as much as 2008 was exciting, as much as all this, i think, saw that night ed grant park as the culmination of something, it was just the beginning of what we are fighting for. something, it was the beginning of what we're fighting for. that is what 2012 was about. guest: that plays out. that video begins with that video. create as trying to narrative. he needs to get people away from thinking, here is the end of his first term, things are not looking great. he wants to make this look like an eight-year process.

he talked to supporters about that issue. we're only part of the way there. he needs a second term to finish the job. to finish the job he started and it is a smart narrative for him. it changes the direction of people thinking. we are at the end of this and the economy is still struggling. the gas prices are rising. he is changing the direction of people's thinking. i am part of the way there. helmet into the rest of it. fix it by the second -- end of my second term. >> this plays into the hands of the ron paul strategy. this is the plan. this could be key players at this convention. >> there could be chaos. we have not seen it. even 1976 was a convention where anything wins. there were two candidate, for

reagan. you have the possibility of other candidates coming in. you have ron paul, newt gingrich. how many delegates they have. being the power brokers who could decide this thing. the ultimate dream of the republican establishment, this is the ultimate nightmare. host: good morning. host: i am appalled that the mentality of some any people in this country. if you were to ask the public, there would say the government. i think it is wall street and k street who send their lobbyists to run this country. look at all are single dish -- single issue voters. if someone was running ans anti-

gay or anti-abortion, people would vote for them. look at the supreme court. there are supposed to be nine independent voters. their politicians. you have five conservatives and four liberals. look at the five-four votes. why should people -- nine people have the power to tell people what to do? host: that will come up next week. guest: their argument about the supreme court being partisan, we saw that argument at the 2000 election. all the support -- supreme court members are appointed by presidents. they are ideologically conservative or liberal. the was the case today.

that has not changed. >> one other note about the men -- rick santorum and mitt romney campaign. scalede's campaign has back expenses. they have counted more on free news media for coverage. he went off the campaign trail to raise $3 million in new york city. guest: as we look ahead to illinois, they're spending more money to hang on to that state and louisiana as well. this is getting expensive for the romney campaign. host: a quick note about that. also, olympia snowe is stepping down. >> this changes the dynamic. democrats were gleeful because olympia snowe stepping down give

them a shot. now we have king, he is the independent. he is -- it looks like he is the successor to olympia snowe. he is not fully committed to democrats. this would give them a shot in holding onto seats that ben nelson is giving up. however, polls are showing him far behind. he has got to close that gap significantly if he will take office. our real legitimate candidate. democrats -- if democrats should have any shot it would be through former senator kerry but he has to close that gap. that is a problem. now they're running new ads, these welcome home adds. people are looking upon that skeptically. and he has not been living in

the state. >> you can come into new york and bobby kennedy -- you can say that i have always been a new yorker at heart. it can come to nebraska and say that i am going to be the successor to ben nelson. i agree with susan. the republican -- john kerry has not been on the ballot since 1994. i do not think nebraska is voting for that kind of canada. >> thank you for being with us. come back again. >> monday, ken blackwell joins us to talk about social issues and their impact on the 2012 presidential campaign. also the co-founder of the group no labels.

discussing reducing polarization. france's mccarthy of the congressional research service on funding for disaster relief. "washington journal" rote -- airs at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. the c-span networks will show several live events on monday. the u.s. chamber of commerce will host a forward look at business priorities. among the panelists, business representatives from cisco, boeing, and microsoft. over on c-span 3, coverage of an education conference hosted by america's promise alliance. participants including education secretary arne duncan will talk about ways to increase graduation rates. beginning at seven -- 7:00 a.m. eastern.

residents from a coalition of groups announced a campaign to target companies that use corporate money to find -- to fund super pacs. some of the participants include common cause, public citizen, moveon.org, and occupy wall street. here's a look at their press conference on monday. >> good morning, everyone ready? my name is bill the lazio -- deblazio. it is a $40 billion pension

fund. i am wearing a green tie. in honor of st. patrick's day and as a statement on the corrosive impact of money in our political system and that is what is bringing us here today. this unprecedented coalition of organizations that for decades have fought to protect our democracy, our electoral process, to fight for transparency and make sure the people's role in government and politics matter. let me tell you who is here today. it speaks volumes. common cause, public citizen, the coalition for accountability in political spending, moveon.org, u.s. action, campaign for america's future. leadership conference on civil rights. national people's action, progress now, health care for american malcolm occupy wall street. the whole gamut organize -- organizations making sure democracy is here for us. a lot of us have to be involved

in local and state government, who run pension funds that total $1.50 trillion. a lot of us around the country got together and formed the coalition for accountable political spending. we did this in response to citizens united and the reason was we thought our democracy was threatened. we thought that pension funds and local and state government had to play a role in responding to that possibility that money would flood our system and work it once for all -- and for all. every single one have been responding to this crisis. every single one have had a powerful response but we are combining forces because it has been that serious a challenge to our democracy. the bottom line today and you'll hear from a number of organizations, we're saying to corporate america act, enough is enough. we're not going to stand for our democratic system being overwhelmed by money.

we're not standing for corporate america said donating two super pacs. we are challenging the haida nations, we will challenge the wealthy individuals who are flooding our systems with money and we have many tools to do it. you saw two years ago when target corporation and wisely chose to use the opportunity afforded by citizens united. you saw the extraordinary response. you saw target realized it could no longer follow that path and back away. what happened to target was child's play compared to the strength that all these organizations can bring to bear against companies that decide they will find against the people's will and involve themselves unduly in the political process. i will finish with this point. the public view of this matter across all boundaries and regions of the country, uc

tremendous consistency. people are concerned that money is already too prominent in our system. they fear what that means in terms of policy, whether elected officials maintain independence and open judgment. the people of this country want us to act in the best to act. we will use every tool whether it is actions among consumers of to boycott, shareholder actions, whether it is work from pension funds to use the power of pension funds to direct corporate america to change its ways, legal action, you name it, it is on the table. we make that clear to the world and that will be acting together to achieve the change we need. thank you. >> i did not get the memo to wear the green tie but i have a green ribbon. good morning, everyone. i am president of common cause

and i am here representing people across the country who are frustrated with how much money is being plowed into our political elections. common cause is joining the other groups that you see, some represented behind me to push back on the access of corporate influence in our democracy. we believe our democracy belongs to the people. not to big money, and not to big corporations. thanks to citizens united, corporations may now spend their profits without limit to influence elections. they can give unlimited funds to super pacs and other groups. they can do it secretly by funneling money through their third party groups and this is the money that cannot be traced. if corporations pay for the

election of their leaders, leaders will soar for them over ordinary people. that is the problem with citizens united. it allows corporations to drown out -- corporations to drown out the voices of the people. that is why we're here. no corporate money. common cause is calling on corporations to refrain from all political giving including money in super pacs, c4 and c6 trade associations. common cause urged that top 700 corporations to refrain from political giving. we're working to get that request to the shareholder resolution process. common cause also recently teamed up with trillium asset

management and the green century fund to file shareholder resolutions at bank of america, 3m, and target on behalf of their shareholders asking these corporations to refrain from political giving. each of these resolutions will go to the vote this spring. we plan to organize press conferences and rallies at each of the shareholder meetings. we plan to let corporations no there will be a great cause -- cost in playing politics. we plan to join our colleagues at many other meetings to make our concerns about corporate political spending known. we're pushing the security and exchange council to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. in our offices across the country, we're going to work to

pass state laws requiring corporations to disclose all political giving and to require shareholder approval of political spending. the american public has had enough. we, the people will not stand idly by while the country's major corporations and use their massive wealth to buy our no. -- our democracy. we will do all we can to expose the corporate spending that threatens to drown out voter voices. the key bottom-line, we believe in a nation that is of, by to and for the people. not and by and for the wealthy and large corporations. thank you. [applause] >> the morning. -- good morning. we're here today because we're not going to let the big

corporations by our democracy and make excessive profits at the expense of the rest of us without creating jobs and prosperity for all americans. they do not just want to buy our elections, they want to by our government. they want to by our government and its elected officials and use them to shake this country into a playground for corporate profiteers, to exploit without limits. the idea money is speech and corporations are people is a gross distortion of our democracy. when corporations are people and their money a speech, it means the dollar's fall street, big oil, and the insurance companies drown out the voices of ordinary americans. the result of unlimited corporate dollars means voters are becoming disenfranchised in the greatest democracy in our world.

the fact that so much of this spending is taking place behind closed doors with secret contributions is especially outrageous. when you buy a bag of groceries, you have no idea if the money is going to pollute the environment, health insurance companies undermined our health care, or help banks exploit unsuspecting citizens. this is a profound perversion of our democracy and its silences voters. in the case of health care, for example, we have seen a health insurance premium dollars support candidates and oppose candidates. that would end legislation that would end the ability to jack up our rates and a nine hour care. america's health insurance plans in 2009, insurance companies laundered $86 million through the chamber of commerce for

attack ads against health reform. today, we're announcing that americans united will pay a $25,000 reward to the first person who comes forward with documentation indicating that a public corporation has made a secret donation out of corporate funds to an end to the working to impact the outcome of an election. it is very simple. we are serious about the business of exposing corporations for trying to see really steal our democracy and own our governments for the wealthy few. if corporations want to use corporate dollars to influence elections, we will expose them. they will do so at their own risk. we will track them down. if ceos think they can keep corporate donations and politics a secret, they're wrong.

just ask rush limbaugh. just ask him what happens when you do something that violates the values of the majority of the people in this country. you lose your brand, you lose your advertising dollars, you lose everything you set out to do and that is what we're about the business of doing with any corporation that makes secret contributions of corporate dollars to politics. the groups representing our coalition behind me and on the left, all have different programs that will inflict economic damage on offending companies. you can ask target, you can ask walmart, you can ask for some of, there is damage that will come from inflicting damage on americans boaters -- american voters.

they are chipping away at the middle class. led by billionaires' of like the koch brothers and extremists on the right, they're working to undermine our political democracy as well. people want to reclaim america before it becomes the unrecognizable playground and property of the super rich and the big corporations that see our country as a source of labor and natural resources to exploit for their game. we can only put a stop to the unbridled corporate greed and grotesque income inequality that is occurring in of average americans still have a voice of the ballot box. telling -- we're corporations to keep their money out of our politics. thank you. [applause]

>> the morning. i am the president of public citizen. 22 individuals contribute -- and corporations contributed half of the money to super pacs. this concentration of influence and power on behalf of the super wealthy and corporate america is a result of the citizens united decision. even worse it is a preview of something much worse that is about to come. unless the corporations are stopped. we're pleased to join this coalition of organizations to announce we intend to do just that. we intend to stop corporations from taking over control of our country, our of -- of our democracy, and the way we live. through the corporate reform

coalition income of public citizen is involved with many of the groups here and working on behalf of shareholder resolutions to demand corporations not spend money on elections or disclose what they're spending. we're supporting efforts of the sec and the states to win new rules that require companies to disclose what they're spending on political elections. we're committed with our colleagues here told to account any company that is found to be funneling its money through trade associations, independent organizations that allow it to conceal from the public what it is doing. we now that corporations the value of secrecy when it comes to political spending. for many ceo's, it is secrecy, or no go. it will not spend money because they know the reputation or harm that will come from being associated with disclosure. that is why so many of us are pushing for laws and rules and requirements for disclosure.

until we get to the day where disclosure is mandated and these companies are restricted by their own market share -- a sense of consequence, we're going to hold them to account. today's message is this. if you think you can run monday through independent organization secretly in the 2012 election, you are wrong. you will be found out. you will be held to account, and you will, not our democracy, you will pay the price. thank you. [applause]

we're thrilled to be part of this coalition and promised to take aggressive action, taking it to shareholders, to the sec, to the streets. secret spending has got to stop. it is bad for our democracy. i say to corporate america today, we are everywhere and we're watching. you have been served. [applause] >> good morning. i am a campaign director with national people's action and the new bottom-line. there is an unprecedented amount of alignment forming right now amongst community organizations, the labor

movement, the environmental justice community, the civil rights community, and others who are agreeing and coming to the realization that a just economy is under attack by irresponsible and immoral corporations. we are mounting sustained campaigns across the country against those corporations to hold them accountable and we are going to mobilize thousands of people this spring at their shareholder meetings and to lead up to those meetings and we will name and shame those corporations who are attacking our american way of life. after that, we will name and shame politicians who are putting the interests of corporate -- irresponsible corporations ahead of the interest of the 99%. that is what we're going to do. thank you. [applause] >> hello. i am with occupy wall street. this is a system -- a systemic

problem and simply talking about it will not make it go away. we are a movement that thrives on direct action. and frankly, this issue is one of the main reasons why we even exist. parks were just the beginning. we had a lot of support and change the conversation but that is not enough. the question is, what now? on january 3, 2012, the new york city general assembly formally approve this resolution. the new york city a general assembly joins the millions of citizens, a grass-roots organizations, and local governments across the country in calling for an amendment to the constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech. that human beings, not corporations are people entitled to constitutional rights and

that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to a fictitious entities or property. we need to change laws but in the meantime, we're not going to sit idly by and watch our collection sold to the highest bidder. we're not here to blow the whistle, we're here to respond to it. if you secretly contribute and schemed to buy elections we will come knocking on your door and it is not addressed going to be a couple of us, it will be thousands. everywhere you turn your head, we're like a hornet's nest that got wiped, scattered everywhere, and ready to swarm on a particular target. [applause] you have heard for yourself, there is a lot of firepower here. there is a lot of well.

there's a lot of will, unity, of purpose. this coalition has the ability to reach every part of our country, to the grassroots, to the shareholders, to local and state governments. we will do all the above to make sure we stop the dominance of money and politics. we are resolute and this is a strong beginning to an effort you will see played out in every part of the country in the coming weeks and months. we welcome your questions. from seiu?here >> you cited individual donors and corporations and you talk about shareholder resolutions. how are you going to try to pressure individual donors who are finding these super pacs?

>> all these pieces go together. we have seen with sheldon adelson, it is easy to trace the money. we're going to make it clear to corporate america and the public will not accept this and there is many different forms of response. the all connect whether it is a shareholder resolution, whether it is a pension fund making clear they are uncomfortable with the choices made by a corporation, whether it is the kind of direct action you have heard laid out here, it all goes together. whether it is directed at 2 it wealthy individual who is associated with a publicly traded company or directed at that company, it is for the same purpose. >> 2012 is going to be the most monied election in the u.s. we will see their president

raise $1 billion and the republicans raise $1 billion but in the super pacs, we are fearful many more billions will be spent on political campaigns. for and against canada its. citizens united for the first time in many years lifted the lid off corporations being able to dip into their corporate treasury and spend those on elections. that simply is outrageous. what were the five justices thinking who voted in the majority? did they think the day before citizens united came down the corporations and labor unions and wealthy people were not already involved in politics? citizens united has made it much worse. today's effort is to focus on those roads and corporations that may find a way to spend their money so they can corporatize our election process. i was quoted today by an offhand

comment i had made which i think is probably a good one. i said i am a peacenik, but this is a shot across the corporate browsing to them, we're watching. >> how do you plan on the landing -- donating? there is not that much information. >> i will start and others will join in. first of all, this is a multi- headed beast. the central theme is we're going to show corporate america there are serious consequences. whatever form their donations take, however they attempt to launder them or of the skate, we will show there is consequences. in the end, we believe that many

people look at corporate america and have an involvement are going to be very uncomfortable when they understand the extent of corporate efforts to influence elections. that is the connective tissue through all these efforts. we know of corporations that are getting super pacs. there will be addressed. we know in some cases, information is coming out even though there has been an attempt to hide the donations, inflation has still come out. in other cases, you have heard there will be answered -- aggressive efforts to draw it out. lots fair to say that aa less stay secret. we will find a lot of allies all over the country, including people inside corporations who will want to get this information. >> there is a few things. the first is the $25,000 reward. that will clearly bring out

information about corporate peopleons to c4's and will volunteer that information. we suspect we will get more than one taker. that is one thing. the second thing, along with lots of organizations, each candidate will launch shareholder spring. we will go to shareholder meetings with resolutions to expose and revealed an disclose the political spending of corporations. there were 30 such resolutions in 2009. 41 in 2010, and 10 and 11, rather. we will see a phenomenal amount this coming season. third they, all the organizations are going to ferret out this information and we know how that works. in the digital age. we know how works with wikipedia

and other things on the internet. the ability of a corporation to make a cigarette corporate donation is simply not going to happen. those days are over. if they think they can make those contributions without the public finding out, they're wrong. >> some of these corporations are giving money to the chamber of commerce. there will say they are giving it to the chamber of commerce and they might not say -- that money is hidden. are you targeting them? [inaudible] >> your question is a good one. they can put it through the chamber of commerce. we will be watching that as well. there are many members of the chamber who are angry with the chamber spending as much money

as they spend on political campaigns. and on who they spend that money on. we will be watching that as well as watching shareholder meetings, other kinds of opportunities to sift through how corporations are placing their money and where they are placing their money and if they do it through the chambers of commerce, we will share those. i want to say that when we set out 700 letters this fall, we are getting letters in all the time were lots of good corporations are saying they're not going to use any of their corporate treasury. we know of groups like ben and jerry's ice cream that has a campaign trying to get the dough out of politics and they have corporations signing pledges not to give any money through this new process. we're going to watch in all those areas including the chamber of commerce.

>> do you anticipate the boycotts -- the corporations involved are not the publicly traded household names. how you deal with that? >> on the first question of border talks. what happened to target corp. happened without reaching the level of a boycott. that was an online corporation. a lot of organizations participated. moveon.org did a particularly good job. hundreds of thousands of signatures were gathered. the media coverage, the protests turned target away from participating in spending. to bob's point, target quietly a few months ago changed its policy so it would no longer allow itself that kind of spending. there are good corporations that have chosen a path of restraint in disclosure. there are corporations who learned the hard way and have

backed away and there is many others we will address. to your second point, boycotts are an extraordinary tool. we have a lot of ability to use that tool and that is on the table. even without it, there has been a huge impact. imagine if we employed that tool directed to some corporations. what we find is companies that do not appear to have a high- profile or a lot of direct engagement, are not household names, there are pressure points and access points. they have to do with state and local governments. they have investments from pension funds. members of their boards, something we have learned over years, the board of directors and prominent people who are concerned about iraq -- their reputations might think differently about the tensions being -- attention being

directed to them. >> as an answer to that, the first point is, citizens united is a disaster and is making a mockery of our democracy. we believe in a systemic solutions. we need to establish corporations do not have the right to spend money. shorter, amendment we need a robust disclosure systems. and national law that requires disclosure. state based roles. we all agree on that. that.working for what this effort is about is in the absence of that, what are we going to do? the calculation for corporations is the will get away with it. what we know is the donations to the super pacs, a relatively small number of corporations.

the big corporations, the brand- name corporations are not spending money and they do not plan to. they plan to run their money through trade associations and other independent associations. they say said. you look at what the trade association for wall street said, they will not run monday through -- money through super pacs. they explicitly said, we think companies will not give us money to run a political ads if the public will know what happens. this closure will go a long way. your point is right. some companies have more reputation of interests than others but they have some reputation interest spread look at a company like -- reputational interest. look at a company like massey. the ceo was not able to hold

onto his job. even mining companies ultimately care and -- about their reputations. if you put money into the electoral process, you had better expect it will be found out and you will pay. >> i am with hispanic link news service. i am fascinated on the green tie. in east l.a.ractice on to wear a green chile. we are interested in racial and ethnic diversity you have in this organization. >> the people behind represent

the organizations i listed. we chose rep samples -- representative samples. we have local and state governments, grass-roots organizations. what is striking about the response is citizens united. in a country so divided in every way, this is something that unites us. it does not matter where your demographic background, people do not want money in politics. >> it would be helpful to me if we did see -- i would like to know any hispanic folks that are representing any groups and any persons of any color. >> we will give you an opportunity to meet everyone. we want to make sure we get the questions covered. i hear your point loud and clear. >> [inaudible]

that is not always disclosed. some point to that as corporate money.i is there a difference there? >> i think we all first want to make sure the effects of citizens united are rolled back and that is for every kind of organization. a lot of us would say simply there is a profound difference between the firepower of corporate america, the sheer mass of money they can bring to bear and the self interests involved versus any other element of our society. i think we're deeply concerned that if the floodgates were opened of corporate money, our democracy would not survive it and that is what we're trying to address. >> there is a world of

difference between corporations and unions. the first is corporations exist for the purpose of maximizing profits. unions are democratic organizations that exist for the purpose of helping workers express themselves in the workplace and in politics. the second issue is on the matter of disclosure. we're here because the corporations do not have to disclose their donations, the city -- the c4s and c6s. any expenditure has to be disclosed. they have enormous disclosure requirements that corporations are not subject to. that is why there is a world of difference between the two. lastly, unions were outspent 20 to one.

when it comes to firepower, corporations have it all. >> just for follow-up. the press release makes mention. the biggest groups out there -- this is why the democratic [unintelligible] >> i will start and i am sure bob has something to say. the work my office did in the beginning after citizens united was directed, at both sides of the spectrum, what ever spectrum you want to look at, because the central point is to painstakingly rollback the results of citizens united in real terms to try to preserve our democracy and make sure that all the different entities that might participate do not keep using the tools given them by citizens united. from our efforts on day one, we

have reached across the spectrum. there is great differences as you have heard between the kind of actors on the playing field. that has been the approach we have taken. >> they could be facing "economic damage? >> let the chips fall where they may. >> let me say a couple words about why. it -- as a matter of principle, we take this issue seriously. we do not want corporate money in the election process, full stop. if you done it we are coming

after you. -- donate, we are coming after you. citizens united is not a public and -- a republican decision. it will have a severe impact on both major political parties. it is changing, it changes what kind of funding that will get and politicians are accountable to their founders. it will be a more pro-corporate party. as more money comes in it will be a more pro-corporate party. that decision as a bipartisan, trans-person disaster. >> i would like to follow-up on her question. how do you -- not so much, how

do you pressure people like the koch brothers, or this guy who backs send form? the big individual growers who are only accountable to themselves? >> even the brothers -- koch brothers, they are comfortable throwing their wealth around. their companies do have a direct consumer relationships, omni hotels, for example. even the super rich and the ideologically motivated are affected when they see their companies get in trouble because the public is not happy with them. i think in the end, we're also trying to say and it comes through a lot in what people said. there is a lot of people sitting on the fence in corporate

america. there are a lot of people trying to decide what to do and everytime they see one of these controversies, every time they see how complicated this gets, and how many unintended consequences there are two undertaking this kind of spending, it is causing more of them to wonder if it is not time to step back. maybe that does not reach all the way to the koch brothers. maybe it says it is not a good idea, not the right thing to do. >> [inaudible] >> every tool is on the table today. we as a coalition are going to systematically pursued a range of options. we have talked about shareholder actions, consumer actions, state and local pension funds, legal action, and so on. at some point we may decide as a coalition there is a company were the of a consumer boycott.

it is the kind of tool we could use. >> we will pay the koch brothers a visit this spring. i promise. >> common cause in september of 2010, i had never heard of the koch brothers, we paid them a visit. we had a rally and panel discussion. this is before they were fully exposed in the wisconsin issue and became household words. the one thing i learned as they did not like the publicity. for 10 years they have had secret sessions in june and january to corporatize our democracy. common cause and many of these groups have not only shown a light on the koch brothers, but on individual wealthy persons

who want to move our democracy toward a plutocracy. it was bill moyers to said, this is the most dangerous moment in american history. we will be a nation of, by command for the people or of, by, and for the wealthy and large corporations. this is an effort to take back democracy. >> we have time for one more question. >> there is a lot of different groups here. i wondered if -- [inaudible] >> at that level of sophistication we have not yet rage. we are a strong and purposeful coalition. thank you, everyone, very much. [applause]

>> in march 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to household nation wide and today are content of public affairs and public history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> we have had a vice we do not do as i did today and come in with a plain old white shirt and a summertime, heaven forbid. i do not know whether my colleagues feel at -- if this would be better decorum for the senate and icy the distinguished senator stafford over here, nodding no. perhaps the people of ohio would make a decision. mr. president, these are few of our concerns here in the senate and i am sure that none of us

will do a thing differently in the senate of the united states. now that we're on television. thank you. rec c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. >> three days ago while we were in that nuba mountains, 15 bombs were dropped. we found children filled with shrapnel, including an 9-year- old boy who had both his hands blown off. as we travelled further north, we were greeted by hundreds of villagers carrying signs reading, stop the [unintelligible] we were met with 300-mm rockets fired overhead. we also witnessed people running to caves for safety. these are not the cave people of nuba, they live in farms, they are the lawless society in the

world and yet they're forced to hide in caves. >> george clooney is one of many actors who promoted social and political causes in washington over the years. search the c-span video library for actor and watch other celebrities. all our guides are searchable. >> at the -- robert muller defended the agency's budget request. it is an increase of 1.4% from last year. the director warned against additional budget cuts that could be imposed through the sequestration process. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody.

the appropriations committee will come to order. we will take the testimony and engage in a conversation with the director of the fbi, the federal bureau of investigation with director moller. this will be a two-part hearing. one will be here in open public session and then because of the sensitivity of issues and budget involved, for the fight against the global war against terrorism, we will have a classified briefing. at the conclusion of this phase, we will recess and reconvene in are classified in vernon at the visitor center. and all members are welcome. this is where we can have an additional in-depth conversation. today, the subcommittee will hear from the director of the fbi. we are grateful for director

moller's service and his agreement to serve two more years to work with our president in order to keep our streets, communities, and country safe. we begin our examination of the fbi's 2013 budget request with this open hearing. when we look at the fbi budget, i have three priorities. national security, which is how is the fbi working to keep america safe, community security, how is the fbi working with law school law-enforcement to keep our families and our neighborhoods safe, and also, oversight and accountability to insure we are spending taxpayers' dollars wisely and ensuring that we get value for our dollar. today, we will learn and i will ask unanimous consent in the interest of time that my full statement be included in the record.

my statement to the point is we know that we asked the fbi to carry out extraordinary responsibilities, keeping 330 americans safe from terrorism and also violent crime. to continue their work to dismantle organized crime which now has new -- many new faces, many locations, and many techniques. and the despicable drug cartels that continue to exist in our country and threaten our borders. we ask the fbi to work to combat gang violence, and gun smuggling and at the same time, help us catch sexual predators'. the president's budget request for the fbi is $8.20 billion. this request reflects the stringent budget reality in which we find ourselves. there are no new initiatives in the fbi's budget request this year and only one modest

targeted increase and that is the fbi's ability to fight mortgage fraud. the fbi will be asked to do more with less in 2013. in order to -- to continue the critical efforts, we will have the budget proposed is $63 million in savings, and the fbi will also have a provision. fbi also has to become the banker for all law enforcement. helping drop communication purchases. we have counseled the fbi to watch this carefully. as we look at our cousins in the department of homeland security appropriations, interoperable communications has been one of the biggest boondoggles i have

seen. everyone bought a gadget or gizmo and none can talk to each other. at the same time we need to get an update on the work on the sentinel program, our virtual case management file. we need to be sure we take a look at the sequestered consequences and what will be the impact when the fbi, if there is an 8%, and we need to know how this will impact the fbi's ability to carry out its mission. the fbi was charged with protecting us against international terrorism. to disrupt plots before they happen by identifying, tracking, and defeating them, and working to dismantle weapons of mass destruction. this is not j. edgar hoover's fbi anymore. counterintelligence makes up a substantial part of the fbi budget. weeks ago we saw the fbi's

counter-terrorism efforts to -- up close when they arrested a man who wanted to blow up the u.s. capitol. our nation faces a new kind of threat. that threat occurs in cyberspace. we have to cyber-spies, organized crime, cyber is the new area and we look forward to getting ideas and a concrete budget from the fbi director on how we can be safe in that area and how they work with other intel agencies. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

.