need. we want to use all the tools we have and consider any possibilities we might want to acquire so we can hold accountable the people and institutions had a demonstrate crist a devastating impact on the economy and continued to have a lingering impact, particularly on the housing market. >> thank you for>> we will reifn the wisdom from your office that in the middle of these cases, the importance of that extra five years in the statute of limitations. let me talk about gas prices. oil prices are now over $100 a barrel. the cftc have told us inventories of oil are sufficient, domestic production is up. consumption is down, all reasons

the gas prices should not be going up, understanding the turmoil in the middle east and the discussion of iran. it is my understanding that some analysts have estimated speculation may be adding 50 cents to the price per gallon of gas. it is my understanding doj organize the price broad working group to pick determine the role speculation prep review potential price manipulation are having on the price of gasoline. what are your neck steps and what can we expect? >> networking group continues in effect. they are discussing the situation that we find yourself with these rising gas prices and the working group itself will be meeting before the end of this week. the work of that group has been ongoing and looking to see if there are inappropriate manipulations of the market. the ftc is walz -- is also

working in this area. i understand that are working on a report of some sort that we should be seeing relatively soon. within the department, that working group has been active and has a meeting today -- a meeting that will happen by tomorrow. >> i would like to request that after that meeting that the task force read me and other members of the subcommittee who have expressed interest. >> we will certainly do that. >> we really would like to see that. this is very, very important. i will turn to senator mikulski. >> mr. attorney general, welcome this morning. i want to follow on senator hutchinson's questions regarding the prosecution of senator ted stevens. i think so many of us were

radically shocked. i was horrified as a friend and an alaskan to reach -- to read judge sullivans commons that this ill-gotten verdict not only resulted in him losing his seat, but in his words, tipped the balance of power in the united states senate. pretty powerful in terms of what the department of justice did to a great man. i appreciate and i recognize and i thank you for your actions in dismissing the case and in your decision to not attempt to retry and i join senator hutchinson in that. there are questions that still remain. you know that. i have a long series of them. what i would like to do is submit them to you today and ask that you respond to them prior to the release of the report

which is due to come out next wednesday the 15th of march. i would appreciate your attention to that. i have a question regarding what is happening now with the release of this report. "usa today" reported the part of justice has spent $1.8 million in defending prosecutor from allegations that they broke the law in the stevens prosecution. senator grassley was one who mentioned that it things like this is an unseemly high amount of money being spent by the taxpayers to defend what appears to be egregious misconduct again, center hutcheson has noticed -- noted the word that judge sullivan used in his report saying it demonstrated significant widespread an intentional misconduct by prosecutors. i understand that the $1.80 million went to attorney fees to defend the actions of the

justice department prosecutors who were under investigation for content by the council appointed by judge sullivan. the report of that council is due to be released on the 15th. in addition to spending taxpayer money to defend your attorney, did the taxpayers also pay for the attorneys to argue that the contents of this report should not be publicly released? you have stated that this is a matter that has risen to a level of public attention. if you can answer that question for me, and also whether the justice department supports the merits of the appeal that has been raised by mr. edward sullivan, who is one of the prosecutors at the u.s. court of appeals for emergency stay to prevent the release of this report next week. the question is whether you support the merits of that appeal, and again, whether or not the taxpayers are on the hook to pay for his attorneys to argue that this report should be

kept from the public. >> i don't think we take any position with regard to what he has said about his desire to keep the report sealed, but the justice department has indicated that we do not object to the release of the report. i think that given the issues we found there, the magnitude of the case, and the magnitude of the errors that led me to dismiss the case, that there is a legitimate public interest in knowing as much as we can about what happened, why it happened, what steps the justice department has taken in connection with these findings of misconduct. glaxo is the justice department paying for his attorneys' fees in this matter to keep this from being made public? >> i don't know about him specifically. i know that as a result of the charges that were brought against him, i think the

determination was made that there would be a conflict of interest for the justice department to defend them, which would be typically how we would do it, and they were allowed to get outside counsel and under the regulations, the justice department then pays for those legal representation, which has happened in a variety of circumstances. former attorney generals have had lawyers that have been reimbursed by but the government. i am hoping i will have to do that, but other attorneys general have very grex even now that the independent counsel that judge sullivan had appointed, even though that counsel has found that members of the stephens prosecution had engaged in significant, widespread and at times, intentional misconduct -- does the government have any recourse to recover the funds that have been paid for their attorneys these? when they have engaged

intentional misconduct? you mentioned in your comments to senator hutcheson that after the office of public responsibility report that there may be sanctions that we will see, but is their recourse? are you pursuing any recourse? it seems to me that in an instance like this where it has been made clear that peak conduct was intentional, that it was substantial, and it was widespread, that we should not be defending and paying for the attorney's fees to again allow these individuals to conduct such acts, and then to learn that they are still within the part of justice does not give me much confidence. >> certainly one of the things that happens is that because the justice department cannot represent these people and they

have their own views of what happened, they want to be able to explain with counsel -- defend themselves. cut that is why the expenditure of money actually occurred and why they were allowed to get outside counsel. as i said, that has happened not frequently, but it hasn't happened in the past, and we acted with regard to them as we have done in the past with regard to the retention and outside counsel. >> i would think that $1.80 million to go to defend these attorneys who had engaged in intentional misconduct is just stunning to me. i would like to think that there could be some recourse. >> it is important that you had the opportunity to pursue your line of questioning. the situation that has been presented by you and senator hutchinson reminding the committee is deeply troubling. we must have public integrity

and an independent judiciary. regardless of which party is in the white house, we must have a justice department that we believe in and that the american people believe in. i know the attorney general will be responsive and we will take it from there. >> i just want to thank you for those comments and agree wholeheartedly. i do think the attorney general took a major for step when he dismissed the case. that was huge. but now we must follow up so that there is no question that the people who did this, and the report will show what average shows, that they are not able to prosecute ever again, ever. >> thank you, madam chair. general, welcome to the committee. thank you for being over here. i just want to add my voice to something that was said earlier about prison overcrowding. i could go through the facts and figures on that but you know those better than any of us do.

it is just a real concern. one of the presence on the short list is actually in arkansas, and in fy 2010 it was scheduled to be funded in 2014. now keeps getting pushed back and now it is in 2018. just an example of not being able to get to some of the real needs we have. i know i am not alone in that, so i just want to voice my concern there. let me ask about sequestration. i am curious about what in the justice department view all perceive will happen to the o.j. funding if sequestration does -- what will happen to bunning and what steps -- what will happen to doj funding and what steps

you will take. >> in node justice component would be exempt from those cuts. from an operational perspective, we would have to cut funding and non personnel funding. we are estimating that we would have to kick furlough all position types including the federal agents and attorneys who try and investigate cases. we would have to lose a substantial number of jobs. this across-the-board cut would have a devastating impact on the justice permits ability to protect the american people, to do investigations. it would be something that would just simply be devastating. my hope would be that congress will find a way to avoid this sequestration, which from my own parochial interests, which are the nations as well, to really avoid the very negative

consequences that could have a permanent impact on our well- being. >> you mention these furloughs, but i assume you'd have to suspend the funding of many of your programs that help local and state law-enforcement agencies. >> that is an excellent point. the consequences are not restricted to just the justice department in washington and our field offices. they would also be impacted by the reduced amounts of money we would be able to share with our state and local partners in terms of grants and local cops on the beat. it would be a devastating thing for this to happen. >> let me ask about personnel, there are about 1600 prosecutors and 1200 public defenders in the last fiscal year the received assistance under that program to help pay off their student loans

etc. but this budget that has been submitted does not have funding for that program this year. my concern there would be that we want the best and brightest out there trying cases on both sides. this is public defenders and prosecutors, and it is critical we have good representation on both sides. i am afraid we are going to lose a lot of talent if we don't have a program like this. i was wondering if you share that concern and what steps you think we can do to try to keep the best and brightest coming on board. >> i do share that concern. we want the best and brightest to come and take what are low- paying jobs on the prosecution and defense side. these younger people coming out of law school with the enormous amounts of debt, and i don't want them to make career choices based on how they are going to

repay those loans as opposed to following their passions, and take their great skills to become members of the justice department, state and local prosecutors' offices, or on the other side, to be good defense attorneys. that is one of the things i am concerned about. we have a tough budget and the money is not there to the extent that it was in the past. to the extent that we can work on ways to come up with creative things to do to make sure those career decisions -- especially those first job career decisions by people coming out of law school, is not a function of their financial concerns, but really a function of how they want to help build a better society. >> i don't really have time to ask another question but i would like to make an observation. the chair of the subcommittee hearing yesterday took a leadership role in a

cybersecurity exercise in a classified setting, and we appreciate her leadership on that. it was very informative and interesting. i know the department of justice has been very involved in what is going on with federal government, cybersecurity issues and everything you are working on. i also hope that you will not neglect the private sector as well as state and local governments, because they have a role to play in this as well. >> this is not something the federal government can handle by itself. this is a national security issue and also an infrastructure issue that involves our state and local partners. one looks at just the amount of intellectual property theft that occurs, so that the private sector has to be involved as well. we have to come up with a means by which all of those various components talk to one another if we ultimately think is

the most pressing thing we will be facing in the coming years. >> thank you. >> i want to go back to the question senator pryor raised about the impact of sequestered. can we have that answer in more detail in writing so everyone will have a chance to study it and go over it in programs, so we can really grasp the full consequences. >> i would like to add my voice to what you just echoed and senator pryor, that sequestration would be devastating to the bar of justice and our ability to defend ourselves, and destroy the military. surely we can find a better way to do it than that. i think you are dead on, this is just an ill-conceived idea of cutting money blindly, in my view. you were in self carolina a couple of days ago, is that right?

>> yesterday. >> we were glad to have given hope to spend money while you are there. the national advocacy center in columbia you visited, what would you tell the committee about it in terms of being a value to the nation? >> it is an invaluable resource. >> did you all hear that? >> it is an invaluable resource for the training that goes on in the justice department. i think it could actually be expanded. i am concerned we are not interacting with our state and local partners to the extent that we once did in doing training with them. we are trying to bring into the advocacy center people from the defense side as well. it is where people learn to be good trial lawyers, learn the ethical obligations. >> we appreciate your visit. it is a place where cybersecurity is the issue of

the 21st century. it depends on who is involved, but a lot of local law enforcement folks probably have no idea how to handle this, and it would be a good way to educate the country as a whole. the collaboration with the university of south carolina i appreciate. we took 200 or 300 departed justice jobs out of washington because after 9/11 we were worried about having every part of our government in one city. we moved those folks down to south carolina and columbia can and lease the building from the university, saving about $35 million. i want to applaud you for trying to be creative, to decentralize the permit justice we are ever attacked here, we don't lose all of our national assets. >> we have that relationship with the university about the rule of law component as well. quinn has been a good synergy.

>> we are trying to develop a rule of law program without some -- without some basic rule of law, no country can develop. all of the lessons we have learned the hard way from making mistakes and finally getting right. and those who have been overseas can share their thoughts about what worked and what did not. you could train before you went. the part of justice, agriculture, defense, this is a team. this war requires a team concept and we are trying to reach out to the islamic world and create partnerships with lawyers and attorneys general and judges in the islamic world so we can understand each other better. i am excited about it and i appreciate your support. justice scalia came out talking about he thought it would be wise if we looked at our federal criminal code, particularly in the drug area, and see if we could reform it. i think he is right.

i think we federalize way too many crimes, creating work that could be better handled at the state level. what do you think about the idea of revamping the federal criminal code and undoing some of the over federalization? >> when i came into office, i'd put in place a number of working groups to look at that issue. are we bringing the right people into the federal system? are the sentences for the federal crimes appropriate? >> like crack cocaine. that was sort of an indefensible sentencing disparity. >> the bipartisan effort that resulted in the lowering of that ratio was something that was long overdue and i think it was a great example of republicans and democrats getting together and doing the right thing. it was something that was

morally right as well. >> the recess appointments made by president obama a while back to the nlrb, is there a situation similar to that in history of the senate of appointing someone to a federal agency under those circumstances, that you are aware of? >> if you look at the 23-page report by the office of legal counsel, they go through a variety of precedence. they look at a loss -- look at tradition and the conclusions they reach was that given the links of the recess, 20 days or so, that the appointments were, in fact, appropriate. it is obviously something the courts will ultimately defense predict ultimately decide, but i think the opinion was accurately cry. >> i think center alexander will have a discussion about that.

i think maybe it was last week we had a plea bargain could the military commission detainee who is one of the ksm close confidence. i do support the article for terrorism trials when appropriate. one should not lecture support for military commissions inappropriate circumstances, and with your help, i think we have these things up and running. i look forward to more action coming out of guantanamo bay to get some of these people through the legal system. to all those at guantanamo bay doing your job, you are doing the country of great service, particularly the defense counsels. >> people should understand that when i send people down for military commission treatment, the result -- as i said in a speech at

northwestern, many of the elements of due process that we consider vital to the american system, we have great defense lawyers down there. the military system does not get the credit it deserves for the fair way in which it deals with people and under the direction of mark martinson, i think we will be proud of the work they do. >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. i thank you and others for mentioning this cyber exercise yesterday. next week we will hear from the fbi can do an open hearing and then a classified hearing. this will be an opportunity to ask many of your cyber questions and go into the level of detail of the committee would like. >> thanks very much, madam chairman, and welcome, general. i want to associate myself

withy comments of senator hutcheson and senator murkowski. to meet the tragedy is that ted stevens died before he knew this was a faulty prosecution. that elevates this to a new height. i think this investigation is really important, and i think that actions have to be taken. i just wanted to express that. i wanted to follow-up on senator brown's comment. it is my understanding that there is more oil available in the united states than demand calls for, and as a matter of fact, surplusage being sold outside. i think this would bring to special attention the issue of speculation, and i hope the study you are doing is going to take a good look at the financial marketplace with regard to its ability to impact

price in this way. >> as i said, the oil and gas working group we formed last year as part of the president's financial fraud enforcement task force has been meeting. it just happens that they are having a call today at a meeting either tomorrow or on monday. the full committee will be getting together to look at the issues you have raised. >> thank you. as you know, title 7 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act expires at the end of the year. this allows for electronic surveillance of targets outside the united states. senator mikulski and i both serve on the senate intelligence committee and we have done extensive oversight of the government use of the surveillance authorities. i live for to working with you to make sure congress can reauthorize title 7 well before the end of 2012.

we need to maintain collection of critical of foreign intelligence and provide certainty to intelligence professionals in that regard. for members of this committee that don't follow this issue closely, could you explain need to reauthorize title 7 and the efforts taken to protect the civil liberties and privacy of americans at this title is carried out? >> their surveillance authorities in the fisa a minute are critical to our national security. on a daily basis, it is a critical tool that we have in keeping the american people safe. the administration strongly supports the reauthorization and hope it occurs well before the end of the year so the certainty that is needed by the men and

women in our intelligence community will have some degree of assuredness that those schools will remain there and that our fight against those who do harm to the united states can continue. >> i also want to thank you for your enormous help and the help of the fbi with respect to national security. the fbi now has some 15,000 people located around the united states, essentially doing intelligence work. that transition has been effectively made. corrector moeller at a worldwide threat hearing indicated to us that in the past year there have been 20 arrests in the united states of people in this country planning or participating in attempted terrorist attack. as you mentioned in your recent testimony, amar farooque abdul mutallab was recently sentenced

to life in prison. i also want to say that even though specific activities are classified, in your written testimony you mentioned the high value detainee interrogation group. i can say that we have seen me excellent intelligence it is producing. earlier this week, the more principled members of hacking groups were charged with computer hacking and a fifth member pled guilty. now to my questions. i think we have to begin to look for redundancy and duplication of effort. we now have a counter-terrorism center, homeland security intelligence, and we also now have the fbi.

so i hope you will take a look it that, because the dollars are precious, and we are already experiencing cuts in the intelligence budget. copper so here is my question. what are your budget reductions in the national security and area? what will that mean for counter- terrorism and are there any gaps in our efforts? >> i think we have adequate amounts of money contained in the budget that we have requested. if you look at the amount of money or -- since 2001 we have had a 300% increase for the justice department. it might have been 400% for the fbi. even with the black budget we essentially have for the justice

department and its components including the fbi, i think we have adequate amounts of money to keep the american people safe. to the extent i feel that is not the case, my voice will be heard. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> i was thinking about a conversation we had during your confirmation. i was a law clerk, or when he was judge, and one of the things he used to say is that the attorney general is the lawyer for the united states, not just for the president. in following up on the comment on the so-called recess appointment, i want to ask a question as the lawyer for the

united states, if the president calls you up and says general holder, i noticed the senate has gone into recess for lunch. i have a supreme court nominee i want to appoint. can we put him on the court without their advice and consent. what would your answer be? >> that would not be a sufficient recess, going to lunch. >> levy said they would not be back until tomorrow. would that be a sufficient recess? >> i am asking your opinion, mr. attorney general. >> do you agree with it? >> yes. >> that means the president, not the senate, can decide when it is in session for purpose of advice and consent? >> one has to look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not the senate is actually in session as that term has historically been

used and the determination that was made. >> what is your deputy solicitor wrong when he told the supreme court in a letter that two years ago, the senate act by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time. was sent to read wrong in 2007 when he really devised the plan for proformance three days' sessions because he said he heard that president bush was about to make recess appointments? -- was senator read it wrong in 2007? they want to make several recess appointment. as a result, i am keeping the senate in pro-forma to prevent recess appointments until we get back on track. president bush did not like it, but he respected it. are you saying that the president, not the senate, can decide when it is in session for

purposes of a recess appointment? >> what we have to do and what we have done is look at history, look at president, look at the law. you some common sense when it comes to the approach of whether or not the senate is actually in session. >> was senator reid wrong? >> with regard to that 20 days when those cause the senate had decided it was in a three-day session. was he wrong about that? >> i would have to look at exactly what occurred during that three day period, but in this instance, the determination they made was correct. >> i don't see why the president's could not look at the senate and say i am going to send up a supreme court justice and skip advice and consent. i am astonished by this and i

would think democratic as well as republican senators would honor the reid formula that president bush honored. the president made four appointments during at a time when constitutionally he should not have. >> the determination was not made by the president. it was made by the office of legal counsel and they shared that opinion with the president, and he made the decision as to what he wanted to do. >> he made the decision not to respect the senate's decision about when it is in session or when it is not, which is a blatant disregard for the constitutional system of checks and balances, and something we ought to avoid. last year the department found money to support the work against methamphetamine, and i complement the department for that. i noticed a getting increasingly harder. we have the highest number of

meth lab seizures in the nation in our state. will the department again be able to try to help states that are working on this, as you were able to do last year? >> we will try to do as best we can. what we have seen with regard to the cleanup of the dematha side, there have been a number of container activities -- in the cleanup of the meth sites. >> instead -- comes down to $20 or $30. the experience we have seen there is something we have to extrapolation and use in other parts of the country as well. >> thank you, general holder. thank you, madam chairman.

>> the chair of the judiciary committee. >> good to have you here. if i could follow up a little bit on what my good friend from tennessee said on the recess appointment, there is an easy way out of all of this, you require the cooperation of both sides. a suggested this in the judiciary committee, that the president resubmit the nominations and the republicans agree to have an up or down vote in another week or two weeks. even though there's more than 50 votes, my friends on the other side of the aisle were blocking having a vote.

i understand the president's frustration, but the easy way out of this is simply the republican leadership would agree to an up or down vote within a week or two weeks. whatever amount time needed, resubmit them and have an up or down vote. that takes care of all the problems. i just suggest that as an easy way out. it is not as much fun on the talk shows. mr. attorney-general, your department administers many crucial grant programs that help victims of law enforcement. the ones i have been involved in include the violence against women act. we have a reauthorization bill on the partnership program. the government accounting office has said there are duplications

and inefficiencies and some of the grant programs. will your department work to make sure that if there are any duplications, that they be removed and that we go forward, because these are good programs, but there is only so much money to go around. >> that is exactly the problem we have. we have to make sure there are not duplications. managers regularly meet to coordinate the programs their and their activities. people should not assume because you see the word victim in a number of the things that we do in the department that necessarily means the money -- that we are duplicating efforts. they have very distinct responsibilities, but we are working to make sure that the money to have is being used in an efficient and appropriate

way. >> one of the things i am very proud of is a bill that i wrote on bulletproof vests. by a walk down the street in denver colorado and a police officer came up and ask to of was, and he tapped his chest and said thank you. we have been told by the gao that there are some funds that have not been obligated on the bulletproof vest partnership grant program. law enforcement, especially in the smaller communities where they do not have the budget to buy the bulletproof vests, which are about $600. can you check to make sure these funds are obligated as quickly

as possible? >> to the extent that funds were not drawn down, we are taking steps to allow jurisdictions to use that unused funding and have the time expended so we can get these bulletproof vest out to these officers. >> of would reiterate what i told you when we chatted earlier this week when i was in vermont about your speech earlier this week about groans and targeting u.s. citizens. i still want to see the office of legal counsel item. i would urge you to keep working on that. i realize it is a matter of some debate within the administration. >> that would be true. >> keep my staff and the updated on the progress in the review

of nypd surveillance of muslim americans. lastly, i wrote to you and the secretary of homeland security janet napolitano to encourage you to hold marriage based immigration project in light of the decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of the defense against marriage act if the defense of marriage act, that it would be granted individual cases. i hope you will reconsider the administration's position. i have written to you about francis herbert who is married and legally in vermont, or states where same-sex marriage is legal but then they run up against the immigration problem. >> i will look at that case and

get back with you. >> thank you very much. >> bokerman, attorney general holder. -- well, attorney general older. the job does not seem to be getting easier. i am not blaming you, i am just sympathizing. ask foruch that i won't more, because we are dealing with less. we see it in my state of new jersey. 246 and gun murders in 2010, 12% more than the previous year. we have had layoffs galore, from cities that cannot afford to maintain their police force structure.

when i look at things we are doing, i worry about what it is that we can do from your department and from others. what can we do to help these communities? state budget cooks -- cuts in new jersey to cut their police force at alarming rates, a third of the police force in camden, over 100 and terminations of ark.ce officers in new yor i wrote asking if you could provide a federal resources to assist our ailing cities. i as to see an increase in the budget for cops. are there other steps we can use to help protect new jersey from violent crime? >> we are certainly making sure that in terms of cost grants that we do the best we can

there. we have a substantial amount money in the budget. i just spoke to the mayor of camden at a reception. in 2011 we made available moneys to higher 14 officers, $3.9 million. we will be looking at that unique situation again this year. we are putting in task forces to help to the extent that we can as well. there are a variety of ways in which the federal government can help, given the economic situation that many cities around the country are facing. we want to be good partners in that way. camden is a place that deserve special attention, given the unique problem that we see there. >> can i ask your view on

whether or not you think we are doing enough between your department, the fbi, overstate and local police people? are we doing enough, based on what we see with the statistics? are we doing enough to say honestly that we are protecting our people appropriately? >> we have crime rates that are at historic lows, and yet i am still troubled by the number of police officers, for instance, who have been killed in the line of duty in the last two years. that is something we have to work on. i am concerned about the fact that although the numbers of murders are down, 67% of them occur by people who are using firearms. that is an issue we have to deal with. to many of the wrong people have access to guns and use them in

inappropriate ways. the targets of many of those people are law enforcement officers who are sworn to protect us. we have to do everything we can to try to protect them. >> the wrong people or the wrong blogs. the man who shot congresswoman giffords last year is a gong -- used a gun with a high-capacity ammunition clip. it was only when he fired all 31 rounds in his clip that people were able to subdue him. these high-capacity magazines were banned by congress until 2004. last year you said you thought reinstating this ban should be examined. what is the result of that examination? >> we are still in the process of working our way through that. we need to be reasonable, understanding there is a second amendment right with regard to firearms. reason or restrictions can be

placed on the use of weapons, and i think what this administration has tried to do is come up with ways in which we are respecting the second amendment, yet come up with reasonable, appropriate firearms laws cut that will ultimately protect the american people. >> over the past several years, the new york police department has been engaged in surveillance of new jersey's communities and universities. searching for those who might be accused of terror. governor christie, mayor cory booker, each apparently unaware of this large-scale investigation. how can that the law enforcement agency spun another state resident without notifying the authorities, without the governor or mayor even knowing

about it? >> i don't know, we are in the process of reviewing the letters that come in expressing concerns about those matters. there are various components within the justice department that are actively looking at these matters. i talked to governor christie a couple of days ago and he expressed to me the concerns that he had. he has now publicly expressed his concerns as only he can. what i read publicly is disturbing, and these things are under review at the justice department. >> thank you, madam chairman. i assume the record will be kept open. >> it will be kept open for questions. we then asked the department to respond within 30 days. centers may submit additional questions and we asked the department to respond within 30

days. before i recessed the committee, i want to conclude the hearing the way i began. if i have listened to the questions and answers, we looked at the budget in the short time we had to review, i want to engineering the way i began, which is to thank the men and women who work at the justice department. i have been on the subcommittee along time. it has been a great blessing and honor. the scope and complexity of what our citizens and our country face and what are justice department faces, it is an amazing job, from community safety to national safety, in the last decade the expansion in the national security portfolio, and the transformation of agencies, the fbi is not j. edgar hoover's fbi anymore.

everybody is out on the street, everybody who is tracking sexual predators, everybody who's doing their job, the prison guards, and all the wonderful support staff, we just want to say thank you. our country is safer because of your work, and we have to look out for our civil service. we need an independent judiciary, we needed justice department that functions with absolute integrity. we need to know that if you have a crackerjack civil service, we also have to support that crackerjack civil service. so thank you, god bless you, and god bless america. the subcommittee stands in recess until march 15, next thursday at 10:00.

the committee is in recess. >> thank you, madam chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we will air attorney general holders testimony again and 8:00 p.m. eastern time here on c- span. we will hear more from the attorney general tomorrow as he takes part in a justice department summit looking at consumer protection, with a panel discussion focusing on how to prevent fraud among senior americans. what's that some of live tomorrow starting at 2:15 p.m.

eastern, here on c-span. -- watched that summit live tomorrow. health secretary kathleen sebelius review's findings looking at used tobacco use. according to the report, 1200 people die every day in the u.s. from tobacco related diseases. this is a half-hour. >>, well-behaved group. good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining us here today. i am delighted to be here to kickoff the announcements of the 2012 surgeon general's report on tobacco use among youth and young adults. i want to start by acknowledging some of my terrific colleagues,

dr. regina benjamin, the surgeon general, who you will hear from in a few minutes. dr. david stature is with us, former surgeon general who has been involved in this effort for a long time. [applause] prius assistant secretary for health, who you will also hear from. we have key members of the office of the is the -- assistant secretary of health staff, leadership, a wonderful team here from cdc, dr. perry who is the author of this report. he comes from texas to be with us today. a lot of you who have been involved in this effort for a long time. since the first surgeon dingell's report on tobacco was published in 1964, the good news is we have seen the percentage of americans who smoke steadily declined -- since the first

surgeon general's report. in 1965, over 42% of americans smoked. by 2004, it had fallen to just under 21%, and that is very good news. but while the progress we have made, tobacco use remains the biggest single threat to americans held. it kills an estimated 443,000 every year. every tobacco related debt is replaced by two new smokers under the age of 25. today's report brings more troubling news. it is the first of its kind to explore the causes and consequences of tobacco use among youth and young adults. it shows us just what we are up against. today, all over america, there are middle schoolers developing deadly tobacco addiction before they can even drive a car. the younger child is when they

try cigarettes, the more likely they are to get and stay addicted to nicotine. one child picking up a tobacco product is one too many. the fact that each and every day across america, more than 3800 kids under 18 smoke their first cigarette is completely unacceptable. but this report also underscores the importance of the historic efforts the obama administration has taken to stop youth from using tobacco products and to help adults quit smoking. since the numbers were not changing fast enough, we had to change the way we read our communities of tobacco. that is exactly what we are doing. we pushed wide-ranging legislation that among other things, makes it harder for tobacco companies to market to our children. it also restricts companies from using terms like light or mild on products and in marketing. it bans certain candy in fruit flavored cigarettes.

although for techniques aimed at people often younger than 18. that legislation had been debated for years and years in this country, and we finally got it done. we are also supporting local programs to help people quit smoking and stop them from starting in the first place. as part of last year's health- care law, we get americans better access to counseling to help them quit smoking before they get sick. from the country, we have great partners. we have seen states join this fight, with 28 states and washington d.c. passing smoke- free laws to improve health. over the last three years we have made great strides in our fight against tobacco, and our efforts are paying off. but today's report is an important reminder that we have a lot more work to do to make tobacco death and disease a part of our past and not a part of our future. again, thank you for being here today for this important announcement. i would like to turn it over to

the assistant director for help, dr. howard coe. [applause] >> thank you so much for being here, everyone. the secretary has another commitment in has to leave, but we want to thank her for her tremendous leadership and dedication to the tobacco epidemic. i am delighted to see so many wonderful colleagues and friends here. let me thank dr. benjamin, who you will be hearing from in just a minute. our rate colleagues at the department of health and human services, the cdc, and so many others. dr. perry, the senior sunset for of this report, and all of the colleagues who helped edit and right this very important product. most importantly, we want to thank each and everyone of you to support this important

effort and this great day. we are here to bring heightened urgency to the tremendous public health burden that tobacco continues to impose on our youth. a burden that is completely avoidable and completely preventable. too many of our children are addicted, too many cannot quit, and too many dolon to die far too young. you heard from our secretary, where the 12 rendered people died due to smoking, and each death is -- more than 1200 people died due to smoking. i have purnell -- personally witnessed a cycle of dependency and despair as a physician who has cared for patients for over 30 years. it is heartbreaking when our patients tell us they want to stop smoking, but the have not yet been able to do so. it is tragic when our lung cancer patients tell us that they started smoking as kids,

years ago, to be cool and impressed the other kids next door. it does not just happen. each year, the tobacco industry spends $10 billion on marketing and promotional tobacco products. this exceeds $1 million an hour. over $27 million a day in the u.s. alone. the tobacco industry said they -- their intent is to promote brand choices among adult smokers. there is a difference between stated intent to undocumented impact. regardless of content, the impact of tobacco marketing is to encourage underage youth. 90% of smokers start by age 18.

in this report, you'll hear a major conclusion that advertising and promotional activities by tobacco companies because the onset and continuation of smoking among adolescents and young adults. research documents -- the more young people are exposed, the more likely they are to smoke. far too many kids still see smoking images and messages every day that normalized this dependence. for example, in 2010, nearly a third of the top grossing movies produced for children contained images of smoking. just about half of our states continued to allow smoking in public places.

kids see smoking in the movies they watched, the video games they play, the web sites they visit, and in the communities where they live. from 1997 to 2003, youth smoking fell rapidly. since that time, the rate of decline has slowed. in fact, 3 million fewer smokers today if we as a society had sustained the success in declines seen between 1997 and 2003. of great concern, we're also seeing you consume other -- youth concerts and other tobacco products. we can document at least 3.6 youth cigarette smokers. moreover, many young people or concurrently using multiple types of tobacco.

among those who use tobacco, more than half of high-school males and nearly a third of high school females use more than one type of tobacco product. this surgeon general's report provides powerful details about the factors that lead to youth use, but identifies proven strategies that can damage prevention. we have committed to strengthening and implementing these proven strategies as part of a comprehensive coordinated national approach. in november 2010, we were proud to release and in the tobacco epidemic, an action plan for the united states from the department of health and human services. it sets forth specific actions or the department can implement progress, build on recent

legislative milestones, respond to the changing market of tobacco products, and support a robust programs throughout the country. we have ample evidence that these comprehensive, multi component interventions work. such programs more than pay for themselves in terms of lives saved and dollars saved. the current problem is that we have not yet fully applied the evidence based tools that will end this epidemic. between 2005 and 2010, 20 states had declines of smoking prevalence of 20% or more. we need to accelerate these declines in each and every state and sustain them to benefit all of our kids for the future. until we and the tobacco epidemic, even more young people will become addicted. even more will die. even more families will be left behind, it devastated by the loss of loved ones.

thank you so much for being here today. we must redouble our collective commitment to accelerating comprehensive programs, making cessation programs affordable, creating an environment that the normalizes this dependence, and most of all, give our young people a fighting chance to be healthy and tobacco free. thank you very much. [applause] i am very pleased to introduce our surgeon general. [applause] >> good morning. it is such a nice turnout. thank you for being so interested. thank you for sharing with us the commitment to tobacco

control. i would like to say a very special thank you to our secretaries a bilious -- to kathleen sibelius for strong leadership on this most important issue. she has made it a top priority. i would also -- i would also like to recognize my tobacco free advocates. there are some from north carolina and virginia. why don't you guys standout? -- stand up? [applause] the others who are watching on the web. 2012 surgeon general's report is a result of the contributions of more than 130 health experts. i would like to recognize the

editors with us today. they will be here to help with the questions and answers. also, -- thank you for being here. i would like to recognize and thank my medical school professor and a mentor. and all the court former surgeon general's for their work on tobacco. -- and all of our four men -- former surgeon generals for their work on tobacco. the 31stelease is surgeon general report on tobacco. it reminds us once again that the burden of tobacco puts a heavy role -- a heavy burden on

society. the report challenges us to end the epidemic of smoking among young people. the numbers in this report are shocking. every day, 1200 americans die from smoking. each of those people are being replaced by a two young smokers. 90% of those replacement smokers smoke their first cigarette before they're 18. despite all the reductions of tobacco use in the past decade, more than 600,000 middle school students small. 3 million high school students smoke cigarettes. nearly one in three young adults between the ages of 18 and 26 smoke. this is the higher rate than any other age group. this is a serious public health issue. one of the most serious findings in this report is about nicotine

addiction. the younger they began smoking, the more likely they are to become addicted. every year, 1.4 million youth under the age of 18 try their first cigarette. many of them in the been lifelong smokers. cigarettes are designed for addiction. nicotine is the key chemical compound that causes the powerful addictive effects of cigarettes. added ingredients and design features make them even more attractive than ever before. many ingredients, like sugar, they reduce the harshness and improve the taste and consumer appeal. chemical ingredients such as ammonia counter nicotine into free nicotine. -- can turn nicotine into free nicotine.

all these designs and features work together to enhance the addictive pleasure that smokers feel adolescents bodies are more sensitive to nicotine. adolescents are more easily addictive than adults. this helps explain why 1000 teenagers become daily smokers. three out of four high-school students continued to smoke while into adulthood. even if they had attempted to quit. there are other tobacco products. some of the cigarette sized cigars include fruit flavored -- strawberry, a grgrape. part of their appeal is they can be used at school or at home in

front of mom or dad. they cannot be detected. these products can also cause nicotine addiction, which can lead to serious disease and death. this report also highlights some of the health of facts. in addition to the increased risks of serious chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease, there is an immediate damage to the heart and lungs. many of the smokers have earlier -- early cardiovascular damage. that puts them at higher risk for -- they tend to die very young. smoking during adolescence slows development of the loung function. another finding in this report

is that marketing and advertising of tobacco products to young people has been very successful. scientists used studies and evidence to show is causality. the more the youth is exposed to marketing and advertisement, the more likely they are to start and maintain smoking. in the united states alone, more than $1 million an hour is spent on targeting messages and images to portray smoking as an acceptable and appealing activity. we know that prevention is key. 99% of smokers began smoking before the age of 25. we want to prevent our next generation from ever starting to smoke. if we can get them to remain at smoke-free until they're 26, less than 1% of them will ever start.

we know it works. we know that when we enact smoke-free policies, we reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. it pross smokers to quit. -- it prompts smokers to quit. when we increase the price of tobacco, smoking rates decreased among youth. we encourage tobacco users to. science tells us that these programs prevent young people from starting to use tobacco. we saw this approach in new york city when they cut their youth smoking in half in as little as six years. we have implemented these types of comprehensive tobacco programs in the past. we saw a steady decline in the rate of youth suuse. have we maintain that course, we could have prevented 3 million

smokers. we need to bring back that level of commitment. bring it back to the programs today. it is time for us to and the single most preventable cause of death in this nation. we are committed come up we can make our next generation tobacco free. i have tried to describe to use some of the findings in this 2012 surgeon general's report. before reports is 900 pages -- the full report is 900 pages. it is written for a scientific audience. it is important that we can end this tobacco epidemic. we have developed a consumer booklets that is in your packet. it is written plain language and good graphics.

we can magnate the next -- we can make the next generation tobacco free. i would like to say thank you to the centers for disease control and prevention office of smoking health, they have helped us with a new project. i would like to formally launch the surgeon general's video challenge. this is a competition to engage young people in developing original videos that feature one or more of the surgeon general's reports findings. contestants are encouraged to use this consumer peace as a guide to their videos. the contest will have two age categories with english and spanish, at age 14 to 18 and 18 to 24. you can join as an individual or a group.

after you submit your video, after it is screened, the eligible the deals will be put youtube channel for public voting. there is a $5,000 grand prize. we are looking forward to having some good videos in this competition. more information can be found at surgeongeneral.gov. i thought i would show you my video. it is a public-service announcement. >> at 12, i smoked my first cigarette. >> at 15, i was addicted. >> at 40, i have lung disease. >> at 50, i will die of a heart attack. >> cigarette smoke causes an

immediate damage. those who quit or die are being replaced by a new generation of smokers. go to see cdc.gov. but to make our next generation tobacco free. -- learned to make our next generation tobacco free. [applause] we will be happy to take your questions. >> i understand we have time for only several questions. we would be delighted to take some now. >> [unintelligible]

>> primary-care physicians are well respected by their patients and a listen to their patients. i always ask patients to talk to their doctor. as for doctors, we need to always talk to our patients about smoking and waste to quit smoking. particularly in the primary care arena, where we deal with this age group. we can have a very strong a fact. -- effect. >> other questions from the audience? going once -- [laughter] okay, thank you very much for being here. [applause]

>> you can see this press conference again at 8:00 over on c-span2. tonight, eric holder testifies on the justice department's budget request for 2013. he spoke earlier today before a senate appropriations subcommittee. you can see his comments tonight at 8:00 on c-span. starting at 7:00, c-span3, a house hearing examined cyber security issues. right now, a discussion on the recent arrests of what hackers. this is from "washington journal." this is 40 minutes.

they send investigation. they have got one of them -- yesterday, they surprised everybody and rolled them out. host: who are the two people -- jake davis and jeremy hammond? guest: jeremy hammond is a chicago hacker. these guys all go by nicknames. we do not know their identities. they hide behind these. nicknames. what happened this week basically is that the cover came off. we got a picture of them.

jeremy hammond is a hacker in chicago. supposedly, we talked to some of his neighbors and he plays a banjo. he is corky. he also is a very serious hacker. he was responsible for the stratford hack. they hacked into it and they stole about 5 million e-mails from online. host: can you tell us about this new information? guest: there are lots of different subgroups. there are serious hackers in this group. they went on a rampage doing a lot of hacks. they took the cia's website offline.

they hacked into fox news. they did a lot of things that were very high profile and publicize. it turns out that the leader was a 28-year-old father of two living in new york. he did a lot of his stuff in his apartment and his real name is hector. host: the fbi had an inside person? guest: yes. these guys can hide behind a lot of tools. in this case, hector made a couple of mistakes. they tracked him down and arrested him in june. they charged him with about 10 different felonies. he would have spent 120 years in prison.

they said, you can corporate. he has been giving the fbi information about anonymous and the inside route. this week, it baalke man in the open. really shocked anonymous. it really shocked the people. shocked the people who had been sure that law enforcement could not get them. host: how major is this fight against hacking? guest: in terms of anonymous, this is important. they are an interesting group. in terms of hackers, one of the things that is unique is this is a political movement as much as a hacking movement. a lot of hacking goes on by criminals in the ukraine, russia, cyber china. these arrests will not affect

that, but it will affect anonymous an anonymous's public record. host: we are going to put the numbers up on the screen. we are talking about hacking. our guest is michael riley -- a reporter with bloomberg news. how long have you been covering this issue? guest: about a year and a half for bloomberg. host: you have spoken with people in anonymous? guest: i have. host: how did you get that? guest: they have a couple of people willing to come out of the shout -- the shadows and talk to me via phone or e-mail. i had a couple of online chats with people who are more in the shadows. they will not usually get on the

phone, but they will get on line. they will do sort of checked conversations, either g-chat or others. so, through contacts with anonymous's media folk, i hooked up with a couple of the hackers who are in the shadows. host: just to go back to the media, that party claim to do these things and they are known to have done these hacks. how can they come out of the shadows? they are media spokesman. what is the protection from not getting arrested? guest: in the case of those talking actively, they will make a fine distinction and say, they did not take part in hacking. that is probably true. this particular person is a former journalist.

the truth is, the fbi also raided his apartment and his mother's. they seized his electronics. they're looking for evidence of conspiracy. host: does anonymous have lawyers? guest: yes. anonymous, on mike a lot of hacker groups and cyber criminals, they think of themselves as a social movement. they're trying to create change in government in the way the government is behaving. as a result, they have a lot of following in different aspects of society. amongst those are lawyers who have been willing to help. host: do jake davis and jeremy hammond know each other? guest: there is something called an irc, which is a chat room. they have public channels.

they have channels anyone can get on and then they have private where they will do more confidential negotiations. host: how did they know that they shared this political philosophy? they shared the ability and they are not fbi informants? guest: there is a sense of -- to begin with, of a shared group of skills and a shared group of ideas. anonymous will say that there are thousands of people who would not call themselves members, but part of the group. among those are probably several dozens of members of law-enforcement, who are disguised. they are portraying themselves as people who are interested in the cause, but are trying to get information. that is why they have this sort

of multilayer communication channel where there are open channels and then after months and months, sometimes years, you can get into some of the inner circles. the people they arrested this week were key members of the inner circle. host: what is the estimate for the economic damage done by anonymous? guest: that is interesting. the damage is probably not that high. damage, specifically, members of certain what size they have packed. that has been embarrassing. they hacked fox. they hacked stratford. in stratford to techies, they stole much as e-mails but credit-card numbers. in stratford, you by reports. there are a lot of people who gave credit card numbers. supposedly, they ran up $700,000 in the illegal charges.

that is one economic impact. host: hackers take 1 billion years as banks blame their clients. guest: there are different kinds of hackers. anonymous does not think of themselves as criminals. they're not after money or credit card numbers, but there are a lot of people who are. one of the things that make cyberspace in secure is there are a lot of people who are making a lot of money stealing credit card numbers and information that can be valuable. in the case of the story last year, the $1 billion was a particular scheme where hackers cracked into the computers of small businesses, transferred money from bank accounts of those businesses to their own accounts. that money was picked up by money mules and sent to the

ukraine or russia. if you think about it, the overall total for bank robberies in 2010 was over $30 million. host: in fact, here is a headline in this morning 's "new york times" -- these guys are not terrorists, necessarily? guest: they do not think of themselves that way. when the fbi talked about terrorists, their word about the ability to wreak havoc on crucial systems in the u.s. and other countries through hacking systems and basically is screwing things up. you can do things like hack into a water system and stop the water. you can hack electrical plants. nation states are the ones we're worried about because they have a high level of skills. the possibility that terrorists could do the same thing is a

real threat. host: does the fbi you anonymous and lulz as terrorists? guest: certainly criminals. what they do in terms of breaking into computers and computer networks -- anonymous does this as social protest. it is still a criminal act. host: michael riley is our guest. he is with bloomberg news. we are talking about cyber security and hacking. joe is first up. go ahead. caller: i do not know if this is stupid or not, but when the internet was invented, how come the government did not have their own internet? and the second question is, do you not think that the punishment is way too late? should they not make it where -- i am not talking about china

where they kill you, but make the sentence is different. thank you. guest: first in terms of why the government does not have its own internet -- the internet starts off as a small government experiment. if you will. this goes into a university sphere and then a commercial sphere. they're talking about having two internets. we may be circling back. in terms of sentencing, you could be right. for a lot of these crimes, the sentence can be very light. there are possibilities of some very high sentences. i mention that the group was

threatened with 122 years for various hacking. i think that was faced teller number when the fbi talked to him about it. i think that is why he became an informant. host: is this the biggest bust? guest: hacking is hard to get a hold of. a lot of these guys are criminals in russia or the ukraine were there are no way that the fbi can actually lay hands on them. others are spies in china. the odds of getting the people who are doing a lot of this is very, very slim. anonymous, besides being very public has created a lot of embarrassing incidents as. one of them, for example, they hacked into the e-mail of an irish law enforcement official who was involved in an international investigation of anonymous. they got the code for a call

with the fbi and other officials were going to be talking about the investigation. they listened in, take it, and then put it on the internet. that was a there is in for the fbi. the fact that they got these guys was not just an issue of -- they took it personally. in one sense, and shutting down what has been a very public form of hacking and in some very embarrassing incidents is for line for some, this is a big deal. host: michael riley, this report this morning -- china is testing cyber attack capabilities. what is the role of china in cyber hacking? is it state sanction? guest: states are involved. it is a powerful tool. one of the things that there is a lot of fear about is that states can wreak havoc when conflicts arise in ways that are unknown up to this point.

there is a lot of activity going on in the u.s. that people are worried may be willing to nation states. trying to implant devices into computer networks in critical systems and those devices than can be used if there is a conflict. so, for example, you can shut down the electricity on the east coast. you can turn off the sewer system in new york. these are all actual possibilities. the fact that the nation states may be planting things in systems is concerning. host: go ahead, randy. caller: recently, a drone landed in iran. that strikes me as a case of hacking without using the internet.

but using the microwave signals that control pilotless war crafts. we lost billions on this, did we not? is the government worried about their own ability -- that their computers are vulnerable? i will listen. host: you are right. the drum case was an embarrassment for officials. iran has talked about how they did it. this was not hacking, iran says there is a vulnerability in the navigation system of what was a very highly classified drone. it was a stealth drone. they use a flaw in the gps guidance system to get them drone to land. u.s. officials have not confirmed that that is what happened, but the iranians took drone on television and it looked like the real thing.

i think that the vulnerability of u.s. military computers is a big concern and a great example. the air force has a great example -- the air force has problems with the drone over afghanistan. that gives access to foreign entities. that is a big threat. over the last 10 years, some of the biggest targets of hacking have been computer systems for the u.s. military, air force, the pentagon. host: cyber security is an issue that congress is interested in. we are joined by your fellow bloomberg contributor. what is the status?

caller: congress is coming to some agreement on this. there are a few bills that are moving right now. the major one was introduced by joe lieberman from connecticut. senator reid said he plans to bring the bill to the floor as soon as possible. there is a competing bill that senate republicans, led by senator mccain and senator hutchison, have introduced. there are a lot of similarities within both of those bills. there are some fundamental differences that have divided senators. on the house side, there are several bills in the house that are floating around. for the most part, the house

leadership is waiting to see what happens in the senate. host: mr. strohm, when you look at the issues we have been discussing, china and testing cyber attack capabilities, fbi director warns congress about terrorist attacking -- do the bills address those issues? caller: mike made some good points. for the first time, the u.s. government identified china and russia as being behind hacking attacks. this was at the end of last year. this came out of the u.s. intelligence agencies. there has been a growing concern on the hill about the capabilities of other countries, of spies, or general hackers to be able to compromise u.s. government networks or the networks that are operated by private companies that run electrical grids in telecommunication networks.

all of that. the bills are in debt coming up with the capability, improving the ability of both the government and private companies to protect networks from hacking attacks whether they're coming from nation states or criminal gangs or individual hackers. specifically, the senate bill that senate democrats are supporting at this point would actually place new requirements on private companies to better defend their networks. that is where the division comes, with the senate republicans.

it is a classic issue of the to regulate or not to regulate. senate republicans are saying that it would be better to offer incentives to protect networks such as being able to get access to classified intelligence from the u.s. government about cyber threat. and giving companies legal protections if they are working with the government. they would be protected from lawsuits, if there is any attack against their networks. senate democrats and the obama administration are pushing legislation that would go further. that would actually create a new regulatory framework in place requirements on companies. host: chris strohm, thank you. by the way, cyber security is our topic this week on our "communicators" program. we sat down with senator

lieberman and senator collins. that will air this saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. here is just a little bit of senator colin. >> this is something that cries out for action. if we adjourn without taking any action on cyber security, shame on us because it is inevitable with the number of daily attacks, whether from nation states or terrorist groups or hackers. we're going to face a serious cyber attack. i, for one, do not want to look back and say all of the warnings were there, why did we not act? host: that interview with senators lieberman and collins airs 6:30 eastern. host: chicago, you are on with our guests. go ahead.

caller: yes. i would like to know about the georgia state -- why they have not said anything about that because it has been two or three years ago. they have not said anything about cyber attacks. guest: that is an interesting example. there were a couple of incidents as a few years ago there represented what -- that represented what looked like the for cyber attack. they looked like the networks of those countries, critical networks, but the websites were set down by -- shut down by a massive cyber attacks. they created chaos.

it looked like a tax emanated from russia. that is hard to trace. one of the most difficult things is figuring out where the attack is coming from. after a lot of research and analysis afterward, it looked like they were coming from russia. i mean, what you had was the possibility that these two countries were attacked by a nation state. in estonia's case, they have asked nato to consider that equal to a physical attack. if a member of nato is attacked by another nation state to be a cyber as opposed to war plans for bombing, nato should respond. this creates complicated issues and international fears and military figures.

host: george, please go ahead with your question for michael riley about cyber security. caller: good morning. very informative show. mr. strohm answered most of my questions whether we are writing enough laws. another question i had -- anonymous is in it for political reasons, not so much money. i am one of the veterans that -- we got our names and addresses hacked a while back. i do not know if they ever caught those guys. could they go into medical records and mess around and hurt a person that way? is there a reward for whistleblowing? can i give a shout out to chris blair for sheriff here. host: you just did. [laughter] guest: good question.

the thing about cyber security and hacking is the possibilities are endless. they can get into hospitals and into medical records. hospitals are a common target because there are a lot of personal data point that are valuable. there are so security numbers, addresses, financial data, and we have seen that is what they have been going after. once things get online, it is are to protect them. what is going on now in the american health system is that a lot of medical records are being put on line. there is a possibility that those records then become vulnerable to hackers in terms of access and and if you think about this thing, people are most worried about the possibility that stuff can be manipulated in a way that specifically harms individuals. think about changing a blood type and the impact that could have.

the idea that with this move to put medical records of mine, you have a scary possibility because those records become vulnerable. that is interesting. i will go back to laws. congress is doing a lot of consideration of things that they hope can address this issue. people will tell you that one of the problem is that the internet is insecure. you can have a lot of technology on networks to try to protect them, but hackers have almost always found ways around that. even with some of all laws under consideration, that not stop the problem. the possibility of getting into these networks in the future, the only thing you can really do is read-and engineer the internet, which -- re-engineer the internet, which it was created for the government. researchers and universities -- that was a secure community.

people are thinking about how to put protection in after it has grown so much. very antiquated. complicated. host: work on internet has been underway for some time. that was conceived to provide separate backbone for industry, government, and research. guest: there are lots of it is out there that that security and elements of security -- add security and elements of security. there is an idea that you can create separate internets. this creates fundamental and securities. you have countries that have tried to rethink this problem a little bit. one of them is china. greek fire wall of china. this sets up a lot of proxy servers, which analyzes information coming into the country.

the idea is that the chinese officials want to make sure they can control that information. it is a form of censorship. it is a way to re- architect the world. australia is another place that has created a fire wall around the country so that all data going in and all data leaving australia is much more carefully controlled than in other countries. one way to solve a security problem with this possibility of shutting down some of the great things about the internet, which is free flow of communication information. host: michael riley is a reporter with bloomberg. he has done some exciting things. he has covered drug kingpins and when america, immigrant smuggling on the southwest border and russian and chinese cyber criminals.

baltimore, laura. go ahead. caller: high. you for taking my call. i have two questions. is the dmb a low-level security? are macs say for the pcs? i think checking can be bad and dangerous, but i do admire anonymous for hacking into the vatican because of their refusal to address sexual molestation of women and children. i think that was the right thing. that might not be a popular opinion, but that is how i feel. guest: macs are probably somewhat more secure the pcs. only because if you are a bad guy, you write malware that can break into computers and give hackers access to data.

they write more of that forpcs because there are more pcs. macs have grown in popularity so as the software that attack them -- the vatican hack it is interesting. i think your opinion is that it was the right thing to do. interesting thing about hacktivism is, they were hacking for political motivation. a lot of the motivation was shared by a lot of people. it was saw by others. it had a political purpose, which is different than what cyber criminals to. that is different than what cyber spies do. it changed the face of cyber security because it took an act that used to be a criminal act to access information and turn into a political act.

host: does wireless make hacking easier? guest: mobility, the fact that we have smartphones with a lot of data and information -- we have all our contacts on them. the question of the security of mobile phones is a huge issue among security professionals. i was at a conference where two well-known professionals hacked into the iphone. they sent a link and it looked like an email. they took all of the conversations and forwarded them to a server to listen in to all of them. they said it to three weeks to figure out how to do it. the problems of the insecurity of mobile phones and devices is

a big deal. host: what do you mean by professionals? guest: these guys are cyber security professionals, tried to point out flaws in the technology in order to get the manufacturers to try and address them. as opposed to the bad guys who are finding flaws and technology to exploit them. host: does the government hire hackers? guest: yes. again, there are certain levels of skills that you do not learn and universities. a lot of guys pick them up by hanging out on forums and going to conferences. this is a very technical skill set, but not something universities teach. as a result, when looking for people who can help them defend their own networks and attack others, they look in those communities for people with really special skills. host: richard, clear lake oaks

california, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i would like to ask a question. with everything going on with the government -- we hire some of the best hackers, right? how do we know that the government is not doing a lot of hacking themselves? guest: in fact, the government is doing packing. this is a question of what hacking they are doing. in the old days, you used to have to have a humans spy. now, that is so much easier by the fact that government put information online. our government hacks all the time. it is part of spy game. there is a question of privacy about how this vulnerability in

technology allows the government to do sophisticated kinds of monitoring and surveillance through some of these means. right now, you basically have to get a court order to do the kind of surveillance these people are worried about. in germany, they allowed a judge to grant access to somebody's computer. without the permission of the computer user. law enforcement can examine the files on a computer. this raises a lot of interesting and complicated privacy questions when the government uses the same to was that the bad guys do. host: brady is in north carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you.

mr. riley, when i was in the cold war, of the greatest threat was nuclear threat. we were not concerned about who had the weapons. it was about who would use it first and start the domino effect. since we are talking about iran, which is the greatest threat to america? the cyber threat or iran? guest: that is a hard question. u.s. intelligence officials and security officials will say that nuclear weapons just because of their ability to do such pest damage and to kill some many people the greatest threat. there is a question about the use of cyber as a growing national threat.

one of the things that came out recently is the arrest of a venezuelan official who was supposedly involved in a cyber attacks against the u.s. think about this. a country like venezuela, an adversary in many ways, may be plotting a cyber attack against the u.s. it is very hard to determine who is attacking you. things can happen. they can affect infrastructure. they might affect various systems in the u.s. it might be hard to tell who is doing it. the thing that keeps countries acting against the u.s. is the possibility we will attack back. if you cannot determine the attacker, it makes taking the risk perhaps more likely.

one of the things that happened last year is that the pentagon, for the first time, released guidance on this issue, in particular. they said that they would consider a cyber attack against the u.s. as the same as a physical attack. they would, if they could determine who was the attacker, strike back with kinetic means. with bombers and fighters. host: any estimate about how much the government spends to prevent hacking and how much private businesses spent? guest: a lot of money. they spend billions and billions of dollars a year. on technology that is meant to defend networks. the problem is, and this is part of the crisis, is that we find ourselves in a situation in which it could be that a lot of that money is not very well spent.

i will give you one example. anti virus things that go on. companies spend millions of dollars every year to put anti virus on their networks. the way a lot of the technology is developed and the bad guys have figured out a way to detect signatures on malware. if that shows up on a computer, the anti virus cleans it up. the new malware changes the signature so it is impossible to catch with anti virus. if bad guys are a step ahead of the companies in the people trying to defend networks. host: knowing what you do, how much online work do you do? guest: i do a lot of work out my. i take precautions that other people might not.

a simple one you can do to protect your e-mail is to use google. your gmail, turning two factor authentication here before before you can enter your e- mail, google will send a code your mobile phone and you have to enter that code as well. a hacker has to have not just to pass word but also your mobile phone. host: we have been talking with michael riley of bloomberg news about cyber security and hacking. please come back. >> tomorrow morning, we focus on u.s. options in syria with former undersecretary of state for arms control ellen tauscher.

you can call in with your questions about u.s. international trade to the director of the bureau of economic analysis and ryan avent. "washington journal" is like every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. earlier today, the house approved a plan to make easier for small businesses and start up companies to raise capital and go public. after passage of the bill, house republicans held a 15 minute briefing. >> the good afternoon. are you? we are really excited, we just

saw a tremendous vote on the jobs act. i think that this vote today, and nearly 400 votes on the bill, we will get the final tally in a minute. what it demonstrates is we are able to set aside our differences when we want to and come together for producing results that people want to see. what this bill does is provide a real shot in the arm to entrepreneurs, small businessmen and women, removes red tape, allows small businesses and easier time to go about starting up as well as retaining and creating jobs. the president asked us in his state of the union address to send us a bill that helps business start-ups, and the jobs act does just that. again, the vote was very strong, and what we have seen on the other side of the capital is senator mcconnell and senator to me have been terrific in making

public statements toward supporting this bill. i hope pleader reid on the other side of the capital can follow the president's request so we can get him this bill for signing as quickly as possible. it is what the economy needs. we have to get this growth going again and we do it through business start-ups. majority whip kevin mccarthy had a piece of this bill. >> today was a good day. it was a very bipartisan day. the unit -- uniqueness of this is you can follow the entire process of the bill. debate on all sides, a bipartisan bill, but the most important thing here is what it focuses on, small business. the history of america is created on small business. job creation is for small business. the biggest challenge we have is we are at an all-time low in

the last 17 years. the greatest obstacle for small business is access to capital, red tape, and the entrance to market. this bill deals with all three. what is more important issue have bipartisan ideas coming through. you have the president putting out a statement in support, talking about ideas in this bill. you have not seen that in a long time in washington. unfortunately, it still has to pass the hurdle of the senate. we know the senate has had difficulty passing the jobs bill, even though they are bipartisan. we are hopeful with a bipartisan vote in the house and support of the president that harry reid can have this bill up and come to fruition. it is a win for all americans, especially small business. >> as a business person and a freshman congressman, it has been a bumpy year and a half, but today which can actually have a bit of optimism that we have had a jobs bill, a

bipartisan bill, focusing on the private sector. as i said in a times, jobs are not created in the halls of congress, they are created in the private sector. that is what is so good about this. now can look to our colleagues in the senate and urge senator reid to let the process goes through the senate chambers and give the american people something they have been longing for ever since the last election. i cannot say enough about our team and how we have been focused from day one on energy, jobs, trying to put americans back to work, and giving the power back to the people. last but not least, last night i could not sleep and i was thinking about -- i have three children. my little girl is 8 years old. her name is sarah, and she wants to be a dentist. i was thinking, how sad would it be when she grows up if i have to say, honey, this is not america anymore and you cannot be whatever you want to be. let's make america what it

always can be and could be and will be. thank you so much garrett kern >> i am from the hudson valley of new york. steven is absolutely right. our private sector, our citizens are the folks who create jobs, and our jobs here in the halls of congress is to make sure we have a climate that will allow our citizens to do what they do best and to let them have the dignity of participating in what has made this country great. that is to have a good, productive jobs and have the opportunity to invest in growth. the jobs act does both. we need help now of the senate to get this jobs bill to the president's desk. we had cooperation of virtually every member of congress across the spectrum to get this job done. this proves that we can work together and do great things to put america back to work. let's get the senate on board. let's pass this bill and get it

signed an get going. >> this is one of those moments as a freshman congressman, you are actually finding some joy. many of the bill that this package we have been working on for a year. they have been well vetted. we have had arguments and debates. we have made good quality, intellectual product here, and bringing them all together at one time as more powerful than even standing on their own. for capital formation, these bills form different paths for companies to grow and higher and expand this economy. and yes, it was done from the republican house, but we listened and worked with our democratic colleagues. there was a terrific bipartisan vote. we did something really good today. >> patrick mchenry from north carolina.

the world bank said we were ranked third in the world in the ease of creating a small business. today we are 13th. we have fallen behind, and the world has caught up to us. our market used to be the entry of the world, and today the rest of the world wants to take the place from us. what this legislation does today, we know the dodd-frank restricts lending and makes it more costly to get landing. what we are doing is moving counter to that and reducing red tape, updating regulations that have been on the books some for 80 years, in the case of mr. mccarthy's legislation that allows you to communicate about a stock offering. my legislation reduces the regulatory hurdle for small businesses to access small amounts of equity investments on a mass basis. what that does is take the best of my gross finance and crowd sourcing and put them together. it is high time that we passed

legislation like this to update the rates that we have on the books and reduce red tape and unleash the private sector and small businesses so we can create jobs. glad to have a bipartisan vote and i appreciate the leadership of mr. fincher and mr. cantor in bringing this moment about. >> the thing that ron paul, newt gingrich, and rick santorum should drop out of the race now for the republican nomination? that would relate to the jobs act how? [laughter] what is your question? we are about a system in this country, everybody can speak their will. they are free to conduct their lives in any legal way. again, we are a party of ideas. we have seen a very hard-fought primary with the robust debate, and i am looking forward to our party focusing in on the issues

that most people are concerned about today. that is what this bill is about, getting back to work, creating jobs, and we know we do that through small business, which is why this bill is so appropriate. >> they have supported the measures in the past, and some of them have already passed the house. leader pelosi said this morning that she called this whole package to meter. she said it is so meager. what do you say to that? >> the problem is, the congressional performance in producing results has been brought into question. what we are trying to do is regain the confidence of people that sent us here, and by having a win like this, i think we can demonstrate that we really can work together. it does not help to denigrate any time that we do actually work together and produce a

result like today, because you probably have to look far and wide to see when that actually happens in such a delivered and civil manner. we went about this bill reaching out across the aisle. many democratic members were involved in this process. i met with steve case, who was the president's appointee to the job council, that actually focused on these issues of entrepreneurship, of starting up businesses again. it is with this process that we came forward with the product that would reflect all views and allows us to come together. i would hope that leader pelosi could work with us in this same vein and accomplished yet even more as we go forward to help get this economy growing again. >> your office sent out a note saying that 30 jobs bills had been sent to you -- sent to senator reid, but he had not acted on that. how does that kind of rhetoric play into what the senate does?

>> that is not rhetoric, that is fact. we are obviously frustrated, as are the american people, that we cannot see the senate act enough in terms of trying to remove the difficulties that entrepreneurs and small businesses are having. we want to make easier for them. this bill today makes it easier for start up businesses to happen again in america. we need to be a start of country again. we are the envy of the world when it comes to our capital markets and the opportunity we provided to the people of this country. that is what america is. we have to do that again. >> the senate has said they will try to bring up a -- their own version of the jobs act this week. would you be willing to go to conference to put the bills together? correct the president has endorsed this jobs act. who want to act with dispatch so that small businesses and start-

ups can get going again, it seems the simplest way for is to listen to the president on this one, listen to the overwhelming majority in the house, bipartisan, and let's join together and do something for on divorce and small businesses once and for all to get this country back to work. >> are you concerned at all if there is a message and an anti- incumbency mood out there? the threat of some of your members -- worried about some of the primary challenges? >> we are in an election season. the test for any candidate is whether they can produce results and where the leadership is. our majority came to this town to effect the kind of reforms the american people have been looking for for a long time. it is about getting the economy going again in getting people back to work. it is about spending within our means and providing the leadership that we do have a

vision and a plan in place that we are trying to implement. that will be the governing aspect of not only the primaries but the general election in november. thank you very much. >> the house completed legislative work for the week earlier today. passing a bill that reduces regulations for companies that are going public. the chamber is not in session next week, but members return to legislative work on monday, march 19. >> this weekend, there are two ways to watch the tucson festival of books on book tv. live on c-span2 and live online cat c-span.org. at 3:00, panels on forensic

science. politics at 4:30, and mexico's drug wars at 6:00. sunday, panels continue starting at 1:00 eastern with the environment, the great depression, 2:30, and at 5:30, studying the brain. throughout the weekend, look for coverage of streaming live on cox booktv.org. the tucson festival of books, clive this weekend on c-span2 and booktv.org. >> now, white house press secretary jay carney holes today's briefing. topics include a video conference president obama had with afghan president karzai earlier today, and rising gas and oil prices. this is 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for being here on this magnificently beautiful winter's day. i'm just sorry we're not in the rose garden. that would be -- maybe in the spring. [laughter] [laughter] >> did he get grief? >> did you guys give him grief? >> no, we didn't. us? we didn't. >> and hence, we're here today, inside -- a kind of musty briefing room. [laughter]

be that as it may, let me, before i take your questions, give you a readout of president obama's video conference earlier today with president karzai. earlier today, the president held a video conference with president karzai of afghanistan, as part of their regular consultations. president karzai updated the president on the security situation in afghanistan, which has calmed since the events of recent weeks. the two presidents discussed a range of issues of mutual interest, including u.s.afghan strategic partnership negotiations, afghan-led reconciliation, and regional matters. the leaders noted progress toward concluding a strategic partnership that reinforces afghan sovereignty while addressing the practical requirements of transition. president karzai updated the president on developments toward afghan-led reconciliation talks. finally, the president and president karzai agreed that it is in both our interest to continue a partnership that is based on mutual respect, and they agreed to stay in close touch in the lead-up to the nato summit in chicago. and with that, i will -- i'll get to you, connie. let me start with the associated press's, ben feller. >> thanks, jay. two questions on iran and israel. there is a report from iranian state television, quoting the top leader, the ayatollah, as praising president obama about

his comments on a "window of opportunity" for diplomacy. and the quote is, "this expression is a good word. this is a wise remark indicating taking distance from illusion." i'm wondering if the white house sees this as a positive sign and sees it as credible. >> ben, as you know, the president's policy toward iran is focused in a very clear-eyed way on iranian behavior, certainly not on rhetoric of any kind. we are determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. and iran continues to violate its obligations, and has demonstrated -- and has not yet demonstrated the peaceful intent of its nuclear program. and that's why we have, over the past three years, led the effort to organize the international community in a broad consensus effort to pressure iran, to isolate iran, to impose sanctions on iran that, in an ever-increasing way, put real strain on its economy

and real strain on its political leadership. that effort continues. the president has made clear since the day he took office that there is an alternative path available to iran, through negotiations, that is available if iran makes the decision to live up to its international obligations, to forsake its nuclear weapons ambitions, and by doing so, rejoin the international community of nations. we are, as you know, with our p5-plus-1 partners, embarking upon a process to begin again talks with iran, but again, in a very clear-eyed way. the pressure on iran will continue. the ratcheting up of sanctions

will continue, because the only change in that effort will come -- if it comes -- with a change in iranian behavior with regards to its nuclear programs. regards to its nuclear programs. >> one point i didn't hear the other day when the president was talking about israel and iran was whether he had actually made any progress in persuading prime minister netanyahu to give more time for diplomacy and to hold off on a preemptive attack. does he feel like he made progress on either of those fronts? >> ben, i would say simply that the israelis, as i understand it, made clear that they have not made a decision about taking that kind of action, which is something that the president had said previously. there is agreement between this administration, this government and the israeli government on

what iran is doing and where it is in the process of its nuclear program. we have inspectors on the ground, as you know -- the iaea does -- so we have visibility into what they're doing. and there is great coordination between this government and the israeli government, between our militaries and between our intelligence officials. and that will continue. yes. >> also on iran, you mentioned the p5-plus-1 group. they demanded today that iran fulfill a promise to let international inspectors visit the parchin military installation where the iaea believes explosives tests were being conducted geared to developing atomic weaponry and may have taken place. and is there any concern that this is being delayed -- the

access by the iaea, is being delayed by the iranians to clear any evidence of this sort? any evidence of this sort? and is the access of iaea inspectors a condition for going ahead with the talks that have been planned? >> well, i'll make two points. one, as you know, twice requests by the iaea to send inspectors to this facility have been rejected by the iranians in the past -- most recent -- i think once fairly recently. and the reason why the inspectors want to visit that facility is because we do -- or the iaea does suspect the kind of activity that you discussed. as for the reports that you mention about activity at the facility, i don't have any comment on intelligence matters. i would simply say that the

reports in and of themselves underscore the importance that the iaea attaches to being able to visit this site because of the kinds of activity that they suspect has taken place there. >> and one other subject. the attorney general today said that the administration's oil and gas working group was going to be meeting this week to talk about high -- the rise in gas prices as it investigates possible manipulation, speculation in the energy markets. is there -- will this group -- what is the goal of this group this week? and have they identified areas of speculation and actions that might be taken to stamp that out? >> well, i would refer you to the department of justice for specifics about their work. the working group was first set up last year when we saw a spike in oil prices and prices at the pump for americans. and the president, as i think he noted from this podium, has asked the attorney general to reconstitute that working group

for the same reason -- which is he wants to make sure --he wants the justice department to make sure that there are no cases of fraud taking place when it comes to the rising price of gasoline. informationhave any as to the work that they're doing right now, but i would send you to the department of justice for that. jake. >> a few months ago, with very little fanfare, the administration announced that it was sending some special forces to central africa to help african troops target joseph kony and the lord's resistance army. there's this remarkable viral video that you may have seen about who joseph kony is, and i was wondering if the administration was planning on talking about this video at all, responding -- given that obviously we have troops in

harm's way in i think four different countries in africa going after kony and the lord's resistance army. i guess the first question is, have you or the president, or has anybody in the white house seen this video? and the second question is, what's the status of our troops there and the war -- and the fight there? >> i have not seen it. i'm aware of it and have been briefed on it. i don't know whether the president has, but certainly members of the broader national security staff are aware of it, and i'm sure some of them have seen it. i know they have. as president obama said upon signing the lord's resistance army disarmament and northern uganda recovery act last october, we, "congratulate the hundreds of thousands of americans who have mobilized to respond to this unique crisis of conscience." and i think that this viral video that you mention is part of that response -- raising awareness about the horrific activities of the lra. and consistent with the bipartisan legislation passed by our congress in 2010, the united states continues to pursue a comprehensive,

multifaceted strategy to help the governments and people of central africa in their efforts to end the threat posed by the lra and reduce the human consequences of the lra's atrocities. i would point out, when you mention the u.s. military personnel who are in the region, it's approximately 100 u.s. military personnel. >> and then a question about the netanyahu visit. apparently he gave the president a gift of the book of esther. and some aides to netanyahu told the jewish daily forward that it was background reading for the president, given the crisis with iran, and the book of esther is about -- i guess it was called persia at the time. what was the president's response to getting that book? and did the president have a gift for the prime minister that we don't know about yet? >> i have not discussed with the president that subject or the subject of gifts.

i would -- the office of protocol might have an answer for you in terms of gifts. i just don't know about it and i haven't had a discussion about it. but i'm sure the president welcomes any gift he might receive from the prime minister of israel. yes, politico. >> my question is actually about a story that politico reported on today, which is that the president was making calls on keystone, encouraging democratic members in the senate to not vote in favor of it. and why did the president think that that was necessary to get involved at this point yet again? does he not think that they agree with his position, the state department's position, and so on? >> the president believes that it is wrong to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed -- a fact that the company involved affirmed again this

week that they have not yet identified a route for this possible pipeline. therefore, it cannot possibly be reviewed adequately since it does not exist. and that, despite claims that this would somehow -- this pipeline would somehow solve the pain that families are feeling at the pump today, the company itself has said it would take years before a single drop of oil would flow through that pipeline. and we have made clear that the decision made by the administration in january with regards to the keystone proposal in reaction to the legislation -- the legislative political initiative taken by republicans in no way judged a possible proposed pipeline on its merits. it was simply because the republicans decided to play politics with a completely unrelated issue, in terms of the extension of the payroll tax cut, to try to i guess

curry favor with some political constituency or the other when there was no way to, in accordance with tradition and regulation, to adequately and properly review a pipeline that would cross an international border. again, that -- there is no proposal to review, and that's because the one that was originally proposed that went through nebraska was opposed by many stakeholders, including the governor of nebraska, the republican governor of nebraska. and his concerns and the concerns of others were viewed by the state department, which was reviewing the pipeline, as legitimate, and thus the need to delay the project so that it could -- an alternate route could be sought. that route has not been identified yet. norah.

>> there are -- there's a report in an israeli newspaper that the israelis asked the u.s. to provide them advanced bunker-buster bombs and refueling planes. was that a request made by the israelis? >> in the meetings the president had there was no such agreement proposed or reached. agreement proposed or reached. we have obviously, as we've discussed, high-level cooperation between the israeli military and the u.s. military and at other levels in -- with other agencies within their government and our government. but that was not a subject of discussion in the president's meetings. >> there was no request by the israelis for this advanced military equipment? >> correct. and in terms of the president's meetings, that's my understanding. >> so there is -- and so there

is no -- >> so it's possible that there is a report out there in a news outlet that might not be accurate. >> so the u.s. is not providing its massive ordnance penetrator to the israelis? >> i am simply saying that it is my understanding that there was no such agreement discussed or reached in the meetings the president had. we have a lot of cooperation with the israeli military. we have provided materiel to the israeli military in the past, and i'm sure we will continue to do that as part of our cooperation with and partnership with the israeli military. but -- >> i believe the president himself has said there's never been closer military-to-military ties or intelligence ties between the u.s. and israel. >> yes, he has. >> and israel has expressed publicly that they are concerned about the window closing, certainly given their technology. why not provide them that technology? >> well, again, i don't have anything more to tell you about that except what i did, which is it was not discussed -- not -- no such agreement was

discussed or reached in the meetings the president had. >> and just finally, because we -- i mean, they did meet for almost three hours, 90 minutes together, 30 minutes alone. what did they talk then? did the israelis make any requests? >> well, i think the -- your noting of the amount of time the president spent in his meetings with -- his one-on-one with the prime minister and then the broader bilateral meeting, i think appropriately highlights the fact that president obama has had extraordinary amounts of contact with his israeli counterpart. in fact, i think he has met with prime minister netanyahu more than any other foreign leader. and i think that simply speaks to the relationship that we have with israel, the support we feel for and provide to israel for its security, and the

unshakeable commitment we have to israeli security, and the unprecedented level of direct support we have provided to israel. so there was much to discuss, as there always is, in the meetings that the president has with the prime minister. iran was a major topic of discussion as the president himself has said and i'm sure prime minister netanyahu has said, and i think is obvious because of the prominence of that issue right now, but there are other issues that they always discuss -- the middle east peace process among them. so i'm sure when they meet again they'll have no shortage of topics to discuss at that time. let me -- laura meckler. i haven't seen you in a while. how are you? >> well, this is the only briefing of the week. that's why you haven't seen me. [laughter] [laughter] >> i'm doing a little traveling. the president came out --

>> hey, you started it. >> -- took some questions. [laughter] fair enough. >> my question is a follow-up on the keystone question, which i didn't feel like you answered sort of the nub of jennifer's question, which was why did he feel the need to make these calls? he obviously doesn't make calls on every piece of legislation that's up there. we understand -- >> well, maybe he does and you just don't hear about it. >> -- his view. does he? >> look, the president obviously has communications with members of congress with some regularity. we have made our position clear about purely ideological and political efforts to attach legislation regarding the keystone pipeline to whatever some members of congress fancy at the time, right? at the time, right? so it is not -- it is a false -- a piece of false advertising to suggest that somehow passing legislation and having it made law, that keystone ought to be approved is somehow, a, going to have any impact on the price of gas at the pump, which is

very high, and which americans are having to endure right now, or, b, is responsible policy in any way when there isn't even a proposed route for that pipeline to travel. >> so does he believe that there is some risk that the senate democrats do not understand those points? >> i think that we have made these points very clear. we will continue to make these points very clear. and we certainly expect that the congress will -- or at least we hope that the congress will act in an appropriate fashion and not waste its time with ineffectual, sham legislation that has no impact on the price of gas and is irresponsible because it, as we've said before, tries to legislate the

approval of a pipeline for which there is not even a route. and so we'll keep making that point in telephone calls from the podium, maybe fly a cessna overhead with a banner -- something like that. >> and how many senators did he call? >> i don't have specifics for you on the phone calls the president may have made. >> that he may have made? >> he did. yes, he made some calls. sure. i'll confirm that. yes, margaret. >> i was going to ask you who he called. can you give us some -- >> i don't have a -- no, i don't have any names to give you. >> would you have any names to give us later if we followed up with you? >> no. not necessarily. i mean, the president makes a lot of phone -- this one happened to be -- the fact that he made some calls happened to make it into a press report, and i'm confirming that he did. but i'm not going to get into individual names or length of conversation. >> can you tell us whether other administration officials also had made calls? in other words, did joe biden make calls? who else in the administration

made calls? >> i don't have any readouts of phone calls to give you beyond what i just said. >> can i ask you about the virginia trip as well? could you just sort of put a little meat on the bone? what is the point of that trip, the nature of the discussions? and the texas part -- is it just a fundraising thing, or does the president think that he's postured to win texas any time soon? and why does he keep going back? he's done a lot of texas stuff. >> well, i think -- i mean, i would refer you to the campaign for the political component of this. i would say broadly that there are many supporters of the president in the great state of texas, and he always looks forward to meeting with as many of them as possible. in terms of virginia, he will be speaking broadly about the economy, about reinforcing the trend towards a growing manufacturing sector in this country, and also reinforcing a trend that is very positive that has seen companies bring jobs back to the united states -- the insourcing trend. so those will be the topics.

but we'll get more specifics to you later. ed. >> jay, i want to follow up on norah because you seemed to be very specific in saying, on the bunker-busting bombs, they were not discussed in the president's meetings. prime minister netanyahu met with secretary panetta -- >> well, i have no information regarding -- >> other officials maybe talked to -- >> i mean, i would refer you to other officials. this was not a discussion -- no agreements of that kind were reached. i don't -- nothing was -- >> nothing was discussed -- >> -- in the president's meetings, yes. i mean, that's who i speak for here, so -- >> okay. trip in north carolina yesterday -- we've been through this before about official trips, campaign trips. it was an official trip yesterday, he was talking about energy. the charlotte observer had a story saying that on sunday night a teacher got a call -- this is a teacher who has been active in democratic politics -- got a call from an obama for america official saying, can you come to the event, the president wants to talk to you there. my question is -- obviously the president can talk to americans,

he can talk to supporters, but if it's ofa that's reaching out to people and it's an official trip, why is it not the white house staff that's saying, hey, do you want to meet with the president? and if it is ofa doing it, should they be reimbursing the taxpayers? >> for the meeting with the president? i mean, i haven't seen the report. >> i don't know how many others -- this is the only one we're aware of. but if ofa is reaching out to people before his official trips and saying -- >> i don't think it would be a surprise -- i'm not aware of this report, but it certainly would not be surprising if the president met with supporters when he travels around the country. after all, he did win substantially more than half the vote in 2008. so i think you can safely assume that when the president travels around the country, as president and in his official capacity, that he'll be meeting with supporters when he does -- as well as people who aren't supporters, a point he made in his speech yesterday in north carolina about how much he likes the tar heel state, not least because of the hospitality of its people, even those who don't necessarily support him politically.

>> last thing. the president spoke out in the news conference about how people need to be careful with their language in general, and he spoke about his own daughters and setting an example. i know he's not the language police, you're not the language police from this podium to pick on people on the left or the right. but there is a letter that went to the chief of staff today from a conservative group, concerned women for america, saying that the president should direct this super pac, on the democratic side, that took a million-dollar check from bill maher, who has had some pretty coarse things to say about conservative women. and i understand the president can't -- he's not in charge of the super pac, it's an outside thing. but he did bless that pac and say to his supporters, you should give to this pac if you want to. so can he also say, give a million-dollar check back if it's from somebody who said these things? >> i think the points that you made as you were asking your question are the ones that i will make, which is that we are not, and cannot be, the arbitrator of every statement

that everybody makes in the policy and political arena. as a general matter, obviously language that denigrates women is inappropriate. and i think i would point you to what the president said when he was asked about this during his press conference, which is that he chooses to lead by example, or to try to. he chooses to, in the pursuit of a more civil discourse in our public space, he chooses to try to practice that civility himself. and he calls on everybody to do just that. chuck. >> a couple of -- it's fair to say your denial is being very specific on this report about the bunker, right?

>> well, i just don't have any -- >> it's simply about the president and -- >> well, i'm just saying that i'm the president's press secretary. the president had a lot of meetings with the prime minister of israel that included first -- it was first a one-on- one, and then a broader staff, including other senior officials from his administration. and that's what i know about the meetings the president had. >> yesterday there seemed to be some confusion about what secretary panetta said on the hill about military options regarding syria and then you guys pushing -- can you clarify what you were pushing back on and sort of the interpretation of what secretary panetta said on the hill? a well, you'd have to give me specific. i mean, i'm aware of -- >> that's what i mean. secretary panetta said military options are being put together, and then there's a white house official that's quoted as saying, no, no, no, no, no, not specific military plans being put into place. i'm just trying to understand -- >> fair point. it might have been me, actually. but the pentagon, the

department of defense is always reviewing contingencies and putting together contingencies. and i believe the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense discussed that in their testimony, and that is obviously true as they discussed it. it is not our policy right now -- we are not -- we have made very clear that we do not believe that it is right at this time to contribute to the further militarization of the situation in syria. we are pursuing a path with the "friends of syria" that we hope will bring a political resolution to the situation there. so i think both are accurate. >> so what you're saying is the white house has not directed the pentagon to come up with some military contingency plan? >> well, i would say that it is a matter of course in circumstances like this for the defense department to look at potential contingencies. and i would point you to the

chairman's testimony, to the secretary's testimony, and also to the defense department in general, about that. but i think as secretary panetta made clear, and i've certainly made clear, and the president has made clear, we do not think that is -- that further militarizing the situation in syria is the right course of action. >> speaking of military options, secretary panetta was now quoted today in an interview with the national journal, saying that plans to -- potential plans to strike iran have already been drawn up and are being -- and different options are being drawn up. >> well, i think i would give you the same answer, which is that the pentagon, as i understand it -- and there are better experts than i on this -- but as i understand it, the pentagon is, as a matter of course, frequently examining contingencies and preparing contingency plans for different possibilities. possibilities. it would be irresponsible --

perfectly appropriate -- it would be irresponsible not to. the president's policy is clear, and it has been clearly stated and restated by the president and others in the past week as we've been discussing the situation in iran and the visit of the prime minister of israel. >> so to have a plan -- i just want to clarify because the president was very critical of people talking publicly about war, but here -- also the administration is saying, we have a war plan. >> well, i think he was asked about it, and that's a lot different from loose talk of war, beating the drums of war, without talking about the reasons why you would go to war or the consequences of doing that, which is the point the president made from the podium here. and again, chuck, i think we've been exceptionally clear about been exceptionally clear about what our policy is, why we believe and we know there is the time and space to pursue -- to continue to pursue the diplomatic option with regards to iran as we continue to put pressure on tehran through

sanctions and other measures because that is the best option if we hope to completely resolve this problem. >> do you think it's useful that the iranians know that there are these military options, publicly? do they now know publicly that -- >> i would not speculate about the kinds of insights that other countries might have, but i would be shocked if it came as a surprise to anyone who pays attention to our system of government and the way the pentagon operates -- that they would be surprised to know that the pentagon constantly plans for different kinds of contingencies. steve. >> russia. is the president going to be able to have the same kind of relationship with vladimir putin that he had with dimitri medvedev? and is such a relationship

viable or even desirable given the questions that were raised about putin's election, his legitimacy, and some of his anti-u.s. rhetoric? >> well, i would say a couple of things. one is our policy towards russia is based on our interests and not on personalities. and the reset policy that the president pursued after he took office with russia produced benefits for u.s. national security interests, u.s. commercial interests, and that is why he launched that reset and why he pursued it. we obviously look forward to continuing to cooperate and work with russia where we agree on issues, and that's regardless of who the president is. now, i think we had a statement -- the state department did, i can't remember if i did or not -- about the russia election. but i believe the international observers noted that mr. putin won a majority of the vote, but we also note the

irregularities that have been reported. forn't have anything more you on it. again, this is not a personality-based policy. it's a policy based on -- an approach based on u.s. national interests and the areas where we can reach and agreement with russia on things agreement with russia on things like iran, on trade and other matters. connie. >> thank you. on the conversation with karzai, did karzai ever express condolences for the british soldiers killed, and did he explicitly apologize for american soldiers who were killed? and what does the white house want to see done with the americans who inadvertently burned the koran? >> well, i think there's an investigation into that. you surely would understand that i wouldn't make any statements about the disposition of that investigation or how it should

turn out. secondly, i don't have any more detail for you on the call that the president had with president karzai. i would point you to the statements by minister wardak about the incident and his expressions of regret and condolences in the matter of the servicemen who were killed in the interior ministry. more don't have anything for you on the specific conversation the president had. >> -- do you have any comment -- >> again, i don't have any more detail for the -- about the president's conversation. >> can karzai guarantee the safety of the american troops who they are training? >> i would ask you to refer that question to either the afghan government or isaf. yes. >> thank you. you mentioned keeping in touch with president karzai before the nato summit. has the president invited president karzai to come and tell nato in person what the progress is? >> i don't have anything on that. i'm not sure about that.

>> and does -- was the president satisfied with the progress that he heard from president karzai this morning? >> well, i think i read you a pretty full description of the conversation. the fact is that there has been some progress towards the strategic partnership agreement that they've -- that's been under discussion. there has been some calming of the situation in the wake of the koran burning incident. they discussed that. and the president of afghanistan updated president obama on the afghan-led reconciliation process, which, as we've noted many times, is essential to the ultimate resolution of the conflict in afghanistan. so it was a wide-ranging conversation that covered many topics. >> you've been very forthcoming with president obama and the administration's apologies for the koran burning. would you just take the question on whether president obama has ever received an apology or condolences from

president karzai? >> i'm happy to take that question. >> thank you. >> and i think, ann, just to take your point, the president issued that apology in a letter about a number of subjects to president karzai because he's commander-in-chief, and his interest in is in the safety and security of american personnel, both military and civilian, overseas. overseas. and it was absolutely the recommendation of the commanding general, as well as the ambassador that that apology be issued. brianna. >> jay, the president's campaign is putting out this 17- minute film, i guess you could say, very polished and cinematic. cinematic. i'm just wondering why does the president think that that approach is necessary? >> i would refer you to the campaign. i haven't discussed that. i saw the trailer. i thought it was pretty good. [laughter] i agree with its sentiments entirely. [laughter] >> glad to hear you watched it. >> the two minutes of it -- i haven't seen the whole thing yet. but it's good. >> but i mean, it's narrated by

tom hanks. it's an oscar-winning director. is the everyday defense of the president's record not getting through? >> are you suggesting that i'm no tom hanks? [laughter] [laughter] i would refer you to the campaign. i think as a matter of broad principle, as someone in the communications business, as you are, that we take advantage of every opportunity we can to explain the president's policies, explain his positions, describe his vision for the country moving forward. and that would apply both as i discuss those matters of policy from here, and i'm sure -- not speaking for the campaign, but i'm just taking a wild guess here -- that i'm sure that's the approach they take. >> it's pretty extraordinary. i mean, the -- >> i don't know that it is, but if you say so. i mean, i think there have been those kinds of things in campaigns in the past, but --

>> but for here -- >> maybe just because i've been around a little longer than you. but i am willing to accept that there has never been one as good with a better told or more compelling story as this video that i have not yet seen. [laughter] is that okay? leslie, and then andrei. >> jay, can you clarify a little bit on the task force? i know that you had said that -- >> i'm sorry on the what? >> on the task force, on the oil prices and speculation task force. because it was my understanding that -- >> i think i might have tapped out on that, but -- >> oooh -- >> it was my understanding that it had never really been -- it has not been un-constituted. the president, in fact, said the other day that it was reconstituted. why did it ever stop? >> well, i would refer you to the justice department. and i think the point is that it was constituted in response to the sharp rises -- a sharp

rise in the price of gasoline a year ago, roughly. year ago, roughly. the justice department can give you more details about its activity in response to that price surge. what we are seeing now in the last several weeks and months is a new surge in the price of oil, for a variety of reasons that have to do with the oil -- the global oil market. we are seeing then the concurrent spike in the price of gasoline that americans pay at the pump. and the president believes that it's important to be sure that there's no fraudulent speculation involved in those spikes in the price. >> do you think it should have anything to show given that it hasn't until now? >> well, i don't think you can -- i would urge you to discuss this with the department of justice, but i don't think you can credit -- you can't say simply -- you don't know until you investigate what you might

find -- and if whatever they found or didn't find a year ago is not dispositive towards what they might find or might not find as they investigate going forward. so the president feels that it's in the interest of americans who are having to endure these price hikes that his administration investigate to make sure that there's not fraud involved. fraud involved. >> but is there some sense that it just sort of dropped off the radar screen for -- >> well, i would refer for the details on their activity to the justice department. >> jay? >> andrei, i promised you -- yes. and then jared. >> thank you. if i'm not mistaken, the president has not reached out yet personally to president- elect putin. does he intend to do so? if not, is this sort of a signal -- should we read it as a signal? >> i don't believe they have spoken yet. i'm confident they will speak. i would not read anything into it beyond the busy schedules of two --

>> did you guys even put a statement out congratulating -- the way you do for other world -- other leaders that get elected? >> did we? i think there was something from state. >> something from the white house -- >> there may have been. let me check on that. i think i was -- i had at one point in -- i paraphrased a statement that i had from a previous briefing. i can't remember if i delivered it or not. >> right. but when state was making their statement -- i was there at the briefing -- they said that when the results of the elections are certified, there will be a different statement with names with proper congratulations coming from higher up. you are the higher up. [laughter] so when is that coming? >> i'm not sure about that. but since you're referring to a state department briefing i would refer you back to them on that. i will certainly report out to you any conversation the president has with the new president of russia when it happens.

chris. >> thanks, jay. democrats in support of same- sex marriage are speaking more loudly on the issue. twenty-two u.s. senators have told me they support the idea of including a marriage equality plank in a democratic party platform. and yesterday, democratic national convention chair antonio villaraigosa also said he backs such language, saying, "i think it's basic to who we are." by being in a state of evolution now on this issue for nearly 17 months, is the president deferring leadership in his own party? >> no, chris, i can tell you that he is not engaged in the very early stages of what i understand to be the platform development, and i would refer you simply to discussions that the folks you mentioned are having. positionresident's hasn't changed. i certainly have no new announcement to make on it. >> but by being in a state of evolution, i mean, the president is missing an opportunity to lead not just the democratic party but for the country as a whole. so i -- >> i appreciate the question. i just don't have anything new to report to you on it. >> just to follow up on that -- can you identify what is obstructing the president from completing his evolution on this

issue? is there some sort of fear of political backlash during an election year? you mentioned something before about this process involving the president's faith. >> i'm sorry, the last part of your question? >> you mentioned something about this process involving the president's faith. >> well, now, look, i would leave it to the president. perhaps he wasn't asked about this. maybe the next time he gives a press conference one of you can ask him about it. it's entirely up to you if you want to be told, which you might be, that he doesn't have any news to make on it. but i really have no update for you. >> one last question on this. marriage is going to be on the ballot and it's become -- it's going to be in the ballot for voters in as many as five states this year. in north carolina, that's going to happen -- for voters in may. will the president announce same-sex marriage before it's too late to help -- to start conversations that help gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to get married in these states? >> that's a circuitous way of asking the same question, and i just don't have any updates for you on the president's position. last one, yes, peter. >> thanks. at the time of the shirley

sherrod case at the agriculture department, we were consistently told that there was no white house involvement. now the ap has, through a foia request, come up with emails that contradicts that. do you know where the disconnect was? >> yes, the disconnect is in the reporting by the associated press, which is inaccurate. the emails confirm what we said at the time, which is that the white house had no involvement in the decision made regarding ms. sherrod's employment or her firing, but were made aware of the decision that had been made by the department of agriculture. >> so the white house -- >> there's nothing in those emails -- >> -- not in touch with the counsel at the agriculture department at the time? >> the issue is, was the white house involved in the decision made, and they were not. the white house was not. i was not in this position then, but we made clear at the time that there was discussion about the decision after it had been made, but not -- no involvement in the decision itself, which i think even the organization that made the foia request noted in its preamble, if you will. if you will.