pretend that we could dictate the outcome in egypt, because we can't. so we were very mindful that it was important for this to remain an egyptian event, that the united states did not become the issue, but that we sent out a very clear message that we believed in an orderly transition, a meaningful transition, and a transition that needed to happen not later, but sooner. and we were consistent on that message throughout. particularly if you look at my statements, i started talking about reform two weeks or two-

and-a-half weeks before mr. mubarak ultimately stepped down. and at each juncture i think we calibrated it just about right. and i would suggest that part of the test is that what we ended up seeing was a peaceful transition, relatively little violence, and relatively little, if any, anti-american sentiment, or anti-israel sentiment, or anti-western sentiment. and i think that testifies the fact that in a complicated situation, we got it about right. my message i think to demonstrators going forward is your aspirations for greater opportunity, for the ability to speak your mind, for a free press, those are absolutely aspirations we support.

as was true in egypt, ultimately what happens in each of these countries will be determined by the citizens of those countries. and even as we uphold these universal values, we do want to make sure that transitions do not degenerate into chaos and violence. that's not just good for us, it's good for those countries. the history of successful transitions to democracy have generally been ones in which peaceful protests led to dialogue, led to discussion, led to reform, and ultimately led to democracy. and that's true in countries like eastern europe. that was also true in countries

like indonesia, a majority muslim country that went through some of these similar transitions but didn't end up doing it in such a chaotic fashion that it ended up dividing the societies fundamentally. >> but has it improved the chances of something like mideast peace, or has it made it more complicated in your mind? >> i think it offers an opportunity as well as a challenge. i think the opportunity is that when you have the kinds of people who were in tahrir square, feeling that they have hope and they have opportunity, then they're less likely to channel all their frustrations into anti-israel sentiment or anti-western sentiment, because they see the prospect of building their own country.

that's a positive. the challenge is that democracy is messy. so there -- and if you're trying to negotiate with a democracy, you don't just have one person to negotiate with. you have to negotiate with a wider range of views. but i like the odds of actually getting a better outcome in the former circumstance than in the latter. all right. mike emanuel. >> thank you, mr. president. the number one concern for many americans right now is jobs. taking a look at your budget, there are tax hikes proposed for energy, for higher-income people, and also for replenishing the state unemployment funds. do you worry about the impact on jobs, sir? >> well, actually, if you look

at that budget, there's a whole bunch of stuff in there for job creation. i think some folks noted, for example, our infrastructure proposals -- which would create millions of jobs around the country -- our investments in research and development and clean energy have the potential for creating job growth in industries of the future. my belief that the high-end tax cuts for -- or the bush tax cuts for the high-end of the population -- folks like me -- my belief is, is that that doesn't in any way impede job growth. and most economists agree. we had this debate in december. now, we compromised in order to achieve an overall package that reduced taxes for all americans, and so i believe -- i

continue to believe that was a smart compromise. but when it comes to over the long term, maintaining tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, when that will mean additional deficits of a trillion dollars, if you're serious about deficit reduction, you don't do that. and as i said, i think most economists -- even ones that tend to lean to the right or are more conservative -- would agree that that's not -- that's not the best way for us to approach deficit reduction and debt reduction. so i do think it's important, as we think about corporate tax reform, as we think about individual tax reform, to try to keep taxes as simple as possible and as low as possible.

but we also have to acknowledge that, in the same way that families have to pay for what they buy, government has to pay for what it buys. and if we believe that it's important for us to have a strong military, that doesn't come for free. we've got to pay for it. if we think that we have to take care of our veterans when they come home -- and not just salute on memorial day but we actually have to work with folks who have post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury -- well, that requires services that are very labor- intensive and expensive. if we think it's important that our senior citizens continue to enjoy health care in their golden years, that costs money. if we think that after a flood we help out our neighbors and

our fellow citizens so that they can recover, we've got to pay for it. so the circumstance that's changed -- earlier julianna asked why i think i might get a deal. i think some of the questions here generally have centered about what's going to be different this time. my hope is that what's different this time is, is we have an adult conversation where everybody says here's what's important and here's how we're going to pay for it. now, there are going to be some significant disagreements about what people think is important. and then that's how democracy should work. and at the margins i think that i'll end up having to compromise on some things. hopefully others will have that same spirit. >> as part of that adult

conversation, sir, what if they say deeper spending cuts before you consider tax hikes? >> well, i think it just depends on what exactly you're talking about. and i think that there should be a full, open debate with the american people: are we willing to cut millions of young people off when it comes to student loans that help kids and families on their college education? are we only serious about education in the abstract, but when it's the concrete we're not willing to put the money into it? if we're cutting infant formula to poor kids, is that who we are as a people? i mean, we're going to have to have those debates -- particularly if it turns out

that making those cuts doesn't really make a big dent in the long-term debt and deficits, then i think the american people may conclude let's have a more balanced approach. but that's what we're going to be talking about over the next couple months. as i said, i know everybody would like to see it get resolved today. it probably will not be. [laughter] that's a fair prediction. all right, i'm going to take one last question here. jackie calmes. >> thank you, mr. president. i'd almost given up there. >> oh, don't give up. [laughter] >> you've correctly suggested that the media can be impatient about seeing you -- seeing both sides come to a deal, but this is your third budget, your third year of your presidency. you've said many times that you'd rather be a one-party -- one-term president if it means you've done the hard things that need to be done.

now, i know you're not going to stand there and invite republicans to the negotiating table today to start hashing it all out, but why not? and since you're not, though, what more are you doing to build the spirit of cooperation you mentioned earlier needs to happen before there is bipartisanship? and finally, do you think the markets will wait two years? >> i should have written all this down, jackie. [laughter] i'm running out of room here in my brain. >> i'm happy to repeat my question. [laughter] >> well, let me just speak to this generally. it's true that this is my third budget. the first two budgets were in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression, so we had a different set of priorities. and i said it at the time -- in each of those budgets, what i said was, the deficit's going up and we are compiling some

additional debt, but the reason is because it is so important for us to avoid going into a depression or having a longer recession than is necessary. because the most important thing that we had to do in order to limit the amount of increased debt and bigger deficits is to grow the economy some more. so that was our priority. that was our focus. this third budget reflects a change in focus. the economy is now growing again. people are more hopeful. and we've created more than a million jobs over the last year. employers are starting to hire again, and businesses are starting to invest again. and in that environment, now that we're out of the depths of the crisis, we have to look at these long-term problems and these medium-term problems in a much more urgent and a much more serious way.

now, in terms of what i'm doing with the republicans, i'm having conversations with them and democratic leadership. i did before this budget was released and i will do so afterwards. and i probably will not give you a play-by-play of every negotiation that takes place. i expect that all sides will have to do a little bit of posturing on television and speak to their constituencies, and rally the troops and so forth. but ultimately, what we need is a reasonable, responsible, and initially, probably, somewhat quiet and toned-down conversation about, all right, where can we compromise and get something done. and i'm confident that will be the spirit that congressional leaders take over the coming months, because i don't think anybody wants to see our

recovery derailed. and all of us agree that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control. and all of us agree that part of it has to be entitlements. so there's a framework there -- that speaks, by the way, again, to the point i made with you, chuck, about the commission. i think the commission changed the conversation. i think they gave us a basic framework, and within that framework we're going to have to have some tough conversations and the devil is going to be in the details. but, look, i was glad to see yesterday republican leaders say, how come you didn't talk about entitlements? i think that's progress, because what we had been hearing made it sound as if we just slashed deeper on education or other provisions in domestic spending that somehow that alone was going to solve the problem. so i welcomed -- i think it was significant progress that there

is an interest on all sides on those issues. in terms of the markets, i think what the markets want to see is progress. the markets understand that we didn't get here overnight and we're not going to get out overnight. what they want to see is that we have the capacity to work together. if they see us chipping away at this problem in a serious way, even if we haven't solved a hundred percent of it all in one fell swoop, then that will provide more confidence that washington can work. and more than anything, that's not just what the markets want. that's what the american people want. they just want some confirmation that this place can work. and i think it can. all right.

thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," al cardenas. a look that the president's budget request with representative gwen moore. and a discussion of several judicial vacancies with the brookings institution's russell wheeler. "washington journal" every day

at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span bringing public affairs to you. it is washington norway. -- your way. >> jacob lew testified about the budgets 2012 budget request submitted to congress on monday. it tells $3.7 trillion, and the administration says that it would reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. this budget committee hearing is all little less than three hours. -- a little less than three hours.

>> this one will be different because the fiscal situation is so much work. you have come under a dark and fiscal outlook. we are aware of the challenges you face in putting this budget together and we thank you for your hard work and coming here today. having said all that, the budget of the united states is more than about of arithmetic. it is a statement of national priorities. it is a gauge of our national health. because we face a crippling burden of debt, this budget in particular presented the president with a unique opportunity to leave our country. the president has disappointed us all by declining that opportunity. he punted. instead of confronting our debt had long, the president has presented us with a budget that spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much in that

cost jobs and opportunity. it would double the amount of debt held by the possible -- but the public. our country was already on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory before he took office. our debt is the project of the path of many presidents and congresses over many years. both parties share the blame. nevertheless, the president's policies have accelerated down this disastrous path. is made the spending problems worth of policies such as the failed stimulus and a brand new open-ended health care entitlement. he has argued for massive tax increases that would stifle economic growth and make it worse. this budget includes higher taxes on american families, businesses, and on to beginners. -- and on to been yours -- country and your --

entrepreneurs. the commission comprised of the majority of democrats, he ignored that. he even failed to take the commission's advice on discretionary spending. this budget would increase that by three and $63 billion relative to the commission proposal. former clinton chief of staff and co-chair of the commission, erskine bowles said, the budget goes nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare. the president's budget disregards the drivers of the debt crisis and the insolvency of our entitlement program. every day that passes without leadership on this crucial challenges another day of uncertainty for job creators and a darkening economic prospects for millions of americans living in the shadow of our growing an

unsustainable debt. the politically safer response, i suppose, is to do nothing. i wonder about that. unfortunately, this is the path the president has chosen. we feel that is our responsibility to do things differently, to do -- to lead with his fallen short and that is what we plan to do. with that, i will yield to the ranking member, mr. van hollen, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman ryan. welcome, director lew. preserve, will be well served at having you with the head of omb. while we are still reviewing some of the details, i want to commend the president for putting forth a budget that reduces our deficit will also investing in our future. this is a tough love budget. it cuts non-security discretionary spending by $400

billion, taking that category of spending to the lowest share of gdp since the eisenhower administration. and starting this year, it steadily decrease the deficit and bring the budget to balance by the year 2017. but the president's budget cuts the deficit will making critical investments in areas like education, clean energy, infrastructure, and scientific innovation. last week the chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, testified before this committee about the importance of targeted national investments to grow the economy and keep america competitive. he highlighted the need for policies to foster economic growth, by encouraging investments in the skills of our work force as well as machinery and equipment, by promoting research and development, and providing the necessary public infrastructure. this budget does that. as we debate the best way forward, our conversation this include a comprehensive review of our national balance sheet. it is shortsighted to think we

can try to balance our budget for cuts in domestic discretionary spending alone. this category represents only 12% of the overall budget. we must look to other areas, including comprehensive tax reforms and eliminating special interest rates in the tax code for the president's budget moves in the right direction by putting into taxpayer dollars going to subsidies for big oil companies had a time when gas is costing american families more than $3 a gallon and oil companies are making huge profits. there is no reason to subsidize those companies and shortchanged investment in education and headstart has some of our colleagues are proposing to do today on the floor of the house. this budget extends tax cuts for middle-class families but rejects tax breaks for those at the very top. it takes a balanced approach, much like the budget under president clinton. and the clinton administration, the country enjoyed real

economic growth at 3.9% a year, and the economy added $20.8 billion -- 28 billion private- sector jobs. -- 28 million private sector jobs. it achieves surpluses and began to reduce the nation's debt. unfortunately, those surpluses disappear under the previous bush administration. they cut taxes for the wealthy and turned a $5.60 trillion surplus to a sea of deficit. a loss of private sector jobs. in january to a dozen 9, when the president raised his hand and was sworn in, he was handed an economy in free fall that was losing 700,000 jobs a month. our record 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. unfortunately, some of the first acts of the new congress to work to eliminate pay go and had $233 billion to that deficit in connection with health care reform.

having spent that year working with congress and the american people, the budget is now focused on strengthening the economy with a plan of targeted investments and deficit reduction. it stands in stark contrast to the approach we are seeing by our colleagues on the floor of the house, which is 2/important programs immediately -- which is to slash important programs for workers. it is critical that our balance -- are budget strikes a balance and i think it makes an important effort to hit the right note. it is a starting point. i must say that it is interesting to hear many of our colleagues on the republican side criticize the president for not putting more of the ideas of the bipartisan deficit and debt reduction commission on the table, when in the house, the

representatives of that commission voted against it. that being said, i must conclude -- in order to tackle the long- term fiscal challenges beyond the 10-year period of this budget, it is important that the white house and the congress, republicans and democrats, if come together to seriously discuss and consider the ideas in the commission's proposals. compromise is not a dirty word. getting things done requires give-and-take. we should be in that conversation now. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. lew, bring the microphone closer. it is tough to get good sound out of that. all the button down. -- hold the button down. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member van hollen, members of the committee, thank you for having me here to present the president's 2012 budget. it is a real honor to be here after 10 years prison in the president's budget. i think the chairman and ranking

member for the very kind personal words that they opened with. at a great deal of respect for each of them and look forward to working together in a bipartisan way if as we move through, be it a long and difficult process. after emerging from the worst recession in generations, we face another historic challenge. we need to demonstrate to the american people that we can live within our means and invest in the future. we need to work our way out of the deficit that is driving up our debt and at the same time make the tough choices to make sure we are in a position to outpace our competitors. that is what it will take to return to robust economic health in our jobs in the future. this is the seventh budget i have worked on at the office of management and budget, and the most difficult. in includes more than $1 trillion of deficit reduction, 67% bid from lower spending, and it puts the nation on a path of fiscal sustainability.

at the end of it, our government will no longer be adding to the debt as a share for national committee. -- of our national economy. the budget is a down payment because we still have work to do if to pay down the debt and address the long-term challenges. but we cannot start to pay down the debt until we stop adding to it. that is what this budget does. the president lays out a strategy for significant deficit reduction. the most deficit reduction in the comparable period since the end of world war ii. it will bring our deficit down to about 3% of the economy by the middle of the decade, and stay there for the rest of this budget window. changing the trajectory of our fiscal path is a significant accomplishment, but it will take tough choices. i like to highlight a few. our budget includes a five-year non-security discretionary spending freeze that will reduce the deficit by over $400 billion

over the next decade and bring spending in this category of the budget to the lowest level since president eisenhower sat in the oval office. to achieve savings of this magnitude, it is not enough to just deal with programs that are outdated or ineffective or duplicative. though we do start there. it is also necessary to make reductions in programs that, absent the current fiscal situation, we would not be looking for reductions, programs like low-income energy assistance and community development block grants. in national security, which we are not freezing, we are also making rope cuts. defense spending over the past decade has been growing faster than inflation and we can no longer afford that. the budget cut $70 billion from the pentagon spending plan over the next five years which will bring defense spending down to 0% real growth -- cuts weapon programs that secretary gates and the military leadership say that we do not need and cannot afford for if we are also capturing savings accounts for bringing our troops home from

iraq, which brings defense spending down by more than 5% compared to the president's budget last year. of course, cutting discretionary spending alone cannot solve fiscal problems. this budget also deals with mandatory spending and revenue and take significant steps to address our long-term fiscal challenges. boards have become this budget shows that we can pay for solutions to two problems that we have been all too willing to kick down the road or put on the national credit card. one is driven in the nearly 30% reduction in reimbursements to doctors in medicare to keep doctors in the system treating patients. another is preventing an increase in taxes on middle- class families to the alternative minimum tax, commonly known as the amt. in december, there was bipartisan agreement to pay for a one-year extension of the so- called doc fix, which was not required by budget rules but was the right thing to do. in this budget, we build on that and we have $62 billion of

savings to pay for the next two years of this fix. that is three years of paying for the doc fix. he creates a window so that we can work together so that we can address this in the future without adding to the deficit. with regard to the alternative minimum tax, we have offsets to pay for three years of what is called a patch. we can pay for it by limiting the amount that those in the highest tax bracket received for itemized deductions. the big step toward cutting back on the tax code is consistent with fiscal commission recommendation. if we continue on this path of paying for the at&t pact after 2014, it alone will reduce the deficit by 1% of gdp by the end of the decade. it will reduce the deficit further. the administration looks forward to working with congress to permanently covered these costs once and for all.

similarly, as the president said in the state of the union, we are eager to work together on a deficit neutral corporate tax reform that will simplify the system, eliminate special interest loopholes, and level the playing field. and lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years. and what does not contribute to our deficit in the short or medium term, the president has laid out his principles to strengthen social security and is called on congress to work in a bipartisan fashion to keep his compact with future -- this contact with future generations. as we take these steps to live within our means, we also invest in the areas critical to future economic growth, and job creation. education, innovation, clean energy, and infrastructure. even in these areas, we cut programs and other to fund high priorities in investment. in education, we maintain the increase maximum pell grant level, which in cables 9 million students to pay for college

education, and we paid for with $100 billion in savings that primarily come from eliminating summer school pell grants and eliminating the graduate student in school lunch subsidy. in an area of innovation, we support one under $48 billion in research and development investment, including $32 billion for the national institutes of health, and visionary goal to bring about a new clean energy economy to help pay for these investments and lower priority programs are cut. we eliminate 12 tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal companies. and to build infrastructure we need to compete, the budget includes a proposal for of $556 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill. if not only this plan included consolidation of 68 duplicative earmarked programs, and it demands more competition for funds, but we insist that the bill be paid for and we look forward to working in a

bipartisan manner to do that. mr. chairman, i am under no illusion how difficult it is to make the tough choices needed to put us on a sustainable fiscal path. as we make these choices, i believe that it is important that we not cut areas that are critical to helping our economy grow and making a difference for families and businesses. finally, cutting spending and cutting our deficit requires that we put political differences aside and work together. i look forward to working with you in crafting a set of policies that enable us to live within our means and invest in the future, and i look for to answer your question. thank you very much. >> before i get into this, how long do we have before question mark than this thing you have to testify before the senate later this afternoon. >> i believe we have until 12:30 p.m. >> you need to eat lunch. >> i apologize for being late. i had not allowed for the new

security rules. >> that is right. >> mr. chairman, the issue was the gentleman in front of me had to take his shoes off as he went to the metal detector. it took a few minutes. >> ok. i am reading in the "washington post," and editorial board favorable to the administration's view, president obama budget kicks the hard choices further down the road. "the president punted. having been given the chance, that covered by the commission he created to raise revenue in curb entitlement spending, president obama in his 2012 budget proposal chose to duck. the budgetary gimmicks he once derided. we just heard from the cbo director and chairman of the

federal reserve, one of the best things we could do for the economy today is put in place a plan that is this deficit and debt under control. why did you got? -- why did you duck? if george bush brought this budget to the house, i would say the name -- the same thing. you know the drivers of this debt. the fact that the president gave us the fiscal commission to start with acknowledges we agree on the size, scope, and nature of the problem, why did you duck? why are you not taking this opportunity to lead? >> i think it addresses the fiscal challenges that we face in the short and medium term. he called it a down payment, acknowledging that we need to work together in the long term. if you look at the mandate of the fiscal commission, it was to bring the deficit down to 3% of gdp by the middle of the decade. our budget does that. there will be things that we

have disagreements about. i know we will have a serious debate about priorities. but the president spas' it accomplishes that goal. if you look to the -- the president's budget accomplishes that goal. the savings a very real, the revenue projections are very real, and there are certainly of the things that we're willing to work on together to address the long-term challenges, but if our goal is to get to a sustainable deficit by 2015, i think the president's budget less than a comprehensive pact. >> using your own table on page 176 of your budget, you've got not get the balance until 2017, and then immediately thereafter, you have more problems. >> if you look where it starts, the deficit is 9% of gdp. it comes down to 3.2% of gdp in 2015. we then stay between 21 &, in

that area around 3% of gdp for the rest of the decade, and if you had it going beyond, it would go on for years beyond that. i think it is a mistake to think of 3% of gdp as a bull's-eye. if you compare 10.9% to 3.2% or 3.0%, it is a world of difference. >> let's get into what is behind that primary balance behind your claims of balance. and i can go through the tables, but in my correct that the budget proposal revenues of eight teen 19 -- and within your policy baseline come you haven't and $870 billion tax increase built into it because it -- it assumes the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for higher level earners? that is what your baseline assumes. >> it assumes consistent with

the bipartisan agreement in december that he would permanently extend the middle class tax cuts and that we would have estate tax relief. we did not have a long-term agreement on the upper income rate or on the richer estate tax difference. we tried to construct a baseline so that the difference would be clear. >> adding the additions in the baseline revenue increases, that is dollars and 1.6 trillion from where we are today, correct? >> the upper income tax cut and the state provision, and then there is some debt service on top of that. > $953 billion. >> what about debt service? >> $146 billion in debt service. >> you have to go and i have a lot of questions. your economic assumption, which

is how you achieve primary ballots, which is how you achieve the claims you're making, i want to walk you through this and ask why to make these economic assumptions. you are expecting very robust growth in the coming years. your forecast calls for real gdp growth well above 4% in 23 -- 2013 and 2014, much higher than cbo. i find it interesting that 2013 also marks the year where you call for a big rise in taxes across all sectors of our economy. basically, raising taxes on small businesses, on investment, as part of the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and a new increase on investment. the top income-tax rate will go to 44 1/8%, the tax on dividends could triple from its current level of 50% to 45.4%, and

attacks on caput gains will rise from 15 designed to 23.8%. but you are calling for robust economic growth in that very year. do you think that the tax increases you are planning on in 2013 on mostly successful smaller businesses and the investment community in america, our job creators, you do not think it will impact the economy? you think that is the year that the economy takes off? if it does not come you do not reach primary balance. >> there was an agreement that we should extend certain tax provisions for two years. and some do go into effect or out of the effect because of that. if you look at our economic assumptions, in the short term they are more pessimistic than some of the outside observers. in the long term, they are right they are more optimistic.

the question is, will we recover from this recession the way we have recovered from past recessions pressure if you look historically, a naturally lead recessions had slightly long periods of recovery, but in the end, we get back to where the economy would have been. we assume that is the case. we're within the range of recovery from past financially lead recessions, and we think that they are proven, reasonable assumptions. undoubtably, i apologize -- diamond lawyer not an economist. the level of detail is probably be on my own training, but economists can disagree but about what would happen in about whether or not we will get back to what was the potential gdp before. we think it is the right thing to do, to get our economy back. that is why we put forward a budget that invest in the things that it takes to keep growing the economy. education, innovation, and

infrastructure are key to that. >> this is what does not add up to me. you say that you will have 1.3% higher growth than cbo believes, 1.4% higher than what the blue chips believe, and you are claiming this explosion of growth in a year where you are raising taxes across the board on one trip in yours, small businesses, investors, investment -- history does not square with your comment. if you are right and we are wrong -- if we are writing you are wrong, you never reach primary ballot. the actual revenue you were planning because of higher economic growth above and beyond what cbo plans, it does not materialize and we are in the world of trouble. what is so frustrating about this, you know the drivers of our debt are the entitlement programs and yet you are doing nothing to address that. look, we are in different

parties. that is fine. but when people of pipe which elect presidents, they want the president to take on the big challenges before the -- before they become crises. we all know this debt is becoming a crisis. you're not even touching these programs. you are assuming the economy will take off in a year, and you are raising taxes everywhere all over the economy, and if your map does not add up, then we are all in the world of hurt. and this will cost us jobs. >> mr. chairman, if you look at the provisions, the vast majority are of the revenues you're talking about, the tax rate at the top in. the tax rate for people earning $250,000 a year or more. i would note that during the last administration has served in, the clinton administration, those tax rates at the longest period of but a rapid growth in the -- in american history. they have not been historically challenging to growth.

if you get our news proposals, we have a lot of tax cut proposals that are designed to promote the kinds of investments that we need in this country. we net new revenue. it does not amount to a large amount in 2013. >> i do not know -- where i come from, most of our jobs come from successful small businesses. in wisconsin, drive to any city. there will be an industrial park with 100 or 300 employees. they about taxes as individuals. most of the tops rates are actually small businesses. when we tax are small businesses as rates above 50% in wisconsin, 48% in this country, where countries are taxing their businesses their rates lower than we are, how do we expect to win global competition but to mark how we create jobs when we attack the engine of job creation, small businesses?

>> if we look at the taxpayers in that class, the $250,000 and above, and where the revenue goes -- i am from new york. a lot of it goes to finance and a lot of it goes to law. it is not the case that the top rate is a small business issue. i think we have a lot of tax proposals that would make taxes easier for small businesses. the right with a target small business is to make sure that we do things targeted to investment and not the kinds of income that drive people into the top bracket. >> mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director of lew, as i indicated in my opening statement, it is an important achievement that in this budget you reach primary balance by the year 2017. and you begin to stabilize the problem.

but i also indicated we all need to work together, especially to take actions now to deal with what are going to be projected deficits in the next 20 years. i think that conversation should begin now. i do want to point out that this is not easy to do when you have done it yourself and the country into a deep hole. but there are other alternatives out there. and the chairman of the committee has put forward an alternative road map in good faith with sincere effort to reduce the deficit. it is in that spirit that i want to point out that when the congressional budget office last january scored that budget proposal, that that is a proposal, that they indicated in the year 2020, the deficit would be 3.7% of gdp.

in the budget would not be in primary balance under that plan. in fact, if you go out another 20 years, to 2014, the deficit of percentage of gdp is 4.5%, and the budget is just been getting into primary ballots. i point that out, mr. chairman, to show you how hard it is. and some criticize the president's efforts, to recognize the other sincere efforts that were made actually brought the deficit to primary balance later than the president's budget. and there will be conversations about different assumptions. but these deficit numbers were the result of a good faith effort. and i think the president has made a good-faith effort. we all do need to get better. i want to discuss the longer- term outlook.

i want to discuss what is happening today on the floor as it impacts, as it draws contrast with the approach that the obama administration is taking with respect to the deficit. as you indicated you are talking about significant cuts in discretionary spending. from listening to many of my colleagues, these will have a real impact and the painful impact in many people's lives. but you have decided that in order to get deficits under control, we're going have to make those tough decisions, and we agree. at the same time, today on the floor there are proposals to cut immediately and deeply. i does want to read you a statement from the president's bipartisan deficit commission that we are hearing lots of positive things about from our colleagues about their recommendations and approach. here's what they said, and die

quote. "in order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, we recommend waiting to 2012 to enact programmatic spending cuts." another commission issues the same advice. deep and immediate cuts in contrast to responsible and planned cuts over a period of time, these immediate cuts could harm the fragile economy and hurt job growth. if you could please comment on the proposals today for very deep and immediate cuts and the impact they would have on the economy and job growth in your opinion? >> mr. van hollen, we have a tough balance that we have to strike. we agree that it would be a mistake to do drastic deficit

reduction in this year that we are in. beginning next year. we have bipartisan agreement in december on a tax bill largely because of the concern that we needed to keep the economy moving, that we could not afford to drag a tax increase in january. we have to focus on reducing spending in making decisions that will turn the corner on the deficit, and we cannot really wait a year to do that. our budget has helped frame the we think is the right frame for making the tough tradeoffs. we will have to work is to go through the remainder -- as we go through the remainder of 2011 and on next year to work on the right balance. it is important that we have the right balance. we do not need to make the kinds of cuts that you're describing in order to get on the right path. but we do need to tighten the belt, which is what our budget does. we're watching carefully is the

house continues work. we will be working with the house and the senate then ultimately together to do the responsible thing and fund the government. but it is a question of not mixing too many things together. the long-term challenge is what we have to keep our eye on. we have to look at the middle of decade and are we on a path to getting down to a deficit where we stop adding to the debt. that is what we try to do in the budget. >> as some of our republican colleagues have indicated, if they do not get their way in terms of these very deep and immediate cuts that could harm the economy, if they do not get their way on these cuts, they would shut down the government. we have seen this movie before. i know that you have. if you could make clear what some of the impacts of that would be on things like this

also security administration and other essential functions of government? >> i take the congressional leadership at their word that we want to avoid situations like that. it is not the right way to run the government. i think we have a broad agreement that we have to keep essential services going. when the government shut down in the mid-1990s, it was a very unpleasant thing. people needed to apply for passports and could not give one. people started to appreciate things that they took for granted. when the government shut down, they stopped. i hope we do not get to the point where we have to go through that again. and i think it will work together in a bipartisan way to look for the things we can agree on and put things we cannot agree of -- put things we cannot agree on off to the side, i

think we can do that. >> we want to see a beginning of a down payment on spending reduction. with that, mr. simpson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i reiterate what you said. no one desires to shut down the government. we want to reduce spending in that is what we're trying to do with the budget we bring to the floor. everyone talks about the draconian cuts. you have to remember, this is on top of enormous increases that have occurred over the last couple of years. it is not as draconian as a lot of people would like. i appreciate your testimony and your hard work on this budget. it is hard to put together a budget, even if it is one that most people -- i want to say this respectfully -- most people do not take seriously. most people think this is never going to be enacted. all right words are used. i think they're running -- the ranking member said that this is the tough love budget.

if this was the tough love my father showed me when i was young, i would still be a to know -- juvenile delinquent. [laughter] some people think that i still am. we have to live within our means. let me ask you -- this budget theoretically goes to balance in 16 years? >> it will take the time to go balance. we first have to stabilize the deficit spending. to get to balance, it will require a set of decisions that are beyond what anyone is discussing right now. >> why is no one discussing that? >> the last time i testified before this commission, i presented a balanced budget with a surplus. they understand what it takes to get there. we have gone through 10 years of a combination of things that have driven the deficit up. we have an economic crisis and the decision to not pay for what

we're doing. we have to deal with the result of that and it will not be a quick process. i look forward to leaving it in better shape than i am done this time. >> i do not deny that you did. there are certain indicators that proved our point of view. all those do not matter. what matters is where we are today and where we are going in the feature. what the american people are saying is get your fiscal house in order. i do not see this getting our fiscal house in order. everyone says that we will have $400 billion in cuts and savings in this budget, like that is some big deal. $400 billion, a lot of money over 10 years. that is $40 billion a year. the budget this year is $3.7 trillion. $40 billion in savings? less than 1% in savings? this is not tough love. this is continue the path we are

currently on with no future balanced budget ever in this proposal. in the american people are rejecting it. >> congressman, but they say a couple things. we have put what we believe to be a very serious proposal of comprehensive forward. we do not think we have a monopoly on wisdom. we look forward to seeing the idea is put forward. when you put forward a deficit reduces the deficit, there are things that we will be able to agree on. this is just the first that of the process. it is easy for abundance on the outside to dismiss -- london's pundits on the outside to dismiss this. but it is a comprehensive frame and it achieves something important, stabilizes the deficit at 3% of gdp by the end of the decade. while i agree we need to get on a path they go beyond that, and i wish that we could talk about balance, but until we stop

adding to the national deficit, we cannot talk about balance. we will not agree on all the details. some of the actions taken in this house cut spending. i have not seen the actions yet that reduces the deficit. i look forward to that. i know it is the beginning of the process and we will work together when we see your proposals. >> we understand that you might get the balance by cutting spending. spending is a portion of how you get there. we have to look at the entitlement programs which this budget totally left off in terms of reform. and everyone, i think the american people understands that we have to address entitlement reform. the leadership has to come from the white house to do that, quite frankly. >> congressman, we agree that we need to reduce spending. if you look at this budget, this is possibly the toughest budget -- certainly a democratic president is ever put forward. cutting things that are important priorities, things that many of us have worked for

decades to grow. we have to tighten our belt and do what every american family does and make the tough choices. there are real tough choices in this budget. i do not think it is fair to say that we have not dealt with entitlements. we certainly have not felt completely with entitlements. the $63 billion of savings to pay for medicare in the next three years is something. it is real. it is the first deficit down payment. if we're going to work together on entitlements, we have to make knowledge that social security is not driving the deficit between now and 2021. i worked on social security reform since 1983. i deeply believe that we delegation to current and future retirees to have a system that is sound and reliable for decades to come. but it is not contributing to short-term deficit. we should do it because it is the right thing to do.

>> this shorts. -- ms. schwartz. >> thank you for your good work on this first budget that you are presenting. i appreciate your written remarks in which you have said here. i appreciate the fact that you made that very clearly, that the national debt in the economic crisis was inherited.

>> in 2012, it is $1.1 trillion. >> you say you want to cut the deficit in half as a relates to gdp, and you also said that we need to be talking more clearly to the country. about the challenges we have. i do not disagree with that. i do not think the country appreciates the verbiage that we use. municipalities, states, and homes do not budget the way the federal budget -- the federal

government budgets. i agree with you and i think most would that we have to reform spending. we have to get on a path to have a greater fiscal soundness moving forward. i do not see that path in this budget. you convey that this is a first step. you also made the statement that we need to step on the brakes at the right time. i believe that the country believes this is the time. our time is now in order to change course, change direction. i am certainly willing to work with you and anybody who recognizes that point. i do not see it in the budget and maybe i am missing it but i will continue to look through. a couple things i would consider -- first of all, i would like to know how many programs for this budget did the administration audit? >> we reviewed every program in the federal government. we had determinations cover reductions, and savings on the

over 200. >> the know how much money is saved? >> over $33 billion in 2012. >> where did you end up spending that savings in this proposal? >> we are living within the freeze. we are paying for the extension of the medicare doc fix, a whole host of things. in a few seconds, it would be hard to give you a complete comprehensive answer. >> is there a proposal for the reduction in the work force? >> it is not a general policy. there may be agencies that have that. it is not a government-wide policy. >> you could instruct the the farm is to reduce the size and scope of their work force. >> we have a pay freeze which is a reduction in compensation for

federal workers. and we have budgets that are very constrained, which means that they are going to take on new missions without new people. i think is a very tight budgets for federal agencies. >> the final point now like to make, in new hampshire, my home state, 94% of our employers are small business. i notice on the omb website you project over 10 years by hundred thousand new jobs are created in new hampshire. our total population is 1.3 million. i fail to see how we will get 500,000 new jobs in my state, particularly when we got -- when we have the marginal rate at 45% with the number of small business owners we have. >> i am not familiar with a specific projection you are referring to. i would be happy to get back to you. >> thank you very much.

did that as it. -- >> that is said. we hope you get once before your next hearing. i look forward to further meetings with you in the future. this hearing is -- this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> up next, a report on the

fbi's handling of the anthrax report. after that, the lord clinton on freedom of expression. and more on the president's budget request on this morning's open " washington journal." that is at the top of the hour. president obama proposed 2012 pentagon budget is $671 billion. that is down from last year's request of $708 billion. this morning, defense secretary robert gates and admiral mike mullins will testify about the military budget. that is live from the house armed services committee at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. later in the day, also on c- span3, treasury secretary timothy geithner will be back on capitol hill to testify his rigid about his budget. the president has called for additional spending to call for the -- to pay for the wall

street regulation bill passed last year. live it 2:00 eastern. >> the c-span networks -- providing coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites. view our content anytime at the c-span video library. we take you on the road with our digital content vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span networks -- now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> a scientific report on the 2001 anthrax mailings cast doubts on some of the fbi's conclusion. the review said that federal investigators overstated the strength of the scientific evidence against the maryland scientists blame for the mailing. bruce ivins committed suicide in july 2008 before charges were

filed against him. the review was done by the national academy of sciences. >> good morning. after the tragic mailings of letters containing bacillus anthracis in 2001, the fbi began an extensive investigation involving many experts and tremendous resources and ultimately lasting more than eight years. this investigation represented a shift in routine operations by the fbi as it reached out to the scientific community to assist in the development of a nascent field called microbial forensics. work in this field played a prominent role in this investigation. beginning in october 2001, investigators collected biological evidence from a variety of sources and locations in florida, the dc region, new

jersey, new york, connecticut, and overseas. four letters, commonly referred to as the new york post, brokaw, leahy, and daschle letters, were analyzed in this investigation. no letter was recovered from the a.m. my facility in florida and, because of the limited sample amounts from the brokaw letter, limited testing was performed on that material. the fbi and their contract scientists conducted scientific analyses that focused on identifying the nature of the letter materials and environmental samples, their similarities and differences, and their biological, chemical, and physical properties. the type of bacillus anthracis in the letters and infecting the victims was identified as the ames strain, a strain not commonly found in nature that was first isolated in 1981 from a dead cow in texas.

the ames strain became widely distributed as a laboratory strain after its initial shipment to the united states army medical research institute for infectious diseases, u.s. salmon -- usamriid. the fbi collected the ames strain of bacillus anthracis from laboratories around the world and their investigation focused on determining the similarity between the end of the dingy resembles and this collection. the fbi connected the letter materials to a particular flask, called flask are a more- 1029 that was housed at usamriid. -- flask rmr-1029 that was housed at usamriid. in september 2010, the fbi asked the national academy of scientists -- of sciences to convene a committee to conduct an independent review of the scientific approaches used during the anthrax investigation.

in july 2009, we brought together a dedicated group of talented experts to begin work on the report you see today. our committee members were experts in the field of microbiology, medicine, physical chemistry, statistics, biochemistry, public health, environmental studies, forensic science, and jurisprudence. in the course of our two year study, the fbi provided us with approximately 9600 pages of materials. with the release of this report, all of these materials are now available to the public. over the past 19 months, the committee focused its efforts on the review and consideration of these materials along with presentations by the fbi and doj officials and by scientists who worked -- whose work informed the investigation. despite our repeated requests throughout the study for all relevant material, in november

2010 the fbi identified additional materials for the committee to review and requested the opportunity to brief the committee again. after serious consideration of this request, we agreed to see these materials and hold another committee meeting. this additional intervention, included in the 9600 pages, provided greater insight into the scientific organization of the investigation and provided new information about overseas samples. it also resulted in the addition of a new section in the report and a new finding and recommendation. we will like to make it clear that our study focused on the application of biological, physical, and chemical sciences to this investigation by the fbi. we did not review or evaluate the more traditional forensic sciences such as fingerprint, fiber, or hair analyses, and we did not consider any of the psychological or behavioral

sciences such as linguistics as used by the fbi in this investigation. additionally, we were not asked and lacked the expertise to review law enforcement investigative materials. we also were not asked to, and will not offer, any view of the guilt or the innocence of any person or persons. an important part of the scientific investigation was the discovery that a fraction of the bacillus anthracis cells in the letter samples showed unusual growth properties. as a result, these cells produced distinctive, so-called colonies when grown on a petri dish as illustrated on the cover of our report. when these bacterial colonies with a distinctive appearance, or morphotypes, were examined more closely, scientists found that the cells in those colonies genetic mutations.

they realize that these mutations might provide the basis for specific genetic tests that could be applied to other samples collected during the course of this investigation. we refer to these genetic tests as molecular assays and our report. this work was central to the scientific investigation. while much of our committee possible effort was focused on reviewing the scientific investigation of the 2001 anthrax letters, an equally important aim has and to help ensure that future scientific investigations of biological attacks are conducted in the most rigorous and effective manner possible. we believe that the analysis in our report provides lessons from this case that will benefit the nation in the event of a future attack. the key elements addressed in the report are, one, organization of the fbi's

scientific effort. to come and environmental sampling and analysis. 3, physical and chemical analyses of the letter materials. four, microbiological and genetic analyses of the letter materials. 5, development and analysis of the fbi's repository of bacillus anthracis ames strain samples, and six, comparison of the letter materials with the samples in the fbi repository. the committee's primary finding is -- it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origin of the bacillus anthracis in the mailings based on a scientific evidence alone. in addition to this overarching finding, we would like to highlight some of our more specific findings.

one, the bacillus anthracis in the letters was the ames strain and was not genetically engineered. to come up silicon was present in the letter powders but there was no evidence of intentional addition of silicon-based dispersants. 3, physicochemical and radiological experiments were properly conducted to evaluate the samples for potential signatures connecting them to a source, but proved to be of little forensic value. four, multiple distinct colony morphological types, or morphotypes, of the soulless anthracis ames were present in the letters. molecular assays of specific genetic sequences associated with these morphotypes provided an approach to determining

relationships among evidentiary samples. 5, the fbi created a repository of ames strain bacillus anthracis samples and performed experiments to determine relationships among them -- among the letter samples and the repository samples. the scientific link between the letter material and the flask number rmr-1029 is not as conclusive as stated in the doj investigated summary. 6, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the amount of time needed to prepare the spore material or the skill set required of the perpetrator. 7, there was inconsistent evidence of bacillus anthracis ames dna in environmental sample collected from an overseas site.

8, there are other tools, methods, and approaches available today for a scientific investigation like this one. 9, organizational structure and oversight are critical aspects of a scientific investigation. the fbi generated an organizational structure to accommodate the complexity of this case and received the advice of prominent experts. in addition to these findings, the committee has made two recommendations. recommendation one -- a review should be conducted of the classified materials that are relevant to the fbi's investigation of the 2001 bacillus anthracis mailings, including all the data and material pertaining to the overseas environmental sample collections.

recommendation #two, the goal of forensic science and realistic expectations and limitations regarding its use in the investigation of a biological attack must be communicated to the public and policymakers with as much clarity and detail as possible before, during, and after the investigation. now we would like to open the floor to take your questions. >> thank you, dr. katz. we will open it up to a prodigious reporter questions. please raise your hands and we will -- to credentialed reporter questions. i ask that you please identify yourself and your organization before asking a question. >> "york times."

your critique of the fbi-justice report on this case seems to not really get at the fundamental issue of who committed this crime, which obviously is of great public interest in this case. if i'm reading you correctly, your criticisms do not undermine their conclusion. i am -- and this thing you did not reach a wrong conclusion. let's say that while they overstated the link between the flask 1029 and the letters, you also say that the evidence is consistent with that link, and it supports that way. you use the word "support." in another example, is it is that they overstated the evidence that bruce ivins falsified one of his samples that he turned in, but if i read it correctly, you're essentially

saying there is a 1% chance that it actually came from where he came from -- where he said it came from. from a minor scientific point of view, perhaps legitimate criticism, but fairly minor in the overall context of the investigation. could you address that? >> i would like to address that. this is related to details in the evaluation of the scientific evidence. they have to do also with the way teen of that evidence and the way the king -- weighting of that evidence in the department of justice summary. one of the challenges in an investigation such as this is the complex interplay investigative and scientific

information. there is an interplay between what the science shows and what the law enforcement side of the investigation shows. we did not review any of the law enforcement materials. we as want to avoid the situation that i think may arise in some scientifically based law-enforcement investigations, where science is held up as an absolute. science is held as, we know that that is right and is certain, and then the other parts of the investigation, the uncertainties are discussed. we believe we are helpful in pointing out the uncertainties, whether it be all probability, or other possibilities of the types of mutations that were found in the letter materials and how they might arise in other circumstances. and/or the flaws in the repository and the collection of

samples used to compare to the letters, but it is really aimed as you suggest at the relative wieghting of those findings. >> next question. >> "foreign-policy" magazine. your conclusion that the materials from the undisclosed location was positive but not culturalable. can you explain whether there was any other explanation for why it had a positive pcr results but would not grow? >> we were provided very little information about these efforts and this work. hence, we are limited in what we know and can say. what we do know from the limited information that was provided

was that there were several collection missions to this overseas undisclosed site, that multiple methods including pcr, a molecular tests, a molecular and say, as well as cultivation efforts were applied to samples brought back to the united states. from at least one and perhaps two of those overseas collections missions, they were inconsistent but some positive results using the molecular approach, the pcr test that you mentioned. but no positive results from the use of cultivation. from the third collection mission, we are told that both molecular tests and cultivation efforts were negative. we consider the net some of the information available to us as

providing inconsistent evidence for the presence of bacillus anthracis dna. you're correct in pointing out that they had no evidence for their presence of a live or by double organisms at the time they were brought back to the united states. it is important to recognize that being limited in infer in what might have been back when those samples were actually created during the course of work that might have taken place there and what might have been the state of the organisms at that time. >> next question. >> cbs news. the report that they had the letters to the post and broke out were different than the letter to leahy and to daschle. with those differences in mind, and one of the differences of the amount of silicon found,

does that preclude all of them being made by the same person are coming from the same batch? can you talk about how they can be different? what accounts for the differences? and does this mean it had come from different sources? >> the differences indicate two main things. one is that there were separate batches. they have enough physical and chemical differences between the two sets of letters that they must come from two separate batches. also, the differences between those letters and the flask rmr- 1029 indicate that there had to be an additional growth step from rmr-1029 in order to create the letters with the characteristics that we found. -- that they found.

>> another question. >> propublica. the report states that the silicon-coated spores -- i am sorry, a preparation was done of spores without any kind of attitude. and it had the same dispersal characteristics of the attack powder, the leahy and daschle. i would like to ask how you measure it those dispersal characteristics and how they do compare in the report notes that you cannot definitively say anything about the skill of the person who made this power, and that estimates from two to three days to several weeks as possible based on your assumption. what can be done on the low-end of that, the two to three day estimate of how fast it was done?

>> dispersal characteristics are measured by the way these powders will float in the air. and also measuring the electrostatic properties of powders created from the anthracis spores. those measurements, we have detailed in here, and they indicate there are a variety of characteristics one can get from a variety of preparation techniques. that is one reason it also -- to answer your second question -- there is a lack of certainty in the amount of time and effort it would take to make them. the fbi has not determined what method was used to create the powders. >> let me just add that for clarity, we did not undertake any work of our own. we were dealing with the work of others, as i think you know.

but i think the point that you made, that is, one need not necessarily postulate the addition of a dispersant to account for the properties observed. that is correct in our estimation. on the second question, how one might arrive at that low end in as little as two days, there are a number factors that would go into that calculation, including skill set of the person or persons involved, the equipment and resources available, and the procedures and process elected. and on that last point, that low-end would rely upon the use of natural fermentation methods, liquid cultivation methods, which are available in a number of locations. but that would be the approach that one would have had to

postulate to account for that low end. >> we do not have any such calculations by the fbi on that. >> your same batch fermentation would require for mentor of some size, then? -- a for mentor -- fermenter of some size, then push a margin we cannot comment on the size because other variables are involved, including time used. >> a question here. >> you referred to three separate collection efforts at that offshore site. do you put equal weight on the findings of each of those missions? the third one seemed to be an effort to excavate all sorts of infrastructure seemingly in an

attempt to avoid laboratory contamination here in the united states where it is being analyzed. do you put equal weight on the three and why are why not? david willman. >> it is an interesting question 11 -- but one we do not have another affirmation to answer. we have literally almost cryptic information about -- especially the first of those missions, which we're told was conducted in collaboration with partners from the intelligence community. we know very little about the collection mission. on the others, one would have to entertain a number of possible scenarios. and certainly he would have to have much more information before judging the relative value from the second versus third. >> can you characterize of what information you need?

on the third one come on the issue of contamination -- are you satisfied that there was a markedly reduced chance of contaminant -- contamination with the third effort from our >> i do not think we can say either way. to get to your earlier question, one would like to know not only timing, but exact procedure, who did what, when, where -- and exactly what were the protocols used in sampling, in processing the samples, and then deducting and analyzing the result of the assays. the second and third mission were separated between may and november 2004, we were told. he had no information about what might happen in between. -- we had no information about what might have happened in between. >> from the internet, what does it mean that the fbi and/or barman of justice did not

provide written statements of their side to the conclusion? was this requested which mark why did they tell you that would not provide them, if so? >> we asked repeatedly for written summary of their conclusions. we were not given one. we had many discussions with them, and for the written evidence of their conclusion, we relied on their department of justice investigators summit, which you will see quoted. i cannot speak to why that was. but the statements made in the investigative summary is what we saw. >> next question. >> on him wondering what the committee's reaction was when the department of justice close the case last year.

>> as you may know or surmised, we are not privy to many of the discussions about when or why the case might be closed or serb leader -- are certainly bit discussions leading up to it last year. we know that many considerations go into a decision like that. much of it involving portions of the investigation about which we had very little involvement and certainly no role in judging. we noted it with you interest. -- due interest. >> there was a word about collection dealing with one area. to talk about that? and the fact that classified information was not part of the findings. what kind of impact would that

have on how definitive your report is? >> we have very little, almost no information on the flight 93 work. just to mention the fact that they examine the remains from a high state. in flight 93. the hijacker in flight 93. we ask for all relevant information in our interaction with the fbi in december of this year to discuss the opportunity for possibility of reviewing classified information. we undetermined to complete this report and a time -- we were determined to complete this report in the timely way, to provide information to the public and all the information we had available to the public, and we were finished with our charge. so we're not in a position to

take on that work now. that is why we made the recommendation that any review of the classified materials be carried out. >> if i could just add, the mention made of the classified materials in november by the fbi was the first mentioned to us. i think you are certainly prepared and willing to review those materials had they been made available earlier. but i think we were certainly prepared and willing to review those materials had they been made at earlier. >> [inaudible] what reception would you have gotten? >> we have given them the report and brief them on its contents. they received it with some appreciation for the work that the committee put in. i cannot comment on the response.

>> the washington examine. given the discussion you had your prior meeting with the researchers at usamriid, what percentage of the samples and the repository might have been able to produce the results that you saw in the letters? and if you might, talk about additional testing that could be possible from this day forward. >> as you know, the fbi and its collaborators selected for specific mutation as the visit for testing -- as the basis for testing the repository samples that the collection. these four mutations were found in the letters and were chosen for their genetic signatures.

from the repository, the root total of eight samples that tested positive for all four of these genetic mutations. seven of those eight were said to of come from rmr-1029 usamriid. the eighth sample was located at the memorial institute in columbus, a collaborator of workers at usamriid prepared told that the fbi had clear evidence that that eight samples had itself come from usamriid and from 1029. there were eight out of the complete repository that had the full set of four positive results. >> check this microphone. >> the fbi asked you to do this for them. did they explain why only at the

end of the process they found is the material and what prompted them to find it? what was the sequence of events that led them to bring this to you, considering that they had already provided a lot of material? did they withhold this from you? >> all i can say is that we repeatedly as for all relevant materials. we were all heard this material in november 2010 -- of heard this material in 2010 and offered additional materials at the briefing. this was after they saw our first draft report and thought it would be improved by our understanding in knowing more. it is hard to turn your back on additional information when you are trying to write a very factual report. and so after considerable consideration, we decided to take it on.

>> can i take you back to the last question about the mutations in the eight samples? if i read this correctly, i think there were 30 tests done on the last rmr-1029, is that correct? and 16 times you found all the mutations, but in the other 14 times, there were variants? can you explain how they can be when the samples are coming from the same flask? and what does that say about the certainty or lack of certainty that the letter materials came from the flask? >> the work that you referred to come up the 30 samplings was a separate set of experiments undertaken by the fbi and their collaborators to understand how reliable their testing would be on a very complex sample like rmr-1029.

we in day and her brother results to mean that a fact -- a sample -- a flask of that sort is potentially heterogeneous in its composition and even in its spatial organization. every time one did senses something so complex, you're not necessarily pulling up the same exact set of materials. that is important with testing a biological sample. the results also indicate potentially that each of these molecular assays is not going to provide a consistent result. time is performed regardless of the context in which it is used. >> next question. >> when your review was announced, there was some criticism of the notion of

revealing only the science and not the detective work involving the investigation. i wonder if, looking back, you think that was a wise decision. i realize it was dictated by your customer, the fbi. but from a public interest in. , with a k -- public-interest standpoint, would there have been a case for either enlarging the panel with other expertise, but in some way trying to review the entire investigation as opposed to just the science? >> i think that one should strongly consider putting together a panel that would be able to do every few such as you recommend. -- a review such as you recommended. for the sheer magnitude of the

work, just to review the scientific side of this investigation, an opportunity to provide a really in depth look at how scientists perform in the context of a national re- emergence sea and in the context of -- national emergency and in the contents of the many experts being worked with across the country. i believe we provide an excellent service to the community in taking a look at how that is done, and being able to prepare in the event of a future attack. i do think and i am a member of the committee on science, technology, and locked at the academy thela -- technology and law at the academy. they are important aspects of science entering the courtroom that that committee grapples with in other studies grapple

with. it could be fruitful in a similar scenario in the future to have such a study. >> i would emphasize the importance of our second recommendation, which is the value of clear, concise, and accurate communication of the realistic expectation from the use of science alone, as well as science together with the other components of an investigation like this. that is going to be a challenge for us all in trying to do this even better the next time. >> i have another question e- mailed from a journalist watching online. are there tests you would recommend we don't -- be done now comparing to provide a clearer picture to see if the

letter anthrax did come from that bad? >> since this rests on a complex interplay between the science and the law enforcement investigation, we are not in a position to say whether additional science would be needed or beneficial. it depends on the relative wi eighting. in our report, would point out that there are technologies available that can provide additional information about genetics signatures, and there are opportunities to look at the genetic mutations in the more detailed way than there were at the time. there are also opportunities to consider environmental samples that were not tested on the molecular level. but again, we do not make a recommendation whether or not

they should be pursued. they have to be weighed as to their benefit relative to the overall investigation. >> next question. >> i was wondering during the course of your studies, you have any interaction with scientist at usamriid, and how that may have affected your conclusions. >> we did have one of the scientists from usamriid involved in the work on bacillus anthracis comments peak before our committee. -- come and speak before our committee and answer questions on technical and scientific matters such as the production of the anthracis spores. we view that solely in the context of understanding the science of better both the science possible and the sense

that could be done under a variety of different circumstances. we tried very hard to associate who this person was exactly and where they were from the information they were sharing with us. >> question. >> i wanted to clarify something in the document. as i handed him what you're saying here on page 108, you are suggesting that some of these morphotypes if not all of them were present in the material that was cultured and the fermenter. that would raise significant questions about the cornerstone of this case, which is that the attack force came from and could only have come from rmr-1029, since you're finding these morphotypes before they ever arise, it seems if i understand

what you're saying correctly, you cannot say definitively that the spores came from rmr-1029. >> there are different points embedded in your question and they are worth discussing briefly. first, we know from the scientific literature that mutations will rise in bacillus anthracis when they are grown. and of the ticket limitations will be select -- and the particular mutations will be selectable during, for instance, the large scale production of spores. we know that mutations of the sort, as those found in the letters, do arise during batch production of bacillus anthracis. when we look at the limited information given to us about

practices and procedures the way -- at the location, we found that those procedures might well allow for not only the propagation of these mutations, but the possibility that mutations might also arise during their process and procedure. the second point, the relation of that work to the origin of 1029 and their relationship, and the we do not have all information, we do know that these efforts described their work in fact part of the process of creating 1029, so it is plausible that the material that we were told about wasn't that material -- was in fact material at usamriid in cambridge again became part of

1029. >> therefore, can we say with certainty that the attack spores can only have come from 1029, given that these distinctive characteristics may have existed in a batch before that? >> i think we are saying that one cannot arrive at a definitive conclusion about the origin of the spores in the letters for a brighter reasons, including the general one that underlies your question. -- for a variety of reasons, including the general one that underlies your question. there are no longer any questions. right here. >> i like to follow-up on that. i had the privilege of attending of a number of your sessions. i recall from the discussion that the mutations in anthrax were not particularly unusual. and that these particular mutations or not especially

unusual. so the question i would like to get to, of all the samples that were available for testing, given the rate of mutation within anthrax as we discussed, and the fact that there had to be one more growth stage to get to the letters, clearly you said you cannot definitively linked this to the flask, but how many of the other samples could have been the source, the foundation for what ultimately ended up in the letters? do you have any sense of that, what percentage might have led to what you ultimately sought in the letters? >> we do know and there are scientific studies of the mutation rates. there are recent papers talking about this and in particular, we do not know the probability of the development of these particular mutations. we really cannot put any estimates on that likelihood.

we just bring it up as something that could occur, an independent evolution of mutations, as he said, in large batch production and other situations where spores mutate. >> and for clarity, among the 947 repository samples they were suitable for testing, there were a number of samples positive for at least one of the four mutations. for example, you taste d -- mutation d showed up in 51 of the 940 samples samples -- none of the 47 samples. so we have an enumeration of how many samples for positive for

one, too, 3, and then the eight that were positive for four. they do arise. they were found in some of these samples. but as to their relationship to 1029, this gets to the provenance and history of repository samples, about w hich we have partial information, but about which the department of justice and the fbi had stated that the samples even positive for two link back to 1029. >> it is important for context to remember that the tests for these mutations were being developed over time. and at first, there is a a morphotype which had two genetic markers, and they were being done first. in our most recent information

from the fbi, we were informed that as the results of just those a1 and a3 were coming in, they were further investigating those that were coming up positive for those two. it was a process and an interplay between the science and the investigation. >> if i could just press you on the implications of this major finding that you cannot definitively link 1029 to the letters, you say that on page 119. on page 120, and you say that the genetic evidence supports the association. you think it is more likely that the anthrax in the letters was grown from a sample taken from 1029 than any other possible explanation? in other words, when you give

people who are not scientists some basis to interpret your report, are you saying essentially the fbi is long and you really need to go back to square role -- square one, or are you making up fine tune distinction between what you find to be definitive and what the fbi seems to be overwhelmingly convinced of? can you give a practical guide on how to interpret your report? >> unfortunately we cannot quantify this for reasons -- for each of these aspects of the potential uncertainties in this link. we do say that results are consistent with a link between the letters samples and flask 1029, but they are not definitive because there are probabilities that have other explanations still.

we cannot quantify that for you, unfortunately. >> to repeat what doctored gast has said, today and even at that time, one was limited in what was available for testing, and may have been limited by the ways in which it was collected for testing. to look back today on what might be a different answer is a very difficult and really impossible path, given that we cannot change the way in which the investigation in the collection of samples, etc., unfolded at that time. >> sorry, but what would you advise a layperson in the public to conclude from what you have to send -- you have just said or smart to you think the fbi did a good job under the circumstances?

and that is a fairly convincing link between 1029 and the letters? or would you would buys the lay person to essentially come up with a new approach to this whole subject, reopen the investigation? it is hard to interpret what you're saying in a practical sense on what is an investigation of great public interest. >> what we're saying in a practical sense is that you cannot rely solely on the science. any statements that rely on the science as the foundation for a definitive conclusion cannot be made, because there are uncertainties, particularly in this field of microbial forensics, where you have complexities of the way the samples evolve and the way they are used in the community in our shared and the province and all

that. -- provenence and all that. you want to make sure that the balance is correct and that the public understands that interplay. >> any questions? >> "science" magazine. i would ask about the statistics and the likelihood of these four mutations are rising -- arising in a batch of anthrax spores. and also if you have any statisticians that you can go to to get more perspective on the fact that out of the 947

samples that were screened, tie a was found in 51, and so one, but of the doctor described the little ago, because when you looked at that whole perthshire -- picture as a layperson, it looks very improbable that you could get four of those mutants in one sample in any circumstance other than if that sample came from for was derived from rmr-1029. >> again, we cannot put real probability on the likelihood of independent evolution of these mutations and various scenarios in the creation of spore batches under a variety of

conditions. we know that that type of mutation does arise, but we cannot put numbers on that. we have quite a bit of statistical analysis in here, actually critiquing and falling on the physical analysis commissioned by the fbi, and you will see tables with numbers and charts showing all of these deposits and also the inconclusive measures of these mutations. and there are some analyses that puts some bounds on those probabilities, but they are not particularly beneficial for drawing an overall conclusion beyond the one that we have made, that it is not absolutely definitive. to you want to -- >> there is a potential danger in assuming that many statistical tests can the statistical tests can the