have been successful. what are some of the specific programs that the fbi has been working on to achieve this shoulder-to-shoulder coordination? are there any new programs or efforts on the horizon to improve the ones you're using now? >> well, let me -- as i said, the critical programs for us relate to working on task forces. let me account, if i could, we have almost 200 violent crime, violent task forces around the country. we have almost 2100 agents

working gangs and criminal enterprises which is a substantial number for us. we have a hundred -- no, 17 safe there are willing to sit down shoulder to shoulder in share experience and expertise directed by ed there a specific -- to either a specific gang, we are willing to do that. i think where most effective for a share expertise and capabilities. >> the fbi has bred jurisdiction in crime investigation. and law-enforcement, and ways and impact on every american -- in a law-enforcement, it always in impact on every american.

in these tough economic times, we try to stretch each dollar as far as we can. at city seem to grow every year. what has the fbi done to try to stretch of the limited dollars to help the american taxpayer get the most for their dollar? >> when the more useful have -- programs rea has is bringing graduate from business schools around the country. we bring them in as interns. then we bring them in for the fbi. we have a desire to make the difference. we sent them to particular issues. we had millions of dollars of savings in terms of utilizing rental cars. it was a trivial -- attributed

to buying a better way to do it. we replicated that critic . t that would solve millions of dollars and we had a variety of areas throughout the bureau. we have to look at our facilities because we have 56 field offices around the country and more than 400 resident agencies, but we looked at savings in terms of we need the spread, we need to cover the country and we also have to look at savings up there. i call it savings, and fortunately those who look at the federal budget call it cost avoid abs as opposed to savings, but we are continuously driving to save money and be able to utilize those funds in the areas that may be better spent. >> thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator grassley? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you, director. it would be nice if i had the department of justice here with you because i think there's a lot of questions that they ought to be answering as well as you answering, but i have the opportunity to ask you so i'll start out with where we were a year ago now. i asked you a question about highlighting problems with cooperation between the fbi and atf. you gave what i'd have to consider a legitimate answer. dlj requested the opportunity to provide consolidated responses on behalf of all involved doj components. the fbi has provided its input to doj for consolidated response. the only thing is the fbi or the department of justice has not responded. so in this morning's paper, in regard to the same issue of cooperation between atf and fbi, we're finding the inspector

general glen find, saying there are repeated squabbles. they're feuding over a bomb investigation. so it brings me to my first question with you about the article or about questions of the past. i've been asking about fbi and atf relationships for over two years and my last question was submitted, as i said, september 2008. i never received a response. it is completely unacceptable that i get more information from a newspaper article than directly from the department of justice. i'm particularly concerned about this latest news report because committee staff received a briefing from your agency and the atf last year in which they were told, this committee staff was told that the agencies understood the jurisdictional problems and that these conflicts had been resolved, hence in raising question about the inspector general's report

seemingly refeuding statements that we had in staff briefing. so i want to know what the real story is. could you tell me, please, what is the true state of cooperation between the fbi and atf specifically? have the jurisdictional problems been resolved? i suppose in connection with answering that specific question about jurisdictional problems. can they be resolved? can the current memorandum of understanding be improved in any way? >> we -- first of all, they have not all been resolved as the i.t. points out. there are still issues. a year ago we entered into an mou which addressed a number of the issues in terms of responsibility when one gets to a scene. as i think you were a weir, as much as we have a responsibility for terrorism it's important for us. do i believe it's tremendously

important for us to be on the scene and utilize our capabilities both domestically ask internationally when there's a possibility of a terrorist event. if it does want turn out to be a terrorist event and falls within the purview of atf then it's appropriate that atf have it. when we last talked a year or so ago, it was our expectation that mou would satisfy that as the i.g. is pointing out. it does not satisfy it because two sides of it are interpreting it different ways and it has to be resolved. i will tell you that our level and the top levels, i think the cooperation is excellent, is good and has been for a year or two. when you get down to the field there are pockets where it is not so good, and i generally think that it is not institutional, but more individual and each of our agencies have people that lived more in the past than they should and there is more work to be done as the i.g. pointed out.

>> for the taxpayers' benefit, i think they would expect agencies within the same federal government working for the same american population would get along to get done what needs to be done and not waste time that way. >> i can just mention one thing, if i could. if you look at the cooperation we've had, we have jointly investigated any number of places and done it exceptionally well, whether it be oklahoma city or the 1993 bombings in new york. we have had the ability not to get along is the exception in my mind and not necessarily the rule. >> well, if it gets the inspector general's attention, it seems to be still quite a problem. let me go on to another one. in january i co-sponsored the whistle-blower protection enhancement act and legislation updating whistle-blower protection for all government employees and it addresses a number of hurdles of good faith whistle blowers face when bringing complai

>> yes. yes. >> will they get back to me? you probably don't know because they haven't gotten back to me in over a year on the other one. >> i will join with distinguished senator from iowa to help get those -- >> thank you. i knew you would. >> -- to get those answers because the senator of iowa has been as much a whistle-blower on those issues and i will work with you on that. >> thank you. >> director mueller, we have in so many jurisdictions that we've had before, i know one is the intelligence committee. we're fortunate to have members of this committee who, by tradition, also serve on the intelligence committee and we're twice as fortunate to have the chair of the intelligence committee, and i would yield to her now. senator fine stine? >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman and welcome, director. it's good to see you again. let me begin by using my capacity as chairman of the intelligence committee to thank you. i've mentioned to you, i think on three prior occasions about intelligence-related reports from the fbi not reaching the committee in a timely way, and i want to tell you they are now reaching the committee in a timely way. so thank you very much for achieving that. >> thanks also goes to the department of justice. >> well, maybe that's a precedent that material can flow more quickly. so i thank the department of justice. secondly, the fbi gang assessment indicated that violent gangs are moving from large cities to smaller cities. senator hatch and i have been working on a gang bill for two years now which has stalled because of house objections and the fact that it's got an enforcement portion to it.

could the drop in crime have you locked at whether the drop in crime in large cities is related in any way to this movement of gangs to smaller communities? >> i have not looked at that and will. >> would you? >> yes, i will. i have not -- >> thank you very much. from an intelligence point of view, on the subject that senator sessions raised about miranda warnings, it is my understanding that the fbi just wants to keep the possibility of miranda warnings on the table so that if you have been involved in an arrest of somebody that is likely to be tried in a federal court, that warning can be given, but the soldiers are not giving miranda warnings nor is there any request for them to do so. is that correct? >> that is true. in fact, we have been, as i say, operating with the military in iraq and afghanistan for a number of years.

the military welcomes us and our expertise and it is rare into the occasion when we will give miranda warnings when we are participating in an interrogation on that environment. on the other hand, you may pick up an individual who has been indicted some place and you have the possibility of bringing that person back to the united states to face that indictment for a terrorist act that occurred some time before and at least it ought to be put on the table as to whether or not you wish to mir andize that individual before you talk to them. both were -- well, certainly to make a statement admissible in court in the united states, but that does not necessarily exclude that the person will be interviewed for intelligence purposes as opposed to the admiss ability of a statement in the court of the united states. >> thank you. you cleared that up. i think it's helpful. in august i had the opportunity to meet with the batf in los angeles and found it very interesting, and later during

that period of time i saw this quote from dewey webb, the chief of the atf office in houston saying that at least a dozen women in the past two years have surfaced in federal gun trafficking cases as the suspect or cooperating witnesses in houston and south texas. essentially women with no criminal history, he asserted, were being used to be buyers of high-powered weapons and then giving those weapons to relatives or to smugglers to bring them into mexico. what do you know about this and what is being done about it? >> it's principally a purview, as you point out, of atf, but over@@@@@@

individuals who are responsible. it's a phenomenon that's been there for a period of time. >> well, perhaps we can discuss. >> yes, ma'am. >> but, you know, i know high concern of the mexican government is the massive importation of guns from the united states into mexico. big guns, too, and we have to find a way to stop that. so i would like to talk with you, but i would like to turn now to a fisa matter. >> yes, ma'am. >> the through sunsetting provisions of the patriot act, the lone wolf, the business letters and the roving wiretaps.

this is an issue where two committees have jurisdiction, both the judiciary commitet and intelligence committee. i spoke to senator leahy yesterday and indicated that we'd like to work together if possible so we don't get into battles of sequential referrals and that kind of thing. it was my thinking simply to extend those three provisions until the patriot act is up for authorization which is three years hence. i think senator leahy will submit a bill that does other things as well. i have just received a cope of a letter or a letter directed to me and the vice chairman of intelligence dated september 14th by the justice department saying that they are in full support of reauthorization of all three provisions and that they -- if there were some ideas for some changes, they would be

happy to discuss them. the letter is signed by -- ron weiss and it's a rather forceful case for continuation. i would like to ask you if you would discuss your use of those three provision s as and their relevance today in the continuing concerns about terror infiltrating our country. >> let me start by saying i hope you reinforce each other to, aga again, pass these three provisions. >> we'll work it out. >> the -- first of all, the business records 215. between 2004 and 2009 we've used that more than 250 times.

i make the point that that provision is used with that approval of the fisa court in the business records that are sought there, they relate, not all of the time and almost solely the terrorist investigations with the records that we received are absolutely essential to identifying other persons who may be involved in terrorist activities. >> involving a foreign terrorist. involving someone who is a foreign terrorist. >> so you're prepared to say that there is no domestic exclusivity, but that this relates to a foreign terrorist. >> it relates to the agent of a foreign power. an agent in the fisa statute. so each one would. >> yes. my understanding is that 215 relates -- >> it does and it is being used that way? >> yes. i'm just checking to make sure. yes. >> can we --

>> do you want to ask a question? >> if he can just finish. on the lone wolf provision and the roving wiretaps. >> roving wiretaps we used approximately 140 times over those same years and it was tremendously important. with the new technology it is nothing to buy four or five cell phones at the same time and use them to avoid coverage, and the roving wiretaps are used in those circumstances where we make a case that will happen and we have approval for it. it's essential given the technology and the growth of technology that we've had. as to the lone wolf, that has not been used yet, but my belief is it needs to be there when we have an individual such as moussaoui who when we need to go up and get a fisa warning and get a search and cannot identify specifically with specificity a particular foreign power, that is a particular terrorist organization that he belongs to,

but we narrow the need to as they say in had lone wolf context, go to the fisa court and say, okay. this is a lone wolf. we can't put a tie to this particular terrorist group, but here are the reason why we need to go up to this particular individual. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing him to answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you, director mueller -- mueller, for the great service you've given this country after all these years. all i can say is you're one of the heroes in this country and so are all of those fbi personnel people who really protect us throughout all these years. i just want to tell you i sure appreciate you, but i was relieved when the census bureau chose to terminate its relationship with the association of community organizations for reform now

commonly known as a.c.o.r.n. i'm deeply troubled concerning that organization and many other controversy, too, the disturbing behavior of a.c.o.r.n. employees was captured on video in a.c.o.r.n. offices in brooklyn, new york, baltimore, maryland, washington, d.c., and san bernardino, california, giving guidance on criminal activity. the filmmaker posting as a prostitution ringleader entered a.c.o.r.n.'s offices and how to maintain his enterprise and received tax credits for doing so. i was shocked what this advice included and among other things how to launder profits from an alleged prostitution ring that was going to involve underaged girls. during the meeting, a.c.o.r.n. representatives were informed that the girls were smuggled in to the united states for the purpose of sex trafficking and a.c.o.r.n. employees were told by the film maker that the reason for obtaining the residence was to establish a

brothel that would house these underaged girls. consistent among all these a.c.o.r.n. offices was to lie to law enforcement, conceal the profits and ensure that any of the underaged girls involved in the prostitution ring, do not talk to law enforcement. one a.c.o.r.n. employee in baltimore, told the ring leader that, quote, girls under 16 don't exist, and make sure they keep their mouth shut, unquote. this heinous criminal activity is usually carried out by organized crime families. however it appears that a.c.o.r.n. who has offices in 41 cities nationwide are caught running a sex slavery ring, money laundering or even mortgage fraud. this was not random and the consistency of the advice indicates that this system is system attic and widespread within a.c.o.r.n. the complicit behavior of

a.c.o.r.n. employees offering to assist persons engaging in sex trafficking is egregious behavior. can you tell me if you've been made aware of all these issues and if the fbi field offices in washington and new york are examining these incidents? >> think the first time i heard of these incidents to which you refer was last evening and beyond that, i do not know where we are, clearly, given what you have said it's something in consultation with the department of justis that we would look at. >> that's what i've been led to believe and i would sure appreciate it if you'd look at that time and do something about it. now last month the white house and the attorney general announced the formation of a new working group, comprised of federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel for the sole purpose of interrogating high-value detainees. this has been referred according to both the white house and the attorney general, the hig will be housed inside

the fbi. senior fbi official will be in charge of the hig. >> yes. >> however the administration has stressed that the hig will not be a sub-unit of the fbi or doj. now that point by the administration does not shed light on who the hig will report to, either the fbi or the national security council. if the ultimate goal of the administration is to prosecute high-value detainees in article 3 courts, the development of evidence will be key to the government's case. what i have reservations about is evidence that was developed by the intelligence community. for instance, in some cases the government may not be willing or able to produce the source of the evidence in court. furthermore, the evidence may be the fruit of information obtained by foreign intelligence or foreign investigations.

this information could lead investigators down the line of questioning during an interrogation that they would have to explain in court. if trying these cases in federal criminal courts is ultimate goal, what solution does the fbi propose to address hearsay evidence exclusions. and just one follow up question, will the fbi implement a policy to have it a miranda warning. are they currently mir andizing detainees? >> i think at the heart of the issue the prosecution is not the limited goal of every interrogation. >> sure. it may well be intelligence gathering, but by the same token you should not avoid the possibility that you may be able to obtain evidence that would result in a prosecution and consequently, the effort is to

look at an individual and determine what is the evidence you have on him. is the evidence as missible into a courtroom? is it coming from sources that is problematic even though the reasons you said it would come from a source or method that may be disclosed or may have come from a foreign country, but tie that together and say what do we have on this individual? first, how does it tie together to maximize our ability to interrogate that individual? and the information that you need to effectively interrogate an individual may welcome from law enforcement sources or it may welcome from intelligence sources, but the person doing the interrogation should have that information in front of them and in unique cases, these are high-value targets and as i said before, maybe someone who has been indicted before at least have the option of given miranda warnings where it's appropriate and it would help the prosecution and not to the detriment of gathering intelligence. so the group, the units are a combination of intelligence and

law enforcement, fbi, and intelligence in terms of cia and in terms of dia with the combined expertise that we can more effectively do it and make sure we have the intelligence on the table. the other thing that we have in this country and many countries do not have is the procedures act which enables us as what happened with mousse sowy and other cases to successfully troy individuals while still protecting information that may have come from overseas. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, my time is up and i'll submit the rest of my questions. i'll just submit the rest of my questions. >> we are going to be having votes and what i'll try to do is keep the scoring and people take turns going there and senator feingold, and it will be senator cou

coughman and they had the rest of the list here. senator feingold, senator schumer. senator feingold? >> let me begin. director, nice to see you again. i would like to first address about the violent crime in wisconsin, the overall trend of violent crime is being decreasing is, of course, heartening, but i urge you to continue to work closely with state and local law enforcement on these issues. director, as to the patriot act, three provisions of the patriot act expires, we know, at the end of year. critical information about their implementation has not been made public. information that i think would have a significant impact on the debate. during the debate on the protect america act in the fisa act of 2007 and 2008 i felt a critical legal and factual information unnamed to the public and information to congress, information critical to the

debate might have made a difference in the way some people voted. during the last patriot act reauthorization debate, a great deal of information remained classified and this time around we have to try to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these government powers while, of course, protecting national security secrets. i've raised this repeatedly, as you know, the administration officials over the past couple of years. most recently in june, in a classified letter also signed by leahy, durbin, and white house. i appreciate that the justice department in a letter this week made public for the first time that the lone wolf authority as that the lone wolf authority as you jt@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v

what you're saying in terms of what you learned on the intelligence committee would be useful in the debate on the floor and there is a tension, but i do believe that the information provided to the intelligence committee in a classified setting is appropriately provided to the intelligence committee in the classified setting and while there is that tension there, i cannot give you the commitment that i would advocate for releasing more information than we have in the past. >> well, i hope you'll reconsider that. i mean, the fact is you have

made public that the lone wolf provision has never been used. that is something that perhaps other people would like to know, but you have chosen to do that, so obviously you're not applying this as an across-the-board rule and a number of times section 215 orders have been issue side something, but it does not come close to providing the kind of information about the use of the authority that i think is needed for meaningful public debate. >> that may be where we disagree. i just want to say that i -- i feel as strongly as anybody in this body or in this country about keeping things secret that have to be kept secret and my feeling and understanding about that is increased greatly as a member of the senate intelligence committee for the past four years, but i really do believe there's a way to do this, and i hope you will work with us and consider appropriate disclosure that is not harmful to our country, but allows us to have real debate. >> i would do that, in terms of particular piece of information. >> the court of appeals for the second circuit found the gag

order provision for the national security letter statutes violate the first amendment. has the fbi changed its procedures for gag orders to address the constitutional problems identified by this decision in if so, has it made these changes nation wide or changed things in the success cirqueity? >> let me check one thing, if i might. >> we made the change across the country. >> good. >> while the court's decision was specific to nsl and there are implications for the gag orders associated with the section 215 orders as well. has the fbi made any changes to these procedures as a result of the second circuit's decision? >> not in that venue. we disagree with the application of the second circuit opinion to these other procedures. >> we'll take that up in the future, then, but appreciate the answer. as senator leahy mentioned last

year the doj inspector general issued the reports of the fbi's use of the national security letters in the patriot act. in light of the reauthorization process, i want to follow up on a particularly troubling incident discussed in one of these reports. the i.g. said that the fbi issued nsls to obtain financial records in an investigation, after the fisa court had twice refused to approve section 215 orders in the same investigation because of first amendment problems. so this obviously is concerned about how seriously the fbi takes first amendment issues in the course of the investigation. do you think it was appropriate for the fbi to seek information using nsls and investigative tool that do not require approvals to get around the fisa court refusal to apply a section 215 order. >> i'm not familiar with this instance. quite clearly, in the way you have characterized it in terms of judge shopping or process shopping.

i'm not certain that's appropriate, but i'm not familiar with the incident and i would have to get back to you. >> the report was issued a year and a half ago. has the fbi taken any action to ensure this doesn't happen again? i have to -- there are a number of issues we looked at in the wake of two to three i.g. reports and on this one i just -- i can't give you a specific answer at this time. >> i look forward to hearing from you. you've been responsive to my requests in the past. so i look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. i would like to ask you finally about rolling fisa wiretaps, one of the provisions due to sunset. i never objected to granting this authority to the fbi. my concern is with a lot of patriot act provisions were that adequate safeguards weren't included. however in the rolling wiretap statute there's a phone that kept be wiretapped that hasn't been expressly approve pied a judge, it must be presumed that

the target of the surveillance is nearby. it helps ensure that the fbi doesn't tap the wrong phone or computer being used by an entirely innocent american. why not include a similar requirement for the fisa rolling taps? >> it is my understanding and, again, i haven't looked at that time in a while that we're required to show that the individual be using many phones in order to get the approval for that particular provision. it seems to me that that satisfies the due process, the constitutional requirements and is adequate. to prove more would mean that we would be going back to the judges day in and day out in this day where cell phones are throwaway cell phones. given the technology now, in many places as we've seen in the debate on phis a the statutes do not keep up with the technology. in drafting and adding another

requirement, it will inhibit our ability to swiftly track those individuals they're seeking to avoid surveillance and counter surveillance. >> is that a consequence? >> a criminal rule is -- you asked my opinion, it's too restrictive. it's too restrictive. >> fair answer. >> we would be far more effective on criminals if we went back to work on title three. it's been in the books for any number of years. technology has changed dramatically. >> well, i'm just going go to the next senator. >> senator franken? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. director. first of all, director mueller, i want to thank you for providing me with briefings on somali individuals from minnesota who returned to somalia to join extremists. i am very happy that you're on

the ground in the twin cities. obviously, these individuals are a rare exception within the somali community in minnesota which is a patriotic and hardworking and important part of our state. one of the things that makes this country special is we're a melting pot and we have people with the cultural background and skills that we need for these investigations. how is the fbi doing on this front? do we have enough arabic-speaking translators, for example for terror investigations? >> we -- i can't say we're doing as well as i would like. we have almost doubled our capability since september 11th, but that was a small capability to begin with. when it comes to somali speakers or pashtu or others where there are various clan dialects it becomes more problematic. we've had substantial outreach programs since september 11th in trying to attract those who have those capabilities both in terms

of providing, translating and -- translating capability, but also as agents to be able to operate. we're not where we want to be. it's tremendously difficult, but we have done everything we possibly can to encourage, recruit and bring in persons from a diverse background. >> okay. thank you. the task force that's been discussed today i'm concerned about rendition. i can see from a release on the task force from the department of just fris august 24th that actually, you're calling it transfers or it was called transfers, but that's renditions, isn't it? >> well, there are renditions.

somebody can be rendered from another country pursuant to an extradition treaty. that's also called renditions. somebody can be transferred from another country as a result of the other country putting a person on a plane to the united states. that's a rendition, albeit, without any extradition paper. >> my question is are we going to continue the policy of rendition where we send folks, prisoners to other countries and will the fbi be handing folks over to this cia for rendition? >> we have not done that in the past and we will not do it in the future. i gave a brief description to that, because yes, we have been involved in rendition, but not the renditions i think you're asking about. >> okay. i just want to make sure that there's not transfers of people

to other countries for torture. i certainly would not do that, when we transfer someone to another country, it's pursuant. >> have not, and will not. okay. >> the fbi has a human trafficking initiative that investigates an arrest and traffickers. in minnesota there's a serious problem with trafficking in native american communities. people are trafficking native american women. in fact, the minnesota indian women's resource center recently found that 27% of its clients, native american women were victims of human trafficking as defined by minnesota law. i want to know if human trafficking is a priority at this fbi and how many full-time employees investigate human trafficking at the fbi and how many man hours are spent

investigating human trafficking at the fbi. >> i had not been aware prior to the mention by your staff that this question might be coming up about human trafficking of native american women. it's something i have to look into. >> please. >> we will. i can tell you that we have over a hundred agents that work in indian country. we've maintained that since september 11th despite the other priorities, but i'd have to get back to you as well as to the number of agents and others we have that are working on human trafficking in general, and i would do that. >> please get back to me on that and on how many of your investigations have centered on trafficking of native women. the fbi gathers crime statistics from around the country, but in minnesota they don't participate in the crime program. state law says actually they can't. this means that crimes on the indian reservations are

underreported in national statistics than indian triems themselves have difficulty tracking and analyzing crime. this is a big problem. do you know how many indian tribes on reservations participate in the crime reporting program? >> i don't. i'll get back to you, but it is a voluntary reporting structure. >> okay. i have a little bit over a minute left so i'm just -- we hear a lot about cyber terror itch, but a lot of folks don't have a clear idea of what it is, and how it can actually harm people in the country. so and just how fighting it is crucial in the war on terror. can you tell me what cyber terrorism is and how it can actually result in the loss of lives and do that for our people watching? >> if you have an attack and if

you have a service attack or a worm or a virus, quite often you don't know who is responsible for that. is it a state actor? is it a country some place and is it a terrorist group or is it an individual? whatever the activity is you have to trace it back and attribute it to one of the three. generally with terrorists it could be disrupting a communications network. i mean, the points are shutting down an electrical grid, shutting down a stock exchange and in other words, any activity that would bring attention to the terrorists that would disrupt our capabilities will probably be called a terrorist activity. >> they do stuff with satellites and can they do something with air traffic control. it would be one thing that they're concerned about, but it

is utilize internet as a vehicle, and you also have the more recent example of the russians disrupting the georgian command and control capabilities before the invasion of georgia by russia. it is that kind of activity that either state sponsored or terror sponsored that can shut down various networks of the military or in the private arena as well. and presumably we have really smart people working on this. i remember the fbi sever@'@ @ @b r

>> do i call you mr. chairman? >> better not do that. first of all, i welcome you here and thank you for your continued leader shcht federal bureau of investigation which is an organization that americans are very proud of. you have been given a significant new responsibility with respect to the high value detainee interrogation group and

very recently. it was the end of august when this was announced. i'm wondering what your administrative benchmarks are for the next couple of months to keep that process moving forward and to discharge the obligations that you have received. what do you see as your next steps? when do you think the group will be fully operational? what are the key benchmarks on the way there? >> let me start by saying that we're in the midst right now following up with protocols for the -- this group, but as important as anything else, there's the bureau of the leadership in the intelligence community and we're exploring names and options for that. in the third area that we are -- there's outreach to other persons who have done research in this area to try to bring in early, the lessons learned in

research for phil hyman, the defense intelligence committee over the years. so we start with some accumulated knowledge upon which we will build. in my mind the two critical issues are in bringing together our organizations to work closely together and understand and have consensus the goal of this structure and, secondly, the leadership of it that should be supported by all participants. can you put that into some kind of time horizon for me? i would say by the first of the year and i tend to be impatient. i would give you a longer term in my horizon than i would like. i can tell you that just about every day i'm looking for one or more pieces of it. >> very good. i should take this opportunity to congratulate you for the success that the fbi has had in this role in these high-value

interrogations. the very identity of khalid shaikh muhammad as the architect of the 9/11 horrors was something that was achieved by an fbi-led interrogation. it was a joint effort. there were fbi and cia interrogators present, but i want to thank you because you had an effective role. >> can i just inter something? >> please. >> we have participated with the agents and the military. there have been successes across the board. in my mind we are not where we are today without the activities and capabilities of the agency in terms of addressing the war on terror and the military and while i appreciate the congratulations, i must say that we do spend a lot of time in attributing successes given the policy debate, but the fact of the matter is the agency has been instrumental in bringing us the safety that we have it to

the extent that we have it today, and i did want to make that point. that's a very good point, and i think we have -- it is administratively generous and prudent to make it, and i believe the fbi's role has been undersung, and i want to take this opportunity to express your agency's efforts. as we look towards bringing people from guantanamo to the united states for further detention, for prosecution, for conviction, what is the fbi's assessment of the security risks that that process presents and how big of a hazard is the

detention of these suspects with the united states. >> think it depends on the circumstances. depending on where the bureau of prisons, quite obviously, you've been out to colorado and seen florida, i think. there is very, very little risk there. in most federal prisons there's very, very little risk. county jails are different. my expectation is when you're bringing persons from everseas who are involved in terrorism, they will be given top priority in terms of assuring that not only are they inkors rated and cannot escape, but also they do not affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system. >> assuming appropriate prioritization for these individuals.

do you have any doubts of the federal bureau of prisons to keep them secure? >> yes. >> you do have doubts or you do not have doubts? >> well, i don't know. i don't know that the circumstances -- my expectation is the bureau of prisons, along with the marshal service, will provide adequate and appropriate security. >> very good. senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, senator whitehouse, good to see you again, director mueller. i want to talk to you a bit about the white collar area. i know you devoted some of your testimony to that and while i see the prosecution of violent crimes and the investigation of violent crimes as well as terrorism to be priorities of your work. i have also always believed that it's been very difficult for local law enforcement to handle some of these complex cases coming from that angle that my previous job before i came to the u.s. senate. one of the thins we've talked about at previous hearings is

the potential for fraud with the t.a.r.p. money and the stimulus money, and i wondered, without revolleying specific cases if the fbi is prepared for that type of fraud that we might see? i think in the out years we'll be given additional resources. we requested additional resources in the 2010 budget and our expectation is we'll ask for more in the 2011 budget and there's no doubt in my mind that the monies that are rolling relatively freely through the federal government, we have to work closely with the i.g.s to identify where those monies are flowing and who will take a piece of it, whether it be through fraud or public corruption. with those amounts out there, there is no doubt that there will be a number of people who seek to obtain those frauds and those amounts illegally and it will take us as well as the inspector generals as well as new ways of identifying and

maintaining data that will enable us to get to the heart of a scheme relatively early. and through manipulating that data and pulling in that data to be able to make a pros curial case. there's no doubt that whether it be from the t.a.r.p. or stimulus package and the like that there's going to be fraud abuse and betrayal of the public trust. >> you also testified about the health care fraud and the work that's being done there. as we deal with cost savings for health care and looking for those savings, one of the things that i was most startled by with some of the estimates that the health care fraud cost taxpayers $60 billion a year potentially because there's 20% of total medical spending. i know when i was a prosecutor we had a number of cases that were quite shocking in some of

its technology because people were able to get into hospital systems and start ripping things off or getting identity numbers or smings like that and some of it is just providers which is the scariest part, people putting patients at risk or doing multiple billings and multiple surgeries. so can you address what the fbi is doing in that regard? i also have a bill on this to require direct depositing or electronic funds transfer for the medicare payments because the regulations have not been uniformly enforced and to me that's a simple no-brainer that we would have direct depositing so that would help us to prohibit some of this fraud. >> i can tell you at this point we have almost 2500 cases and this year alone we've had 49 convicts ina fraud cases and we have ten task forces around the country and we have about 700, almost 800 persons working on

health care fraud with 60 or so special agents. that is not enough to address the problem. and as the health care debate goes on, and if indeed there is a health care bill, we would hope that there would be provisions in there that would address this particular issue, however, one that you suggested be one. our people are looking at what might come out and how we can, at the outset put into place the records and the capability of access to those records so that we can identify the fraud schemes without waiting for somebody to walk in the door. >> exactly, i would think that your input from the agency would be very important as we go forward. i believe this has got to be part of any kind of health care reform bill when we're looking at those kinds of numbers and we're trying to save money. some of these can be really ease we someone who just collected social security numbers out of a hospital because they happened to be in a drawer, in a stack in a rubberband.

obviously, they've changed their procedure. that was just a straight identify theft scheme using the social security numbers, but there are more complex schemes, as you know. >> on a number of occasions the attorney general and secretary sebelius have spoken out about this and are concerned about it and have taken the opportunity to make the point in press conferences relating to health care fraud where there have been successful conclusions to investigations. >> exactly, and i know again how high cost these investigations can be, but it's my hope when you look at the madoff case which of course, was sec, but to have all of those whistle blowers that have called and tried to report that and $65 billion stolen that the costs of these investigations may be high and the cost of not doing anything is so much higher. so thank you on that. the last thing i want to talk to you about was we recently had a hearing on the national academy of science report, forensic

science and as you know, they released a report in february on some of the changes and some recommendations of the science area. we had a very interesting report hearing with police chiefs and prosecutors and people from the innocence project there, and we actually found some general agreement and there were clearly disputes about some of the language in the reports that the prosecutors did not like, but there was some general consensus a kred tating some of these forensic science labs and some forensic science labs and some certification and also funding for more training in this area and also taking care of some of the backlog that we've seen across the country. could you comment on the fbi's view on that? >> well, i think our view is that we absolutely believe that accreditation is tremendously important. we have sought it and received it. but i think that that is absolutely essential to raising the capabilities of laboratories

around the country. training, quite obviously, always contributes to that. the one area in which there was some discussion in that is separating the forensics laboratory from the -- >> the police. >> -- the police. in our case, i think it would have a substantially detrimental effect -- >> yeah, i -- >> and you as a prosecutor -- >> i totally get that part of it. that's why i'm trying to find the consensus pieces, and there was consensus on the accreditation, funding, training, backlog, and then just some of these certification issues, so. >> we're on that train. >> okay, good. very good. thank you very much, director. >> i think we await the return of the chairman from the vote. it should be very shortly. if you don't mind, i'll take an extra moment and follow up with you until he gets here on the

questions for the record that i asked when you appeared before the committee on march 25th having to do with issues surrounding the security clearance, background checks, the hiring process for the individuals that the fbi needs to bring on board as it takes more and more of a national security-oriented role. people with foreign experience, people with foreign language capability, people who have more national security backgrounds and so forth. you have a very considerable security@@@@@@@ @

given year. we've got a one-year budget, and often we don't get our budget because there's a continuing resolution, and so we have a much truckated time in which to bring those people on board, and our human resources division is completely revamrevam iingrevam procedures, and we will have everybody on board by the first of the year. certainly with agents and analysts, we actually are above

our numbers in hiring there and we're just a bit down on the professional staff. we also have looked in the context over the overarching review that has been done by the office of the director of national intelligence as to how to restructure our security checks for our people and have done that, and then working -- i'm not certain where we are in terms of the 90-day frame, i'd have to get back -- time frame -- i'd have to get back to you with that, but we're working with the odni and the rest of the intelligence community to fix this problem. >> i appreciate that. the chairman has returned. >> thank you. thank you, sir. while he was filling in, we have checked with whether senator schumer, carden or specter are coming back. the votes, as i think they probably told you, director, is a whole series of votes. but you've been here before. you know how that -- >> yes, sir. >> -- sometimes work. i would show, however, that we've had on our side of the aisle, we've had 11 senators who

have taken part, 11 democratic senators, in this. we have also had the distinguished ranking member, senator sessions and two senior, very senior members of the republican party take place. so, 14 of us. it shows how serious we take this. note that you take the question of oversight seriously. you and i have talked not just here, but we talked during the weeks and the months as we go along. i would note that this spring, the national academy of sciences issued a comprehensive report on the need to improve forensic sciences in the united states. the judiciary committee's held two hearings on this already. i've been disturbed by some of the things i've heard.

as a -- when i was a prosecutor, i used forensic evidence all the time. we didn't have dna then, but we used everything else. i know how valuable it can be, both to the prosecution and the defense, but it's valuable only if it's accurate, reliable, and if it reflects state-of-the-art technique. i think we have to have total confidence. as you know and i know, there are some cases that have no forensic evidence, but when it is there, for interests of justice, it has to be accurate. it has to be something both sides can agree on. in the 1990s, i called the fbi, it faced some similar problems. the fbi laboratory wasn't living up to the highest standards. ultimately, the fbi worked with the congress. we built an entirely new fbi laboratory.

massive undertaking. i think it was about $100 million, years. now the fbi's at the forefront of forensic science. in fact, one area that we see now that people agree as being solidly reliable, dna, is actually the standard developed by the fbi. >> yes, sir. >> how do we -- what do we do with forensic programs around the country? i mean, some argue that we should have one national lab. others say that the state labs can be good. as you know, some states have very good labs. some states don't. how do we establish standards, so if you're trying a case in vermont or california or ohio, and forensic science is used,

that there's some touchstone standard, like the national science academy has said that we can look at and say, okay, we know this is good? >> i do believe that accreditation is tremendously important and driving persons to upgrade laboratories and shaming them into seeking accreditation. and it's going to require the support not just of the laboratories themselves, but it costs money to upgrade a lab. it takes money to train the various technicians you need. >> money and time. >> money and time. and you need everybody to be pushing it. particularly in this case, it should be the judges, should be the prosecutors, should be the defense counsel, it should be the technicians themselves. and as you have pointed out, guilt or innocence of somebody is often dependent on the quality of that forensic evidence, even before dna.

the other aspect of it is, as in everything else, we need to work together. you indicate that we establish the standards with regard to dna. we did it with a working group of individuals from around the country, from a variety of laboratories, so that it wasn't the fbi dictating, it was law enforcement within the united states coming together with appropriate solution and standards. the same thing can be said for the criminal justice information services, where we have a board which is made up mostly of state and local law enforcement that we, basically, are the administrator, and that works exceptionally well. so, having the money, having the push, having the accreditation and then having the input of the board from state and local law enforcement are, i would say, the key components. >> and this is something really that affects everybody in the criminal justice system. it affects the judges, defense

attorneys, prosecutors. we talked about this before. the prosecutor wants to make sure they've got the right person. the worst thing is if you convict the wrong person, because it means the person who convicted the crime is still out there going free, plus the obvious violation of convicting the wrong person. but you have, i call it the "csi" factor. you go into courts, everybody says, well, where's the dna? well, a lot of cases don't have dna. or where's the fingerprints? a lot of cases don't have fingerprints. where's the ballistics? a lot of cases don't have it. but when it's there, it ought to be something where the argument is, we all agree on the finding. otherwise, i think we're going to be in for some really, real difficulty, especially with some of the court cases that have come down about requiring the

testimony of the person who actually did it. that could be almost impossible, and i know your laboratory helps local law enforcement all around the country, and that could create a real problem. let me ask you another thing while the staff is checking, there's others coming back. we saw the murder of matel matero, an ecuadorian immigrant brutally killed in long island. and we've seen such other crimes against latinos and immigrants. the southern poverty law center show the fbi statistics suggest a 40% rise in anti-latino hate crimes across the nation between 2000 and 2007. what is happening here and what steps are being taken? both of us abhor hate crimes of any instance, whether against latinos, blacks, people because

of their gender or sexual identification. but is there an increase in latino and immigrant hate crimes? >> i had not been aware of that. i will have to go and check with that, but whatever we get allegations with that regard in consultation and conjunction with the department of justice to determine the applicability of our jurisdiction, we thoroughly investigate and try and convict. i will have to get back to you on that increase. i had not recognized that. i know we have a problem with reporting of hate crimes because some believe it is a somewhat nebulous category. some are unwilling to put it into that category. and our statistics, as i say, are dependent on the state and local law enforcement providing that information. we have in the last couple of years focused when we have our meetings with regard to the information that's provided just

focused on that particular issue in order to encourage state and local law enforcement to spend more time and enable us to have accurate statistics in that regard. >> well, the late senator kennedy had espoused hate crime less, and i'm proud to follow his lead in doing that. we have legislation pending that would increase the tools for federal investigators, but also to state and local law enforcement to deal with hate crimes. we know this happens. we saw the murder of a guard at the holocaust museum, and your department was involved, as the other areas were in that, something that all of us found as shocking of things you might see. do you think if we pass a bill that may be able to help law enforcement curb the trend of crimes on ethnicity or race or

sexual orientation or bias, would that help us? >> i'd have to take a look at it, but it might well. >> thank you. i see senator schumer here. i yield to senator schumer. >> you voted, i take it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me thank you. i know you asked many more questions than you thought you would, and you're a good friend, a great leader and a wonderful chairman. so, thank you for handing it to me, and i hope the questions, mr. director, weren't too difficult, that i caused he asked, if i -- >> no. >> anyway, i have a bunch of questions. the first relates, of course, to what happened in new york a few days ago. we marked the eighth anniversary of our terrorist attacks, the 9/11 attacks, last friday in solemn ceremonies, seeing the families still wearing the pictures of the people they lost, and we mark this day with remembrance but also

rededication to the country's national security, as i have said. publicly, i think the fbi does a very good job and is light years better than they were on 9/10, 2001, and a lot of that is to your credit, mr. director, and the men and women who work for you, the thousands and thousands who do it. in new york, we have very good task force. now, my question is just, you know, this recent report put new yorkers on edge. it came at a time right after 9/11. there were all sorts of rumors flying around. so, i just want to ask you a question. and i know that this is an ongoing investigation, not much can be said of it in public, nor should it, so that the investigation is not compromised. however, here's the one question i have. could you assure new yorkers and the american public that the situation is under sufficient control and there is no imminent danger to their safety? >> i can say that i do not

believe there is an imminent danger from that particular investigation, from what i know of that particular investigation. >> okay. i think we'll leave it at that. i want to urge you to continue the joint terrorism task force. it is a very successful enterprise and i would urge continued cooperation. i intend to visit it shortly. they invited me to come and i will be there. >> let me also put in and say without any reservation that our relationships with nypd and this and other investigations could not be better and that new yorkers are well benefited by the work of nypd and ray kelly in making the city safe. and in situations where there are investigations being conducted, we have a very good working relationship, and we'll continue that relationship.

>> good. i'm glad to hear it. i know it toss the case, and thank you for saying it. next question relates to the terror alerts. as you know, tom ridge, the former secretary of the department of homeland security, recently wrote a book. it was entitled "the test of our times." the book reveals how some, including former attorney general ashcroft, former secretary of defense rumsfeld, he said, pressured him to elevate the national security threat just days before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the election. that's his characteriog@ @ @ @ h

considerations in those discussions. >> those specific discussions. >> throughout. >> thank you. next question relates to security of fbi databases and cyber security experts. the administration released a new national intelligence strategy yesterday and it designated cyber security as a new top priority for the intelligence community. that makes a great deal of sense. you told the committee this morning how important this area

is and how important it is to hire appropriate experts. a report issued by a private consulting firm, who's allen, this summer counted numerous continued problems our government has in hiring enough capable cyber security experts, and you can't do this work without highly qualified personnel. so, first question -- does the fbi have sufficient experts to meet the nation's growing cyber security needs? and similarly, is the fbi expanding its efforts to recruit and retain such experts? >> yes. in the wake of september 11th, we changed the definition of our hiring needs and cyber capabilities was one of those areas that we immediately focused on. and since then, we have brought in any number of persons who were a program analyst, software

developers, all range of cyber expertise in that particular category are still recruiting for that category. it is a -- what do i want to say? it's one of the categories that we understand is absolutely essential to get the right people in it and one that is going to expand. other aspect that i do believe that is tremendously important is we have a cyber task force. it is relatively large. that includes personnel from any number of agencies, so that we tap in not only into the expertise of the fbi, but also the expertise of the intelligence community, the military and others. >> are you having, though, some difficulties in finding enough cyber security experts? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> good. i'm going to ask the gao to conduct a report on the hiring of cyber security experts, not just in the fbi, but in other parts of the government as well,

so we can comprehensively identify any systemic deficiencies and work together to keep our intelligence agencies fully and appropriately staffed. that's it. >> thank you. director, we now are several minutes into a ten-minute roll call vote. i will recess the hearing now, but again, thanks to you. i appreciate, as i said before. you've always been available when i've had questions, and i appreciate your testimony here today. we share a common interest in law enforcement, law enforcement we can be proud of. again, i complicate you for your speech on the anniversary on the fbi's anniversary. >> thank you. >> stand in recess.úú

the presiding officer: the senator has one minute. mr. wicker: very simply, this amendment would allow law abiding amtrak passengers to securely transports firearms in their checked baggage. under current practices, all of the american domestic airlines permit firearms in their checked luggage. other american passenger railroads also allow checked firearms. only the federally subsidized amtrak prohibits law-abiding american citizens from existing their second amendment rights in checked baggage. on april 2 of this year the

senate passed a similar amendment to the budget with 63 in favor of the wicker amendment and only 35 against. during the time since then, amtrak has made no effort to respond to this overwhelming bipartisan vote. it is my hope that we could get a similar overwhelming bipartisan vote today and result in amtrak ending this unfair practice. i urge a vote in favor of the amendment. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well and out of the senate. mrs. murray: mr. president, i would ask all of our senators to please -- the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: to pay attention to ask what we're voting on. we did vote on a similar amendment during the budget the debate. these amendments are very different. the amendment to the budget resolution never put amtrak's funding at risk. that amendment would have prohibited an extra reserve fund from going 0 amtrak if it didn't

allow firearms. the amendment that we're now considering does something much more drastic, it will put at risk amtrak's appropriations. in order to receive any federal funding under this amendment, amtrak would have six months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms. it would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms and it would have to purchase the equipment necessary. now there is nothing in the underlying appropriations to pay for any of that. so this amendment is going to put a severe burden on them and if they do not comply, amtrak will shut down. mr. president, i think it's very important that we be careful what we're voting on here and i ask my colleagues to oppose the >> washington journal continues.

host: we have the mayor ofinues. seattle joining us.

who argued here with and what is the purpose of your trip? -- who are you ehre wihere withd what is the purpose of your trip? guest what specifically are you advocating for? guest: 1 the protocol went into law in 2005 and 141 countries it became law but not the united states, i stepped forward and suggested that seattle would reduce emissions by the amount called for in the treaty. i challenge mayors to join with me across the country. about 1000 mayors had joined me. and we think the issue is a very important one for our cities and the world. secondly, we think that because of the leadership we have shown and the grass-roots action we have taken that we are an important partner, the city's

are where the economy takes place. most of the fossil fuel that is burned is burned in our cities to create that economy. missions and reduce the dependence on foreign oil, you're going to have to work into the cities and work with us as partners to be able to show people in our communities that they can take individual action. host: al green is seattle? -- how green is seattle? guest: seattle is a very green city. one dozen other mayors have followed suit and that amazes me. they are from every part of the country, every political party. it is something that people recognize is a huge problem. it is a global problem, and yet they are willing to take local,

individual action to try to deal with it. host: what is an example that seattle has done for other companies predict that other companies could do? -- what is an example that seattle has done that other companies could do? guest: we are not a whole state. -- not a coal state. when you flip on a light switch in seattle, you are not testing the planteet. we have, as one of the ways we all set emissions, we have a large cruise ship activity. now they no longer run diesel engines but they turn them off and plug into our green and electric power. we tried to take actions and

individual homes, businesses, and in the behavior's and practices that we have that will reduce emissions hos. host: i want to get your reaction on some bad climate news and some good. the white house and the senate leadership have pretty much agreed to keep controversial issues on the back burner until the health-care debate is resolved. referring to an international summit coming up. guest: that is in copenhagen. the word that we got yesterday is we went around to different members of the senate and that there is a lot of work going on. it is going on behind the scene. the public's focus and the senate's focus and the

president's focus is on health care reform. obviously that is an extremely important issue. " we hope is that this hard work will be done and the compromises that are necessary will be found and put into legislation that can be put forward relatively quickly. it is heartening to me that it is at least on the table and on the agenda. in 2005 it certainly was not. the united states was a real problem internationally in terms of climate change conversations. for us to be able to go to copenhagen and be a voice, not only going along with the rest of the world but helping to lead the rest of the world is important. . .

caller: yes, it's muted. host: you have to turn it off. caller: i am a retired coal miner@p'á

paper ran a full-page article on this. the coal companies are violating the u.s. clean water act. one company violated its 4600 times in a quarter-year homes and businesses if we will reduce emissions, keep the promise, to leave a planet that children and grandchildren can enjoy. we need to change our culture, outlook from one of conspicuous

consumption to one of conspicuous conservation. the mayor has been talking about the real opportunity created by that. it is not just sacrifice. people in coal states are very concerned about what cap and trade will do to their economy. we need to recognize that and address it in any bill. there will be opportunities created in jobs in retro- fitting buildings to make them energy-efficient. in seattle we have a goal of 20%. we think there will be over 1 million jobs per year created between now and 2038 just in that retrofitting. we will build new buildings with new technologies and techniques. we will be building new power plants based on renewable resources, solar and geothermal. wind. those will create new jobs and opportunities as well.

that is the kind of economy we should prepare for and trained people for. -- and train people for. make sure that the practices we use will leave yours and my states in the condition we will be proud of. host: good morning. caller: the whole theory which is quickly being proven and to that co2 is causing energy rise is junk science. i suspect you are a lawyer. guest: i'm not, but thank you. caller: i will give you four points. there is no greenhouse issue. carbon up so levels go up --

carbon dioxide levels go up and for the last 89 years the temperature has not gone up in this country. so, why do we keep intruding into carbon dioxide? some scientists feel that it has done little warming comibut cant do much more. i have looked at the issue for 20 years. then when our government says that a natural part of the atmosphere is a pollutant i feel like i'm moving in a george orwell novel. how can something naturally part of the atmosphere be called a pollutants? i would like to respond, sir. guest: let me just say i'm not a scientist. i'm a local politician. i'm not really in the practice of involving myself in global of issues. for me it is making sure that the streets are safe and

services are delivered efficiently. i got involved in 2005 when seattle had a warm and dry winter. the ski season was canceled because there was no snow. it was of particular challenge in our area because we rely on the snowmelt for water into a tizzy. the mayor of to, and i had to urge people to start showering together which even in the northwest is a more radical. -- that was the mayor of tacoma and i. the trend has been downward since the end of world war ii. vast majority of opinion supports the idea that carbon dioxide is having an effect. other greenhouse gases as well. the effect is also caused by human behavior, the changes we have made in how we power

industries and transportation. to me as an elected local officials, human being, and we have a responsibility to look at those practices and behaviors and change so we don't destroy the environment that has nurtured a human life and hopefully for future generations. for me that is the driving force. we need to ask people to sacrifice. we need to get creative and innovative. not only would we provide an environment, but also an economy to support the quality of life we are proud to pass on. host: the next call from washington comes on the line for caller: democrats yes, mayor, this is your back in port townsend. guest: it is early there. caller: yes, i wish that you

would address blue energy. at that one place it was one of the greatest opportunities for that kind of energy in thewa world inve technology would allow us to get rid of the dams and to power our state and others. it would not hurt the fish. guest: one of the exciting things about this issue is that it will encourage him and innovation. port townsend is at the northwest portion of washington state. in the southeast corner we have a small city called a walla walla and on the outside of that

city we have mountain ridges with very high wind. i saw the construction in august of some huge wind turbines going up on those bridges. we have people who have figured out how to extract energy from algae. -- there are some huge wind turbines going up on those mountain ridges. we have a limited supply of fossil fuels, particularly oil. the political ramifications of getting additional oil are very high. we will encourage that innovation, have renewable energy resources to create jobs. that will take us to where we need to go to protect the planet. it is an exciting time and opportunity. host: the call referenced a blue energy? what does that mean? caller: i'm not sure.

the tidal energy sector is in its infancy. i know that there are utilities. the seattle city of light has looked at its. it is one of many exciting opportunities out there. host: the next call comes from detroit, michigan, steve. caller: you politicians all say the same thing. we need to do this, have to do that. you look like you are well-fed with a nice cut and jacket on. i don't know how things are in seattle but let me tell you how they are in detroit. one of three are out of work. unemployment is running out. we stood in lines for four hours yesterday for food. we do not want to hear that we will create jobs two years down the line. people need jobs now. c-span has all these diverse

topics. everything except for the fact that nobody is working. we cannot even make an economy work and upgrade people's standard of living with fossil fuels. how we do this right now? you cannot. when your basic needs are in jeopardy like your rent, food. we do not want to hear about what you will do and say. it is time to stop the crap and start creating jobs today, right now, this afternoon. guest: i certainly agree with that. the city i'm proud to be mayor of is suffering along with the rest of the country. when i came in as mayor in 2002 we were being hit by the recession after 9/11 because boeing laid off 11,000 people. i understand that people need to work. they need to take care of their

families. one family's struggle we as a community need to step forward to help them. -- when families suffer. i think all the country understands that detroit has suffered cruelly. it will not be business as usual. that has gotten us where we are today. i think that detroit will become the green automobile capital of the world, to figure out technologies for electric vehicles or other renewable sources to power them. so that we can break our dependence particularly on foreign oil. we can stop putting all of this poison into the atmosphere. we can put people to work building clean, green cars in detroit. you know how to build them better than anyone else in the world, just build them differently. host: jamie on the republican line? caller: good morning. i was wondering if mr. nickels

had heard of a scientist who came over from czechoslovakia and he worked for edison. are you aware of guest: him no, i am not. caller: i urge you to look into his history. it has been mostly buried. he was in the service of edison and then went out on his own. his money came from j.p. morgan. he gave us the alternating current. when he turned on niagara in new york he walked away and said that any type of fossil fuels and coal-burning was against nature. he developed a the tessla coil which many of our physicist use. it is renewable, clean.

i suggest you look into this. we have had the technology for about 100 years now. i will listen to you offline. guest: thank you, i am not familiar with the particular scientist. i'm familiar with a lot of great ideas out there. there are a lot of technologies both new and old we can put to work. we are capable of meeting it. the challenge here in washington, d.c. will be for congress to focus on it, get legislation through so that we have a framework, a market for innovations to come forward and be capitalized. host: virginia, on the line for democrats, leah. caller: i am so glad to be on the show. right now because of the economy at least we can take energy

[inaudible] as a blessing. at least we have ways to save money on energy. a lot of people use more energy than we need. b

energy use which means that you as a homeowner or business-owner would have lower energy bills. and thirdly, to train people to install these energy-saving devices and measures and create new, green jobs. it is a great time for that. those jobs are badly needed. the bills need to come down so people can afford to stay in their homes and in business. that is why we are here to get the attention of congress on the large global issue but also on local opportunities. host: this is from an e-mail.

guest: i have not had a chance to talk to the senator on this trip, but have talked with his staff on past trips about transportation and other issues. we have approached this issue. the senator and i fundamentally disagree on whether this is a challenge we need to me. he believes it is not. i believe the overwhelming scientific evidence shows is. we have a moral responsibility to act. host: who are you meeting with while here? guest: senator boxer, senator kerry, the two senators from my state, senator luger of indiana, and also another senator, and individual members who have met with their own centers across the country. host: the next call is randy on the independent line. caller: good morning, i agree with your statements about the

need for conservation. one of the things i'm very concerned about is using an electric vehicles. many do not realize the tremendous pollutants that come from most forms of electrical generation. nuclear has the same problem. but there is the case where most do not realize in the process of combustion using air, there is a reaction that occurs where the nitrogen and another gas react to create another gas called nox. this product is known and agreed upon by everyone to caused smog. it mixes with the hydrocarbons

in the air and sunlight to make smog. this happens anywhere in the world at any time. everyone agrees on it. for conservation whether you believe in greenhouse gases or climate change, nox has an absolute affect on the process. anytime you are involved with the point of trying to do conservation for any kind of energy you will inherently have a significant reduction in the amount of pollutants being produced beyond "the greenhouse gases." guest: one of the big areas of emphasis needs to be transportation. right now is 90.5% dependent on fossil fuels. to the extent we can move to electrify the system and encourage mass transit -- we just developed our first light rail line in seattle -- and

also individual vehicles. we are welcoming electric vehicles and creaking infrastructure for charging stations. we will be a good market for the introduction of those. in our area because of hydropower that will be particularly affected. -- it will be particularly effective. other areas more dependent on coal will find it less effective. we're trying to replace coal and other fossil fuel-based energy with chernobyl, wind, geothermal. -- replace fossil fuel-based energy with renewaables. caller: the u.s. is one of the

few first-world countries that does not produce most of its energy using nuclear power. the vast majority of europe and the vast majority of europe and japan and a lot of first-world countries give great -- they have high opinions of using nuclear power. it is safe and clean. we do not use it because people are techno-phobic which is a terrible reason to continue. continue or spending taxpayer money on in practical ways to produce electricity. -- being phobic is a terrible reason to continue putting the planet. someone earlier mentioned using tides and blue energy which are not yet practical energies.

we cannot afford to use taxpayer money to develop them. guest: i think we do need to follow a number of different paths. these very innovative technologies are well-worth resurging, demonstrating, and hopefully some will be successful as part of our future. i will acknowledge that i think nuclear does need to be part of the conversation. in our part of the country there are two issues that will need to be addressed before will be embraced as a realistic alternative. one is the financing. in the 1970's in our area there was the largest municipal bond failure in the country's history as part of the five-nuclear plant development. how will these plans be financed and kept on budget? the second issue again reflected in our state, how do you deal with the waste created by the

nuclear power plants? i do not know the answer. that is certainly something long term you have to have resolved before jumping into that as a long-term option. financing from a

.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> this is progressing just as the president was wanting for this to progress, during the election. that having been said, you heard the president speaking today over several things. he is not just listening to those people, the military commanders, he is going to talk to the development and the other entities that have equity in the decision, and we are

going to make an assessment, first on what those are and what the strategy is before we start to make the reformed -- the resource decisions. we have seen what happens when we try to follow this with something strategic. this is not working. >> the concern about this is growing with the american public. does he think he can make a case for this? >> the president said this clearly today. he is going to get this right on a timetable, that will allow for us to fully evaluate where we are. and where we want to go. the president is looking at this not through a political lands, but how we get the security concerns right, -- lance -- lense, but for how we

get the politic -- the security concerns write and how we destroy al qaeda. and this secures the interests of many countries that have committed both the military and diplomatic resources, to the efforts in afghanistan. >> there may not be a resource decision, but in the open testimony from yesterday, the admiral told the senate that there will need to have -- that they will need to have more soldiers. a democrat says he wants the army of afghanistan to stand up first. the president says that this is not long-term. what does the president think of the notion that the afghanistan army should be standing up? >> there is no doubt that if you heard the president say this about any number of military decisions, the united states is not -- the united states is not going to be there forever. just like in iraq and

afghanistan. just like those ultimately responsible for the security are going to be from iraq. i think that obviously, a serious amount of resources will be dedicated to making certain that the forces in afghanistan are properly trained, in order to meet the security requirements that their country is having. >> you see that the soldiers will not be there forever but he also spoke about having a clear timetable. why does he not have the same strategy? >> i am not saying that we are not following this strategy. there is an assessment that is going on right now. the speech that he gave in march, is the totality of that assessment. this is precisely why the president has said that the resources, any additional resource decisions are not

immediate. the president will take the time that he believes is necessary to listen to each of those involved in this decision. to speak to a multitude of voices, and ultimately decide on the very best strategy, moving forward. >> is this what the bush -- the bush administration was saying? they will need to let the enemy know -- they were basically saying that this was an evolving situation on the ground and you cannot have an arbitrary date to pull of the soldiers? >> this is not the arbitrary decision of what they were talking about in 2007. the answer you just gave me on the bush administration. >> the president -- >> i appreciate the analogy but i do not think that this holds

water. i know everyone is wanting to fast forward two months from now, to violate where we are. we are where we are right now in order to make decisions for several months from now. the president was very clear today. he is not going to make resource decisions and then have a strategy meeting. that is where we get into the never ending conflict, without a definable goal about what the country is trying to accomplish and how we want to engage the rest of the world. he wants to get this right to establish the security goals. >> there is a half page out -- a half page outline on the white house website. the security reforms that he is pushing for. you cannot be immediately cut off from your insurance, but it will take a little bit longer --

you cannot be denied care because of this condition. do you have a timetable of when this is accessible after the health care passes for these reforms to take place. >> i will need to talk to nancy. i have not looked at the other bills, and the degree and the swiftness in which some of these are instituted. obviously there is the belief that things can be done rather quickly. >> i want to get the white house reaction to a couple of other problems. they believe that there is the majority -- and he has shown animosity to the president because he is black. and also, and organizational president -- and organizational issue with acorn -- along with them.

the president had some ties with them over the years, with the census bureau, and they eliminated their relationship. they voted to cut off housing funding, what is your reaction? >> what the former president said, i will give the same answer i gave on sunday when you ask me this question. the president does not agree -- they have disagreements with some of the decisions, that to be taken by this administration and previous administrations. this would ensure the viability of the domestic auto industry, and i do not think -- i do not think the president believes that this is based on the color

of his skin. when it comes to acorn, obviously, the conduct that you see is completely unacceptable. i think that everyone would agree with this. the administration takes accountability extremely seriously, and i think that the census bureau, had an evaluation and determined that this group could not meet the goal of achieving a fair and accurate count in 2010, and others are evaluating to make certain that anyone who is given a government grant, in this administration or previous administrations, that was given in a previous administration, that we are constantly evaluating, to make certain that they are living up

to what has to happen in order to fulfill the grant application. >> he has not been clear about this today? >> i do not think it -- i think that that was not his question or my answer. i simply said, i did not think that the president believes that the majority of those that are upset, and the actions that have to be taken -- >> why is he so upset? >> that is a question for someone who has that view. i am in a bad situation to interpret this. >> do you think the response may have put the nail in the coffin of the bipartisanship? they say they cannot support this thing unless it moves

significantly to the right. rockefeller says he cannot support it unless it goes to the left. if they go to the left, there is no chance of getting republican support. >> that is the duty of the legislative system, and that is the process that will play out as we move forward to health care reform. i think the chairman has made a number of efforts, to get democrats and republicans on board and we will continue to valuate -- to evaluate all of these concerns. >> with the question from earlier, baucus said that it sounded like they were in sync. >> if you look at this -- >> he was saying this overall. >> there is a common part in many proposals.

i do not think that -- i do not think they are 100% equal, and i think that obviously the president shares his concern is that we have to get something done this year. >> you said that he is reiterating what he said before, but there are some people on capitol hill believe that this is different, and that he is in a lower role than he was going to move, and he is doing this more slowly right now. and he is moving ahead on a decision in afghanistan. some said that health care plays a role in this, because the administration does not want to get into a contentious decision on afghanistan. >> i have said a number of times and this bears repeating, an issue that the president has dealt with. i think that i can say accurately, every day that he

has been president of the united states, and many days that he was just the president elect. this is an issue that we have to get right, and the president is going to take the time that he needs to make certain that we do. >> can you deny the suggestion that the delay in afghanistan is from the politics of health care? >> i honestly do not think that people who are involved heavily in either effort share this as well. >> john mccain says that there is no specific recommendation on the number of soldiers, it is clear that the commanders on the ground believed that there should be more soldiers, and the longer that the decisions go on, the mutt -- the more unfair is for the troops who are risking their lives. >> we have to get the policy

right, and they are wanting to make certain that we do this once and for all, after being involved in this country for almost eight years. we can finally get this right. >> the president -- did he see the remarks of president carter? >> i doubt it. not that he does not watch nbc. >> has he spoken to president carter? did president carter expressed his concerns? >> i do not know if this was the last time that they talk. this was a topic of conversation. >> is he bringing this up? >> what the president says privately is what i'd said to you publicly. >> on health care, this is the bill of max baucus.

there is a similar version of the president's plan. are we going to see something like this? >> i said this last week. the speech of the president was not to send paper, some of this that you have printed. that is not the role that the president plays. >> in june, he said, this would be $300 billion, and they identified $300 billion with medicare, part of the down payment. now this is at 560 million. -- 560 billion. >> i have not seen these numbers. >> 300 billion is what he said in the address, 600 billion is what he says. >> as the leader of the

democratic party, is he going to lead the democratic party to sever their ties with acorn? >> i have not had any discussion about this. >> yesterday, charlie rangel said, that by holding this bill to $900 billion, the president was going to make it very difficult to help the middle class people purchase insurance. that is limiting the size of subsidies carried and he is actually hurting the cause of reaching this on the bill because the number is too low. rockefeller also said, that the bill, -- that this is a tax increase on the middle class. and that they do not have the subsidies for the mandate. first of all, i wonder about

your response? >> his writ -- his question is better directed to max baucus. >> what about the claim that $900 billion -- >> i think that if you go back and you look at what the -- the way that the president has spoken about health insurance reform, through the campaign, there was a debate that many of you recall about health insurance, in the primary. first and foremost, the president spoke about health care affordability. he had no desire for an additional burden that the uninsured cannot use, to get health insurance. this would not make a lot of sense from any perspective. and i would simply highlight a study that came out today, showing just how much -- this is not just people without

insurance. these are hundreds of millions of people who enjoy having health insurance. they have seen, on average, the premiums go up of 131%. the skyrocketing cost of health insurance is unsustainable for everyone in the market. we have to take steps with affordability as a primary concern. >> there will be more subsidies or highlighter mandate? >> what the president believes that we can do, because we are in the ballpark with the estimates, that we can find something that is working, and we can find something that will include everyone in the country, in a way that is affordable. >> two questions. thank you very much.

>> this is two instead of three or four or five. in a new book that was published by st. martin's press in july, it quotes the rev. of jeremiah right, saying that jefferson had intelligence, but he also had children from a slave girl. does obama believe that his presidential predecessor was a pedophile? >> do you mean one of the previous presidents? i have not seen the book and i do not -- i have not been afforded the opportunity. [laughter] >> why did the president -- >> i am indulging -- i am massar

a. >> when did the president decide to support the limiting of abortion. >> when and why did the president first decide to support limiting of abortion. he seems to be in favor in all kinds of abortion, and now he has a limitation. >> if you go back to what the president has said, obviously he believes in the deeply personal choice of a woman's right to choose, and he understands that this consultation is made in a very personal way, and obviously, one of the things that he has dedicated time and resources to, is that we do all that we can to avoid anyone

having to make that decision. i will make my way back now. >> david axelrod -- how heavily is the white house lobbying? >> they are calling the president of massachusetts -- >> he is trying to see about the process, in terms of replacing the vacant senate seat. we have an important debate that his upcoming in the united states. >> how heavily is the white house lobbying? >> i do not know what the call schedule is like for david. >> there is an $8,000 tax credit for new home buyers -- have they extended the deadline? >> i know that the white house economic team is looking at the

tax credit, and evaluating the impact on new home sales, and through that we will come to something to give the president a recommendation on. >> speaking for the president, the believe that he disagrees with what jimmy carter said? >> i do not know if this is a fine thing or not -- that the president does not believe this. >> i guess i am the victim of being consistent. i did not think this on sunday, the president did not think this on sunday and he does not think this on wednesday. >> this is coming from a son of the south, and a former president, is this part of the

comprehension on this subject. >> i have not seen the specific comment and i do not know. >> i want to make certain i understand what you are saying. is it true that this administration is looking into the grants that are current, or approved by the former administrations? >> this is to the specific agencies that have that, -- that is my assumption and that is where i will lead you. >> russ feingold spoke about the question with the subcommittee on the constitution and the ask for more information on the constitutional authority, and how they pay the czars.

they spoke about those in the previous administration. can you talk about what the white house thinks about any questions about the ruling and the functioning in the administration, whether or not there is more that they should say about what they are doing or the authority that they derive? >> i have not seen his letter. i did not know if you or someone else sent around the letter from senator bennett to. -- ben -- senator dennis -- senator bennett. there are positions in the administration, and the conditions of the previous administration. these go back at least many administrations. this is where there may be policy coordination, between

many different departments. in order to make the government response more efficient. i am struck by the politics in this. i noticed on your network, they asked a house republican, whether he objected to the czars in the previous administration. his answer was that they did not. i think that -- i have noticed that you have read that he was pushing for someone who he did not think was powerful enough. you have seen lamar alexander call for his art of manufacturing. and so -- somebody referred to the bush administration -- they have someone on the list of the

d.c. madam. does this simply offended the sensibilities? it is remarkable that in the previous administrations, the criticism of this has been deafening. -- the silence has been deafening. now this is a political issue? i think that the american people would like every branch of government to deal with the problems -- that real people have each and every day, rather than playing political games back and forth, day after day, and not solving or addressing the problems. >> i can tell you what the letter says. this is identifying the judgments, and the legal advisers about how these decisions will help to address the concerns on this issue.

is this something the white house would be prepared to testify? >> i will be happy to read the letter and have counseled give me the opinion. >> is this objectionable? >> i think that the american people the president accountable. that is what we expect. as it relates to this, any number of the political games that are played every day, i think we should get back to dealing with real business. >> obviously -- there is a national conversation that is going on about race and the role that this has to play in the hostility to the president. why are you so reluctant to speak about this?

with joe wilson -- i think that bill said, the house vote was a house matter and did the president had accepted -- the president accepted his apology. >> i interpreted that as reluctance to be involved. >> i do not think this demonstrates reluctance. i am not going to get into house business. >> he gave a speech during his campaign on race. another is a conversation, and the level has been about -- the level of the conversation has been about racism. is he going to try to get away from this conversation? >> most people understand, he is an african-american. the notion that -- people will not notice that, this has been

something of a peculiar line of questioning or reasoning. the president does not believe -- i forget the exact words of the quotation. that the majority of this is based on that. i do not subscribe to that. >> the incidents in cambridge, was a teachable moment for the country. why is this not a teachable moment, in society? >> this is going on from the house floor, to the former president. they say that this is not a teachable moment? will the president find his voice? >> the president has always had great concerns about race relations in the country. he has spoken about them in

speeches, throughout his career in politics. he believes that we have made great strides, but obviously we have a lot of work to do. i do not see this large national conversation going on right now. >> have any democrats been instructed other than the house of representatives to stop talking about race and get back to the health-care decision? >> what happens when a former president of the united states who was working against discrimination says, that the overwhelming portion of the demonstrations and the animosity is because he is black? what is the effect of a former president saying this? >> this is adding to the dialogue.

i simply say i do not think the president agrees with this. >> you see that he should be participating -- he is raising this. this is a comment -- is he calling upon the president to say, i do not agree with them? >> i say that on his behalf. >> the health-care communications strategy -- the president is doing the talk shows -- and he is really rolling of the big guns with the david letterman show. on top of the rallies and everything else, is there a level that is too much barack obama? >> if you look at the number of people in this room who are

covering the administration, representing many different media outlets, many different -- you are dropping stuff. i think that the american people get their information from different news sources, and the president believes and he has believed for some time, that people deserve to hear the reason that he is making certain decisions and why he is wanting to do the things that he does. i think that he believes, that they will get a greater understanding from those discussions. the days are gone when one allah is where everyone gets their news, or one medium. this is just an attempt by the president, to speak to as many different people as he can buy

an issue that is important, something like health care reform, or afghanistan. i think that this will be another opportunity for the president to show the american people where we are, and the decisions he has made as president, and where he sees the economy and health care in the national move forward. >> by their diminishing returns on this? >> the american people are dealing with more than one problem at a time, and they want to hear from a president who believes that we can deal with more than one problem at a time. >> the leader of the afl-cio says that he does not like the plan. there is time spent on this process, with the president be

better off saying, this is my plan and we have a democratic majority? >> we are at a place in health care reform, as others have said many times. this is closer to that becoming a reality for millions of americans struggling with the cost of health insurance. i do not think the president is looking back and thinking we should have done things differently. this is part of the long process. i do not think that max baucus or president obama, or others, asking republicans to be involved and give us their ideas is time that is fully spent. i think the american people are wanting to hear that side. >> if there is no imminent resource decision on afghanistan, what is the purpose

of what has been reported as the progress in afghanistan? is that interpreted by the lawmakers? >> that is part of the process that we have been talking about. we have to define a benchmark, for the progress and the mission. they will be briefed on the classified, briefed on the bench marks and the objectives, so that as we are evaluating the strategy, they will go back to what the objective is. that is also required by law, -- >> the president to date -- he requested a meeting -- >> i believe that this was president obama.

>> they are talking about afghanistan or iran? >> this is not likely. my feeling is, the president values the council, of the general, on a number of different issues. he has been involved throughout his career in the military affairs, national security, all the way to service volunteerism and education. the president will seek his counsel, on a wide range of issues throughout the day. >> [inaudible] >> does the president support the bill? >> we are not going to get into -- the president likes the fact that the process is moving forward.

i do not know that he has spent time reading the printout in the last few hours. >> you see that he does not know what is in the bill? >> he has spent time reading this today. this is a process. there are many bills that are out there. the president has been outlining what he wants to see. we are working towards this goal. >> will they say anything positive about the bill? >> i will go somewhere -- >> while you not answer the question? >> on a different subject, and little while ago the majority leader said that there would not be a cabin trade bill until next year. what is your response, with copenhagen in december? >> i have not see his comment.

i know that they took important legislative action earlier on in the year. john kerry and barbara boxer are working on a proposal, and it will take part in ban ki-moon' s time a discussion next week. we understand that we are one part of what has to happen, internationally. and understanding that, we are working three years and years of of an issue that has not been at the forefront of many different agendas here in the white house. they are seeking to change that, and this will take some time. >> but given your expectations and the hope for real progress

-- >> we can continue to make process and we can continue to make process -- progress in the international community and the developing nations, and the developing world economies and get them on board. this is not a one country solution. there will have to be an international effort to address this. >> back to afghanistan and the commission that is there, what is your feeling on this and how worried are you, about the fact that people in the world may not know who the next leader of the -- of afghanistan will be for some time? how will this affect your strategy? >> there is no doubt that there is a role for this in moving forward. the administration strongly believes, that they should count

the votes and the fraudulent votes should be thrown out. that the afghans who conducted this election -- this is an important steppingstone for them, and this process has to be fair and legitimate, and the world will have to have confidence in the result. >> thank you. with the public auction, the other issue that is drawing criticism is the mandate. i would like to get your comments on this, and secondly -- >> some of them -- they cannot qualify for medicaid, but they are given a tax credit for insurance -- >> i think that the primary

concern that the president has on any legislation and on any part of the registration is -- the legislation is affordability. this is for those with insurance and without insurance. you have spoken about some of the insurance reforms. at the joint session, he said it is more difficult to have the insurance reforms when you have a group of people that are outside of the scope of insurance. you are going to have a selection problem, where the healthiest are outside of the system, which makes it hard to deal with the risks that he has spoken about. they'll be working on ensuring the affordability and restructuring and any benefit

with the tax credit, so that this helps those who are looking for accessible and affordable insurance options. and to make certain that as we are moving to health care reform, that there is a system in place, that does not make the problems of any family that does not currently have insurance worse, through a penalty. that will simply compound the problem. the president spoke about this on capitol hill that we need a hardship exemption. >> he said that he is looking at structures -- >> i think that a tax credit is the consensus, for making certain that people have accessible and affordable insurance. thank you.

you say that this is drawing fire? >> let me check with nancy pelosi. thank you. >> the house continues debate today on a bill that would change how student loans are ministered, doing away with private lenders. in a few minutes, the opening debate on the bill. "washington journal" is live, and they'll be joined by one of the leaders of the progressive caucus. and the house continues the hearing on the student loan bill, when the house returns to session at 10:00 eastern.

>> a couple of live events to tell you about, on c-span3. the foreign relations committee will focus on afghanistan. one witness will beat the former supreme allied commander in europe. this is 10:00 eastern. then a subcommittee will continue to look at private insurance companies. the businesses include the executives of the six largest health insurance companies. >> in 1971, as a new york times reporter, he found the pentagon papers. he wrote -- he was the winner of the pulitzer prize. he will talk about his latest, a fiery peace in a cold war. this is on the nuclear arms

race. >> next month, take a visit inside the supreme court as we talk to the supreme court justices about the history of the court. >> he said he would not come in here. he said the building is so elaborate that it would go to their heads. and maybe he was right. this has become a symbol of the third branch of government. and the need for stability, and for what america stands for. >> supreme court week on c-span. as a complement, c-span offers teachers free resources on the judicial system. go to c-spanclassroom.org. >> the house continues debate today about how student loans are administered. the general debate on the bill began yesterday, and this is a little bit more than one hour.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: thank you, madam chair. i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. hin hosta, chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. >> as chairman of the subcommittee on higher education, lifelong learning and competitiveness, i rise in support of h.r. 3221, the student aid and fiscal responsibility act. i congratulate chairman miller for his great leadership in bringing this historic legislation to the house floor. i want to thank my colleagues from the education and labor committee on both sides of the aisle for supporting the largest investment ever in higher education. the bill embraces president obama's educational priorities by helping us to produce the

most highest college graduates in the world by 2020. this bill will provide much needed relief to families who are struggling to pay tuition as well as students and workers who access high skilled sustaining jobs. the legislation will increase affordability, accessibility and college completion rates particularly for first generation college low-income, minority and middle-class students. it invests $40 billion to increase the maximum annual pell grant scholarships to $5,550 by 2010 and 2019, $6,900. and provides low and middle income families with affordable, direct federal student loans and simplifies the application process for financial aid. h.r. 3221 strengthens our nation's minority-serving

institutions, particularly in the area where students can stay in school, graduate and succeed in our global economy. it invests $2.55 billion in our nation's minority-serving institutions over a 10-year period. this funding will reach at least 500 institutions of higher learning. this investments will expand educational opportunities in the stem field and support students staying in school and graduating at our nation's historically bladge colleges and universities, hispanic institutions, predominantly black institutions and asian american native american. these investments will create a new generation of minority workers in stem fields, professions that our country desperately needs to remain competitive. for decades, they have provided

educational opportunities for tens of thousands of minority, low-income and first generation college students due to their accessibility, affordability and close proximity to the communities they serve. if we hope to reach president obama's goals, we must make sure more minority students are completing advanced college degrees. this bill invests $10 billion in our nation community colleges to support president obama's

they serve the veterans who are pursuing post secondary education. this includes $8 billion in investments in early childhood education, to access the high- quality early education programs. the children who have an early start by the time they enter kindergarten are more likely to go to college and succeed. may i have 30 seconds? >> he is recognized for 30 seconds more. this directs $8 billion back to the u.s. treasury to help with the competitiveness. this depends on the ability to

compete with the work force for the 21st century. i ask my colleagues to support this investment in higher education. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> to what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise to claim the time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, madam chair. i do rise in opposition to h.r. 3231. government takever. -- takeover. we've seen and heard a lot of those two words lately in the credit markets, the banking sector, the automotive industry and the building of schools. we're not talking about health care today but perhaps we should be. the vote we'll take on student

lending is the cullmy nation of a plan set in motion more than a decade and a half ago and one that bears a strong resemblance to the health care debate. in 1993, the government created a government option for student loan the idea to have competition and hold down cost. 16 years later, we would vote on a plan to completely and permanently eliminate the private sector's role of student loans. in its place a one size fits all student loan model that requires the u.s. treasury to directly lend tens of billions of dollars each year, tens of billions we don't have and will be forced to borrow. why is congress intervening to declare one program the win her if it's truly about competition, the best program ought to win in the marketplace. in fact, one program has won.

the public-private partnership of the federal family education loan program, which is the choice of 3/4 of colleges and universities today. by eliminating the program, we'll lose the choice, competition, and innovation of the private sector. that includes everything from technological innovations to loan discounts and borrower services. we'll also lose jobs, an estimates 30,000 or more -- an estimated 30,000 or more across the country. my colleagues tout this as being fiscally responsible, but i beg to differ. it's awash with new entitlement programs, including an early childhood program, a new program to build and renovate schools and bolster community colleges and involve the federal government in developing online curriculum. add to these new programs the cost of ex-pabbeding pell grants, funding for minority

service institutions and we have on our hands a massive entitlement spending spree. this spending is allegedly paid for by $87 billion in so-called savings from elimination of a program. the numbers don't add up. the c.b.o. tells us it will require $13.5 billion in new discretionary spending, money that isn't counted in the score. c.b.o. tells us that the pell grant expansion will cost $11.4 billion more than scorekeepers originally predicted, a cost not accounted for in the original score. that mean this is bill will cost closer to $15 billion over the next 10 years and when market risk is factored in, the cost spikes to nearly $50 billion more. madam chair, there's a better way. later in the debate, i'll join the ranking member on the

higher education subcommittee, mr. guthrie, and offer an amendment to stabilize student lending with a program approved on a bipartisan basis last year. with this plan, we can put $10 million in deficit reduction and study long-term structural changes to our system. it's a thoughtful, reasoned approach to determine what's best for students, schools, and taxpayers alike. i urge my colleagues to slow down, take a breath and ask yourself whether another need right now. ver is what we i think the answer is a clear no. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: i yield myself 30 seconds. i appreciate the gentleman wants to make this comparison between public option and private sector. let's run down what happened over the last 10 years. the private sector took $100 billion in subsidies and became

the most profitable sect juror of the economy they couldn't give back subsidies. while they were getting $100 billion in subsidiesering they were engaged in price fixing, anti-competitive practices, improper disclosure, and at the end of that, they needed a bailout. sound familiar? want to invest again? or you can go back to -- i yield myself 30 additional 30 seconds. you can look at the public option here. the public option offered a product of equal value, low cost, easy to administer, attractive to the people who used it. major universities have used it for years with no problems, very complimentary about it and it's saving the loan industry at this time because the private system has collapsed. i yield four minutes to the geneman from new york, mr. bishop a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes.

mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for bringing this to the floor. i want to thank the gentleman and i think it's important to bring this to the floor, the way the ffel program works now is the federal government is providing approximately 60% of the capital private lenders provide to staunts. we do so because of the lack of liquidity in private credit markets. what we are doing is we are paying private lenders a subsidy so that they will have the privilege of lending federally originated money to their borrowers. we guarantee repayment of that money to the tune of 97% of the amount outstanding and the private lenders reap whatever interest payments are paid by the borrowers. this is a really, really good deal for private lenders. it is a deal that costs the

american taxpayer approximately $8 billion to $9 billion a year that we don't need to spend in that fashion. we can provide, we, the federal government, can provide the loan capital that students need. in fact we now provide approximately 30% of the schools in the country that participate in the guaranteed student loan program participate in the direct loan program. i used to work at a school that participated in the direct loan program. we made the transition from private lending to direct lending early on and it was an absolutely seamless transition, we did not have to add a single staff person. our students felt very advantaged by the change that we immediate and -- made and we are now asking that all schools make that change. we are doing so so we can redirect that $8 billion or $9 billion that right now goes to pad the profit margins of the private lenders and direct that

money primarily to needily students. let me put that in context. we, right now, are the sixth -- ranked sixth in the world in terms of the college-going rate for our population. we used to be first. approximately only one out of every two students that enter college ever graduate. those are two pretty daunting statistics if we are going to remain competitive in a very difficult global marketplace. we need to have an educated work forest. we need to have a work forest that can be competitive and the pathway to that is access to college and not just access to college but degree attainment. this bill provides at least the financial mechanism for students to be able to achieve that goal. we dramatically expand the availability of the -- of pell grant and increase the pell grant maximum in a way that

keeps pace with inflation so it maintains its buying power. we guarantee access to capital in the guaranteed student loan program, a subject i just talked about. we dramatically expand the availability of perkins loans. right now students borrow about 1.5 billion a year in perkins loans, we'd increase that $6 loans, we'd increase that $6 billion a year. we also simplify the financial aid process. this process has been very daunting to many students. i used to administer this process. we simplify the reform and we remove that barrier, that robach -- that roadblock that has presented many students from pursuing their dreams. we do this by not adding a time -- not adding a single dime to the taxpayer bill.

we redirect the money from the banks, and we do this -- and i yield back the balance of my time.