after he read the affidavits. "i was surprised at the number of guns being purchased and not being interdicted because of the number of guns that could he drafted an e-mail warning "you better back off the statement to senator grassley because i didn't believe we can say it in light of the information our agents were swearing to before a court judge to get a wiretap." we have been seeking that e-mail since last summer to corroborate the testimony. the justice department has not produced the e-mail. that should lead them to withdraw their initial letter instead of december, 2011. we still did not have a decent explanation as to why it took so long to and acknowledge the truth. i asked the attorney general to seek the court's -- i received no reply to my request. i have had a chance to review some of the details. mr. nelson was right and the attorney general was wrong.

anyone reading this affidavit should have been alarmed. we learned that the department gathered 140,000 pages of documents for their own internal review. they have produced a mere 7000 or so pages of documents. that is a spit in the ocean. this is why the house committee is forced to move forward with contempt proceedings.

i think the american people deserve a better explanation than they have received so far. there has been a number of damaging classified national security leaks to the media. every leak is damaging. the most damaging ones risked the lives of men and women that are working abroad. the attorney general says one thing and -- it was reported last year that the department had dropped the prosecution of a former department of justice person who admitted he had leaked information to the "new york times." the anthrax attacks. leaks were made to the press involving dr. stephen hatfield. there was a settlement of near $6 million.

i'm concerned about the decision to appoint two political appointees to investigate the recent matter. the attorney general decision traced the national security matter like a regular criminal investigation. the national security division at the department has been recused from involvement leaked investigations, a signal they could be involved as a source of the leak.

the past failures of the just part to prosecute their own classified leaks and the tepid response to past questions about leaks. the only to get to the bomber is to appoint an independent special prosecutor. given the past failures that we have seen, i want to hear from the attorney general why he assigned this matter to two u.s. attorneys as a regular investigation. thank you. >> ok, mr. attorney general. one is most familiar with the anthrax -- senator grassley speaks about that, one of the deadly anthrax letters. i am aware of the investigation of the last administration and what happened. a whole lot ask you to defend the actions of the last administration that senator grassley has criticized.

>> thank you. i appreciate the chance to appear before you today to highlight some of the accomplishments that have distinguished the department's work.

i am proud of all that has been achieved by all who participate. they are dedicated at every level and have allowed me to fulfill the commitments that have made. we will work tirelessly to protect people and to ensure that every decision will be guarded exclusively by the law, to move aggressively in combating violent crime, to seek justice for victims. the department has made extraordinary and historic progress in each of these areas. this is more clear in our national security efforts. the department has secured convictions against scores of dangerous terrorists in our article 3 courts. we have uncovered various plots and we gathered surveillance capabilities in a manner that it is consistent with the rules law but with the most sacred values. we secured our seventh conviction in a suicide bomb attacks. we obtained a guilty verdict in the case of a former service

member who planned a bomb attack against american soldiers in a restaurant in texas. a texas man was sentenced for attempted to join al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. i would like to discuss the steps the department has taken with regards to classified information. these allegations are of great concern to me and i know the concern all of you. i assigned two attorneys. these u.s. attorneys are fully authorized to consult with members of the intelligence community and to follow all appropriate leads and to prosecute criminal violations to the fullest extent of the law. they will do an independent and a thorough job. unauthorized disclosures could jeopardize the security of our nation. they will not be tolerated. the department will continue to take any such disclosures seriously. i will provide information as

appropriate. the department has taken decisive action to combat a wide range of financial and health-care fraud crimes. this work is paying dividends across the country. the consumer protection branch secured more than $900 million in criminal and civil fines and penalties against more than 30

individuals. we cheat the largest federal- state settlement in history totaling $25 billion with five of the top five mortgage servicers. we have obtained sentences of up to 60 years in a wide range of fraud cases. investigating misconduct by institutions that contributed to the financial crisis. we have made tremendous gains efforts to fight health care fraud. over the last fiscal year, we

have recovered nearly $4.1 billion in cases involving fraud and health-care programs. we have returned on average $7 to medicare trust funds on average. our resolve has never been stronger. through innovative programs, we have developed a comprehensive approaches for addressing fraud. we have a strain of partnerships and we're working more effectively than ever before ever to confront violence. we have coordinated strikes and

seize billions of dollars in assets. we're addressing the shocking rates of violence that affect indian and alaskan women. we are using every tool to protect our law enforcement community. as the brother of a retired police officer, i am proud the department has taken robust action. i have met frequently with law enforcement leaders to ensure the department understands their concerns. this has led to the enhancement

of a host of important programs from the valor initiative, to the bulletproof vest partnership program, which has helped more than 13,000 jurisdictions purchased equipment. we have advanced important legislation from the import hate crime bill. to our ongoing efforts to ensure the reauthorization of the violence against women act and our strong support for the renewal of its central authority. the department is taking essentials steps to uphold civil-rights protections. we have filed more civil-rights

cases than ever before including record numbers of human trafficking cases. in our work places and in our military bases and are voting booths and our schools and places of worship, the rights of all americans are protected. we are grateful for your continued support. we're eager to move forward together and i would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much. later this year in the surveillance provision of the act are set to expire. this is of concern to many of us. we of the chair the senate intelligence committee and the

stools give the intelligence committee the ability to acquire important intelligence information about non-u.s. targets overseas. the statutes forbid targeting u.s. citizens. i applaud the administration's efforts to police itself but i think we can do more. i watch it very carefully. an independent audit -- the activities of our government. would you agree that the independent audits can be an important part of assuring compliance, especially if the audits are made public? >> we think we authorization is very important. our hope would be that we could

do the reauthorization in a way that this happens before the expiration of these acts. with regard to the use of inspectors general, i do think they can play a role in helping sure that these authorities are being used in inappropriate way. >> one thing we've done in the past is to have provisions on various aspects of it, which worries the administration as well as congress to review it again. and from what i've heard, the sunset provision has been a good carrot stick to making sure there is good compliance.

>> i think that is right. we hope we get a long period of time. we do think an extension of about five years would be appropriate. >> in 2006, we wanted to reaffirm our commitment to achieving full democratic participation by reauthorized the voting rights act and legislation. i was proud to stand with president bush when he signed

that. but having done that, having had this strong bipartisan support, we now have restrictive voting laws across the country. recent acts in florida and states across the country pose a threat to our attempts to have a national, fair, and open elections. last year voter id legislation advanced in 44 states. some states did not consider voter id legislation last year. we have had the most honest elections in the country. according to one study, more than 5 billion voters to cast

ballots -- it affects 21 million citizens who don't have access to a government-issued i.d. the majority are young people, african-americans, and elderly. my own parents would not have had a government-issued i.d. make sure that americans are not denied what is probably the greatest right we have as citizens, the right to vote. >> the right to vote is the lifeblood of our democracy. it is what makes this nation exceptional. the work that i've been doing -- i am not advocating for a party. i am advocating for a principle -- the right to vote. do we want to be the first

generation to restrict the ability of american citizens to vote? we have a bad history in that regard. we have the most important civil-rights legislation that has been passed. we see an ability by people that have been excluded from our democracy, the opportunity to do just that and we are a better country for it. we will be strong in our defense of the voting rights act. we will examine on a case by case basis the statues that our past and those that contravene in 1965 voting rights act.

>> some of us are old enough to remember those dark days. one member who nearly died during those dark days. i did not think anyone of us want to go back to that time. in april, the senate passed legislation to reauthorize the violence against women act, 68- 31. the bill is based on years of work.

we had judges, law enforcement officers, those at the department of justice, survivors of domestic and sexual assaults over the country. we had 1000 state, local, and national organizations supporting it. when it went to the house, they took a different approach. they've left many victims more vulnerable to these devastating crimes. a victim is a victim is a victim. work with me to urge to rewrite its approach and a sure we can reach all victims, not just some victims of these horrific crimes. >> we support the senate version. every time -- it is a logical extension. all victims can come within its protections.

it makes for the society we say we want to have. and the expansions was to include are the most vulnerable, women who are immigrants, alaska and native immigrants -- these are the people who need to have the protections extended to them. we support the senate version of that bill. >> i want to follow-up on fisa. i agree with you. whether any changes to enhance

intelligence gathering capabilities or to protect rights of u.s. citizens? isn't it true that the current faa authorizes the inspector general to conduct oversight of the program? >> it is true there is that component. there's an annual report -- it might be every six months that the inspector general does report. as we look at the bill and the potential will authorization that we are essentially in a good place. we want to work with this committee to look any concerns that might be raised in terms of new tools. our hope would be that this work would begin as soon as

possible and conclude well before the expiration of the act in december. >> on fast and furious, i had a chance to review some of the details of wiretap. i happen to disagree with your claim that they didn't have details of the tactics of fast and furious. the acting director described reading those affidavits in march of last year. he said he was alarmed that the information contradicted the public denials to congress. he sent an e-mail warning others -- "back off." the department did not withdraw the letter to me until december, 2011. in july, 2011, we ask for that e-mail from the acting director. we need to see it to corporate his testimony. the department is withholding

that e-mail along with all the other documents. on what legal ground are you withholding the e-mail? the president cannot claim executive privilege. >> we have reached out to chairman issa to try to work our way through these issues. we've had sporadic contacts and we're prepared -- i am prepared to make compromises with regard to the documents that could be made available. there is a basis for the withholding of the documents if they deal with -- >> not on executive privilege. >> the tradition has been by members of the justice department to withhold. in spite of that, i am offering to sit down with the speaker, the chairman, with you to try to work our way through this in an attempt to avoid and come up with creative ways in which we can make this material

available. i have to have a willing partner. i have extended my hand and i'm waiting to hear back. >> when did you -- when the affidavits were reviewed, the acting director claimed he was alarmed about the number of guns being purchased. when did you decide to read the affidavits for yourself and why did you decide to do that? >> i read the affidavits in the summary memos after the last house hearing -- not the one last week, but the one before it. i had not known what was contained in them. i had my staff pull them together and i spent time

reading those affidavits and the summaries. >> how is it you can look at the details when others saw major problems? >> i cannot talk about the contents. i will align myself with what ranking member cummings said and reaching the same conclusions. you reach conclusions on the basis of hindsight and i tried to put myself in the place of the people who are looking at that material at the time it was given to them. i think congressman cummings is correct. >> debate over the wiretap applications has become a matter of "he said, she said" because they are sealed and not

available. i asked to share the affidavit with congress and i have not received any substantive reply. we release the affidavits so people can read them and decide for themselves what they mean? if there is any problem with something sensitive, could a judge make an independent decision and remove any sensitive information before release? if you have any concerns, would that address your concerns? >> that would be an extraordinary act. it is not happen very frequently. there have been a number of cases where -- i will put that on the table as something to consider. if we share that information, we

do not want to live and impact on ongoing investigations. i'm willing to consider that as a possibility to try to avoid what i think is an impending constitutional crisis. >> have the wiretap applications been produced? if so, why shouldn't congress get to see what the and that it gun smugglers get to see? >> i do not know where we are in terms of what has been provided to the defense. >> it has been reported the national security division has been recused for a least one

investigation stemming from the national security leaks. is this correct? how is there not a conflict of interest on the justice department? >> well, i think that this committee and the american people can have great faith in the two people that i have asked to leave the investigation. rod rosenstein and ronald machen are both familiar with these kinds of cases. ronald machen is doing a lot of work right now with the d.c. government. president obama asked rod rosenstein to stay on as attorney general for a maryland. they have shown an ability to be thorough and to have the guts to ask the tough questions, and to follow the leads, wherever they are. i have great faith in their

abilities. >> in the anthrax leak, you relied upon prosecutors to dismiss the cases. what did you assign political appointees as opposed to career prosecutors in this investigation? >> the people who left to leave these investigations have to be sufficiently high in the department to be able to command high people and the launch of people are united states attorney's. this has been done on many occasions when pat fitzgerald has been asked to do this. we have moved away from the independent counsel model which proved to be not particularly successful. we'll see the use of u.s. attorneys.

>> thank you. >> we discussed the plans to close four of the seven field offices. the chiefs in six of the offices wrote to you and asked that this decision be reversed. "it will be difficult to continue in the states and territories served by the field offices." i wrote you to reconsider this decision. they reported $97 million in fines in the last five years. those in these offices will result in no presence in the southern half of the country. $6 million of the $8 million will result from the expected reduction of half of the

attorneys and staff now working in these offices, which would seem to show a lessening in our priority. what is your response in six of the seven offices? will you agree to reexamine its decision? >> the antitrust division has been a priority for this justice department. we can see that that's true. we're looking for ways in which we can be efficient and effective and that is why we decided to implement this plan. we have seen that these cases become more complex and

complicated. they can best be handled by the reduced number of offices with larger teams. the people who are members of these offices are going to be offered jobs within the justice department. people can move to other places. so, i think there is a budgetary reason for this and there will be no loss in our desire to be as aggressive as we have been with regard to the enforcement of the antitrust laws. >> almost all the money saved would be any reduction in staff believes that those people will be given opportunities to relocate. it doesn't look as though we're looking at any appreciable reduction in cost and fewer

offices. i am asking you to reconsider this decision so we can be clear about the efficacy of doing this. >> there are rents that we don't have to pay. there are ways we can use people worry currently have vacancies, so it has eight budgetary impact that is positive for us. >> we have been working on the -- to allow nursing home residents access to drugs to manage crippling pain. there are still a few outstanding differences that we continue to work through. i am very much aware and appreciate the gravity of the problem we are seeking to address and appreciate your

personal attention over the past year. the longer this remains unresolved, the more nursing home residents will continue to suffer. >> i thought we worked pretty effectively in dealing with some of the concerns that you raised earlier. we want to get a handle around any issue that remain. i know that you'll be leaving the senate and out hope we'll have an opportunity to conclude an be in a good place before that happens. >> thank you. well, let me ask you about your future plans. do commend you for your

outstanding service. can you tell us, we want to continue to serve as attorney general in a second term? >> i think you have to ask president obama the question. i have enjoyed my time as attorney-general. it's been a tough job. some raise concerns about whether i was tough enough for this job. i have done a job that is consistent with my values. i stuck by my guns. i have lost some. i am proud of the work i've done. i'm proud of the people in the department of justice. this is been the highlight of my career, to work with you all

and to serve this president. >> thank you. minibus were troubled when the conviction was overturned of a former goldman sachs programmer who stole code from the company. is this truly a major setback for prosecutors ability to go after the theft of trade secrets under the economic espionage act? does it give a free pass to anybody who was to steal computer codes? do believe this requires a statutory fixed? >> there is no question that was a setback. we need to assess that case and get back to this committee to see if there is a fix that we might put in place to deal with that issue. i have to respect the decision

of the court. there is a potential free negative impact. i think you're right to raise that concern -- there is a potential for a negative impact. >> thank you, mr. attorney general.

>> thank you. senator kyl. i'm going by the list given to me by rank-and-file order. senator kyl will be next and senator feinstein. >> thank you. i like to ask you questions in four areas. what exactly are you investigating? the potential to get evidence from reporters? why two prosecutors? let me go back. we have all read about four specific areas of leaks. i wonder if there are others. the killing of bin laden. the drone assassinations and the computer worm activity. you said you would commit to follow the evidence where it leads.

i presume that means leaving no stone unturned. this that include journalist to reveal their sources? do you think your own guidelines in dealing with members of the media are adequate? where the circumstances that warrant testimony from the media -- what are the circumstances that warrant testimony from the media? could you describe the circumstances that would cause recusals? the refusal of the department of justice's entire national security division. there is a reference to the cfr's. the leaks came from participates in situation room

meetings. that boils down to a small and specific group of people, all from work directly with the president. we have seen photographs of the day that bin laden was killed. we recognize people in that photograph. the evidence points to one are more of those people. would it be a conflict of interest -- i presume the president and jay carney and david axelrod are not part of your investigative team. how could they say this case does not present a conflict of interest?

how could they know that? why two prosecutors? do the two of them have to agree on everything? >> you packed a lot into that question? the refusal is not of the entire division. it is that portion of the division that might have had exposure to the subject matter of the investigation. this is something that happens as a matter of routine. it doesn't mean they have done something wrong. they might have had -- these career people not in that category can be a part of the ongoing investigation. with regard to the question of the press, we have in place regulations that have to be followed within the departments and i think those are adequate. we have to exhaust all the alternative means before we seek testimony from members of the

press and that has to be signed off and i think that is a corporate. we have tried more leaky cases during the course of this administration than any other administration. i was getting hammered by the left only two weeks ago, and now i'm getting hammered by the right. it makes for an interesting dynamic. the mechanisms we have in place are good ones. we have shown no hesitancy to employ them. >> can you expand and be more precise on what you are investigating? >> i do not want to go into that which we are investigating.

some of the programs are extremely sensitive. to its knowledge an investigation of a particular item would necessarily -- could necessarily be seen as an existence of that program or that effort. i did nothing to it is an appropriate thing to do. i pledge to make sure i keep the intelligence committee as well as the judiciary committee abreast of what it is that we're doing. >> about the conflict of interest matter -- participates in the situation room meetings. pretty small group of people. does not present a conflict of interest? >> i read that article by mr. sanger. he talked about information coming from sources other than

the white house. let me be clear. our investigation will follow leads wherever they take us. mr. machen, mr. rosenstein have the ability and the moxie -- >> does not present an inherent conflict of interest? the national security adviser, for example. conflicthat present a of interest because they might have had a conflict of interest? >> we want to look at the evidence as it develops. look at the alternative. that would necessarily mean

having to find somebody and have it to staff them up and to find office space. the need is to operate with some degree of speed and as what i picked these two really good u.s. attorneys to handle this issue. >> my time is up.

i presume jay carney and david axelrod are not involved. what are the rules with respect to a division of responsibility or the looking at the same thing? could you tell us whether they have a valid basis for reaching the conclusion that the case does not present a conflict of interest? >> i would say on the basis of what i know at this early stage of the investigation, there is not a basis for conflict determination, but something we're monitoring on an ongoing basis. we have set up in place as the justice department and fbi and mechanism so we can be advised on the possibility of conflict, and if at some point the people who have been given the responsibility indicate to us that we are at a conflict situation, we will act appropriately. >> anything on the last point?

>> about to prosecutors rather than one? -- two prosecutors rather than one? >> i am not going into the last point because i would be talking about things that i do not think should of ever been weak and have been confirmed in this study, but i will be very honest. i will be more fulsome in my intelligence committee, and the judiciary committee in a different form. >> i do appreciate you giving me a heads up before you pointed this out, because i think they are tough, honest prosecutors. one for the bush administration.

both are the epitome of professional prosecutors, and i think it is a good choice. canada -- senator feinstein. >> thank you very much. welcome, general. good to see you. i am aware that around noon since the senate resolution will be introduced to set up a special counsel, and i want to say at this time i would oppose the legislation. the attorney-general called me on friday and indicated he was assigning to the united states attorney's to investigate these leaks, so i looked up the credentials of these to the united states attorneys, and i would like for the purposes of the record just review some of the credentials. one of them is the united states attorney for maryland. he is a republican, but he

served in republican and democratic administrations. he served in that ashcroft justice department as principled that pd assistant for the tax division from 2001-2005 period from 95-97 he worked as an associate independent counsel. he supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution who had obtained fbi background reports. in 2005 he was nominated by president bush and unanimously voted in. the president said rod rosenstein is widely praised by jury -- by judges and lawyers

alike for his fairness. roger maystream has served as united states attorney for the districts of february 2010 and was favorably reported by this committee by voice vote and confirmed by unanimous consent. he served as an assistant united states attorney from 1997-2001. he was a partner before becoming a u.s. attorney. he is a graduate of stanford university and harvard law school. the reason why i oppose special counsel is special counsel takes a long time. if you look at the special counsel in the scooter libby case, it took four years to complete. we have heard they are already conducting interviews to find

out who leaked the bomb plot. now the united states attorneys have announced to leave the leaked cases. i really think this is the appropriate way to go. i am going to support it. i am hopeful members of the intelligence committee in this committee will support these leaks being investigated in this way. i say to have a fight over how we do this now will set back any investigation. these are too scrupulous men. they are both independent, and i have no reason to believe why they cannot work with the fbi and assemble a very strong prosecution team where warranted. i am very pleased to support that. on the subject as to why fbi agents were recused, and you

pointed this out, mr. attorney general, this was an abundance of caution, so that no one who had anything to do with the investigation, a surgically of the bomb as it left yemen, will be involved in the investigation, and is that a correct analysis? >> i do not believe anyone from the fbi has been reduced. i will also say in an abundance of caution, both the director and i have already been interviewed in connection with the knowledge that we have a of

those matters. at least of that matter. >> all right. i mentioned to the ranking member as he left, on the subjects of i.g. reports, i very much agree with what he said, and the committee has extensive language in the report and the bill that we are now about to put together on this subject. there are an abundance of requirements on your department to produce various reports. it is twice yearly. let me just read a couple of things. section 700 to require semi- annual assessments by the attorney general and dni provided to congress and the intelligence report. in addition, the attorney general and certain elements of the intelligence community are authorized to review the implementation of section 102

and must provide copies of any such review to the attorney general, dni and congressional committees of the jurisdiction. it goes on with more. i can tell you this, in the last meeting we had a binder this fall of the reviews. we have also just recently had the attorney inspector general before us, and i can tell you i found them very forward- leaning, and really felt they are capable of exercising a strong investigations and

making conclusions, regardless of where the conclusions may fall. i think that is good. let me talk to you about something -- senator grassley and i had something called the senate caucus for international drug control. it has been very interesting, because in the course of so doing, we have had the opportunity to look at mexico, caribbean islands, guatemala, the caribbean islands. a number of different places with respect to drugs. the senate passed a bill that senator grassley and i did called the targeting transnational drug-trafficking act of 2011, and the bill lowers the threshold from current law, which says drug traffickers must know illegal drugs will be traffic into the united states, so instead require reasonable cause to believe illegal drugs will be traffic into the united states. under current law,, our ability to prosecute source nations traffickers from south america

is limited since there is often no direct evidence of knowledge that drugs were intended for the united states. our legislation changes this, and i hope the house passes it and sends it to the president for his signature. could you please tell us how this bill could enhance your ability to extradite drug king pins to the united states? >> i am not totally familiar with the bill, but i like the portion you have just described, because you point out a problem we have in getting out the drug kingpins. there's a certain knowledge we have to be able to prove to get them back into the country. fifth we have the greatest capacity to incapacitate these people. i think your emphasis on nations other than mexico is really important, and something we have not necessarily done as

good a job as we could have. i have been in the caribbean and talk to my counterparts. the mexican government becomes more successful. the cartels are looking for other ways to get drugs into the united states, and i think the focus on the other places and the mechanism can both be extremely useful. i look forward to working with you in regards to that bill. >> it has passed the senate. we need to get it passed the house. >> i agree. senator gramm is next. >> think you for coming. -- thank you. is the national security adviser part of the white house in your view? >> every time i see him, that is where he is. >> as you read the review of the book about the program and the kill list and the other things we're talking about? he says, and throughout this he

has enjoyed great access to senior white house officials, most notably the national security adviser, tom donovan. tom donovan is the hero of the book. according to this review, and from my reading of excerpts of the book, someone at the highest level of government has been talking about programs that i think are incredibly sensitive. on a scale of 1-10, how serious do you think these leaks are? >> i think they are extremely serious. >> 10? 9? 8, 7? >> i am not sure what 10 would be, but i would put them up there. >> i cannot imagine -- if there is something worse, i would hate to see it. my point is i think our concern

on this side of the i/o is there -- aisle is there are clearly people around -- this side of the aisle is there are clearly stories of people leaking highly-classified information. you have one program called fast and furious that has been an embarrassment to the administration and it has been like pulling teeth to get information about that. when you have programs on the national security front that seemed to show the president as a strong leader, you can read about it in the paper. my concern, i think, is a lot of us believe if there was ever a need for outside special counsel, it is now. what do you say? >> the people appointed to look into the matter is our first- rate prosecutors who will do a great job.

as we look at the history of what u.s. attorneys who have been appointed in these kinds of cases -- >> do you believe it was a good thing to have a special counsel in the valerie plame case? >> sure. >> the chief of staff ended up being prosecuted. i cannot think of someone closer than that person. the you think it was a good thing to have a special counsel in the jack abroff case? >> we can get -- >> do you think it was a good idea in this case? >> the plame case involved a person that was the united states attorney, same thing i have done here. that was the person who got the designation. these people are appointed as

u.s. attorneys, because it is possible some of these acts occurred. if we have proof that things happened outside the district, i can appoint them under section 515 as special counsels. >> you are fighting the very concept that senator obama wrote a letter to the bush administration. vice president biden was on tv morning, noon, and night urging the bush and ministration to appoint a special counsel in the valerie plame case. the cia torture tape case. senator obama wrote a letter to the white house urging the attorney general gonzales to appoint a special counsel in the jack abramoff case. becauseas of extraordinary circumstances. as a result, high-ranking republicans ended up being compromised or going to jail. my point is the political

intrigues are around this is of no greater than it is here. we are talking about people surrounding the president and the national-security apparatus at the highest level, and you are resisting doing what senator obama and senator biden suggested was in the public interest. why is that? >> i look at controversies in make a decision based on what i think is necessary for a successful investigation. >> you know i'd like you. we have a good relationship, but you are being subpoenaed. you may be held in contempt by the house. 39 democrats have asked for more information. are you suggesting giving your

problems in the house and the political intrigues around the case and giving past behavior of senator obama and vice president biden, you would be doing the country a great service to appoint someone to we could all bite into. -- buy into. i am sure these people are fine folks, but i am very disturbed about the inability to get information regarding programs that are embarrassing and the tendency of is administration to tell the whole world about things that are good. i just think you would be doing the country a great service if you followed the advice and counsel of senator biden and obama. >> i think what is most constructive is to follow the vice of the past that has worked. >> those investigations work? >> certainly the -- we are talking about --

>> somebody knew other these two people. >> but senator, you are missing the fact of this is a very big deal. all i am asking for is for you to find a lawyer in this country that all of us can say that is the right person to do this job, rather than you picking people and telling us about how great these people are. i do not know these people. there are lots of lawyers in this country that will follow the evidence wherever it leads. i am asking you for your legacy of the good of the country, reappoint someone that all of us have confidence in. i am asking no more of you and senator biden asked and investigations that are no worse than this. >> i do know these people. they are good lawyers, tough prosecutors.

>> the answer is you are not going to change your mind? >> here in terms of the special counsel was a sitting u.s. attorney where nothing was done done with regards to these people. >> what you are missing is the biggest double standard in recent times that the very people that are in charge of the white house, but i believe have compromised national security unlike any time in recent memory, when they were in this body with investigations no worse were advocating to the bush administration appoint someone to come appoint a special prosecutor that we could all have confidence in and suggest the bush administration was trying to conceal by not doing what they were urging. the shoe is on the other foot, and you are not willing to

embrace the idea you would be better off for the country if you would pick someone we could all bite into from the get go, rather than picking to people you think are great that i did not know anything about. at the end of the day i cannot believe this is even a debate give it the national security implications of these leaks. >> i let him go way over his time so i could kick his speech in, but i would note with the time of that request for special counsel, that was when the attorney consol was testified that he really considered himself a part of the president's staff, and not an independent attorney general. >> and to go if i may respond,

mr. chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that if the shoe were on the other foot, you and everyone else would be screaming to appoint a special prosecutor that all of us could buy into. given the record of the way you have -- >> [unintelligible] >> this cries out for corrective action. >> i have seen the talking points that the republican candidates have, if you have probably use them better than anybody else. i yield to -- >> if i could just correct the record. the abramoff case was handled. -- by the public integrity section. the plame case was settled by a u.s. attorney. >> specially appointed with powers and protections outside

the systems we're all concerned about. you have a chance to leave the country in a new direction, and the fact that you are not going to do this disturbs all of us on on our side of the aisle. >> let's see what the u.s. attorney will do. i have been one to criticize both republican and democratic administrations. if they are not going forward with adequate prosecution. let's see how they do. if they are not doing their job, i will be among the first to say so. senator durbin. >> let me say, we agree on so many things. i do take exception about this administration compromising national security more than any administration. i think that was over the line. i would like to remind those

that are following us that we have listened to speech after speech from the minority leader and other members of this panel about how impossible it is to prosecute would-be terrorists in article 3 courts and should be referred to military tribunals. i believe the track record at this moment under this administration is that over 400 would-be terrorists have been stopped and article 3 courts, and six in military tribunals. that our country is safe today because of the administration when appropriate to send cases to article 3 courts and to suggest that this particular of ministration somehow compromise national security is not borne by the evidence. i would ask the attorney general to respond. >> in terms of the article 3 system, it has proven to be effective in this administration and prior administration. we have proven the ability to get intelligence out of people. we have had successful

prosecution. we have been able to conduct these cases safely without putting anyone at risk in the immediate area. we need to have faith in what we called the greatest judicial system in the world. those who lost faith and the ability went head-long into the facts. >> if i could return to this specific instance here, i recall very well when patrick fitzgerald was chosen, a sitting u.s. attorneys from the northern district of illinois, who conducted a lengthy investigation of the valerie plame situation. it started with the premise that someone had outed valerie who was serving in the u.s. and trying to keep us safe. that was a promise. -- was the premise.

talk about a breach of national security. a decision was made to stay within the department of justice a deterrent to patrick fitzgerald in the northern district to conduct this investigation. i thought he did an excellent and were the job for a man of his character. i am sorry that he is retired. when i hear the suggestion that you cannot find two sitting u.s. attorneys who can do as good of a job on this critically important issue, i am troubled by it. is u.s. attorneys have all been approved by this panel. i would like to ask you, do you believe it is necessary that we delegated outside special counsel, outside the department of justice, to serve the cause of justice in this important investigation?

>> no, i do not. i believe we have the capacity and the people to really look at these kinds of cases we have handled. we have handled cases within the department. i have been criticized for being aggressive as we have been. i have great faith and the abilities of these two gentlemen. >> thank you. i want to respond to some of the things that have been said. we have a present in my home state of illinois. it is owned by the state of illinois. it has been vacant for 10 years. that has in fact been vacant for 10 years. our state has tried to negotiate an agreement with the bureau prisons, which faces its own overcrowding challenges to come up with appropriate purchase price, and they agreed on one that has been approved through

the state government. one of the contentious issues related to whether or not guantanamo detainees would be transferred to the thompson prison. you sent a letter that did not suggest, as stated consistent state law, we will not transfer detainees or otherwise house them at thompson. that letter was sent several years ago. i want to ask this question as to whether or not there is equivocation in that statement. i would like to ask you, and i am sorry to say this, under oath as you are as testimony before this committee, i would like to ask you as attorney general, but will you pledge under no circumstances will be obama administration seek to transfer detainees from guantanamo to thompson regardless of what the law permits? >> take of that is an accurate statement of our position. we want to acquire the thompson facility. it would be a welcome addition to the bureau of prisons and increase the capacity we need for those kinds of prisoners, and we will not move people

from guantanamo, regardless of the state of the law for thompson. that is my pledge. >> for the record, this matter has been debated for over a year. at has been approved on the senate side. it has been held up by one republican congressman. i hope your testimony under oath will satisfy whatever questions remain in his mind. but me ask you about another issue. i traveled recently to soviet republics. new democracies. i would ask ari u.s. ambassador, what is the first thing i should raise on behalf of the united states when meeting with the president of this country. he would say without fail, elections. make it clear that it there want to be a clear democracy they have to have clear and fair elections, given the opposition and opportunity, making people that are eligible

to vote able to vote. i have held hearings in two states as part of the subcommittee in florida and ohio. over recent the laws that limit the opportunities of the residents of those states to vote in the november election. i have called the election officials and ask them point- blank, what was the evidence of voter fraud that led state legislatures to put of the requirements of the law to restrict opportunity to vote? without fail, they said there was no evidence that led to the state decision. this group, alec american legislative campaign counsel has been campaigning to change state laws. this comes into a voting rights question, which you are well aware of. i might add that some of the

evidence that is coming out now makes it clear, for example, in the state of florida, they launched a controversial project that made this franchise voters. they are purging them of non- citizens. only eligible american citizens should be able to vote, but florida's process is the leading people from the registration list has been so careless, it has been wracked with errors. the state created a list of those unable to vote. of the two house -- 2780 names on the list, many were majorities. -- 87% minorities. the overwhelming were registered independents, democrats, and republicans. more to the point, all the people of the state's list of non-citizens are actually american citizens. i raise this point because as we preach to the world the requirements of democracy when it comes to elections, the question is whether we're

practicing them in the states of florida, ohio, and so many other places. in light of the department of justice conclusion, what steps is your department taking were prepared to take a florida's governor and the secretary of state continue to ignore the department of justice ordered to stop urging the registration list? >> we sent two letters to the state of florida. most recent was of last night. i have given authorization to the civil-rights division to go into court and sue the state of florida to stop these purchase, -- these purges, which are inconsistent with the national voter registration act. clearly in violation, which requires there be a quiet period, 90 days between any action you might want to take in the holding of an election or primary. my expectation is that will be filed within the next 24-48 hours. we have done all we can and try to reason with people in

florida through the provision of these letters. we're now prepared to go to court. >> i hope that is not necessary, but what is at stake is critical. if we are going to preach to the world the requirements of democracy in our practice them at home, we will flunk our own human rights scorecard in the part of state. i think we have to stand up for those that have political power and tried to restrict the rights of american citizens the right to vote. thank you, attorney general. >> would you agree with me that given the gravity of the national security leaks that it is important the investigation be non-partisan and independent? >> non-partisan and independent? >> sure, and we can do that with the people i have appointed. >> the report to you, correct? >> they report to me as they have in the past.

>> the acting attorney general delegated all investigative authority of the attorney general through the special counsel. it operated independent of the control of any officer at the department of justice, correct? >> he was a good deputy attorney general. correct. the regulations in place make very clear that someone appointed pursuant to those regulations is supposed to act within the chain and followed justice department rules. it is in contrast to the independent counsel act that was led to expire towards the end of the clinton administration? >> you hired him as an assistant deputy counsel in 1997, correct? >> yes, i am not sure of the date, but i did hire him. >> did he serve as a volunteer?

>> i am confident he has the ability, capacity to investigate this case and an on-partisan independent, the road, and aggressive way. >> the question that raises by your answer is whether you have the independence and ability to conduct the investigation, if in fact all of this comes back through you, and given your track record. i just want to go over -- >> my track record is consistent. >> i will give you a second to respond. >> my record, i think, will stand on. i have shown the capacity to investigate people within the administration. we have brought -- let's focus on those. >> let's not filibuster the time. but the talk about your record. you misled congress in february 2011 and claimed there had never been a gun walking program and had to retract that in november 2011.

you missed lead rep issa in may, 2011. saying you did not learn about the fast and furious program until later. then you had to a bit to senator -- had to admit to senator grassley you learned about the tactics in january of 2011. you claimed in a press conference of september 2011 you had no knowledge of the last entry is done walking program, while it was clear your inner circle employees received briefings and memos, including many others, we need for work, grinler and others. you claim that fast and furious wiretap did not detail walking tactics. i have read them. they do raise plenty of red flags about the tactic. you have defied oversight responsibilities to the house of representatives in the

senate. you resisted producing documents. you produced 76 documents out of thousands. -- 7600 out of 80,000. and you failed to respond to my letter of august 2011 were i asked to about gun walking tactics that occurred in my state. 16 months after fast and furious was uncovered, and after ryan terry lost his life in service to his country at the hands of a drug cartel member who shot him using a weapon that was allowed to walk under this program, there has been zero accountability to the department of justice. you will not appoint a special prosecutor in the face of a potential conflict of interest. you will not tell the truth about what you know and when you knew it fast and furious. he will not cooperate with a legitimate investigation. you will not answer my questions about gun walking in texas. you will not take responsibility for the failures of your inner circle and will not hold anyone accountable. i am afraid we come to an

impasse, the leaking of classified information represents a major threat to national security, and your office faces a clear conflict of interest, yet you will not appoint a special counsel. you will not take the threat seriously. meanwhile, you still resist coming clean about what you knew and when you do it with regard to operation fast and furious. you will not cooperate with the legitimate investigation, and you will not hold anyone accountable. your department blocks fixed from attempts to combat voter fraud, and you have violated the public trust in my view, and by failing to refused the duties of your office. it is more with sorrow than anger that i would say you leave me no alternative but to join those who call upon you to

resign your office. americans deserve an attorney general that will be honest with them. the deserve someone who will uphold the basic standards of accountability. you have proven time and time again, sadly, you are unwilling to do so. the american people deserve better and deserve an attorney general that is accountable and independent and puts justice before politics. it is my severe hope president obama will replace you with someone that is up to the challenge. >> you certainly have the right to respond to that. the attorney general from texas has accused you of perjury, a criminal offense. i remember his strong support for one of your predecessors, attorney general gonzales. i have a different view of that. i felt you are a more appropriate person to be attorney general, so feel free to respond. >> with all due respect, there

is so much factually wrong with the premises you started your statement with. it is almost breathtaking in the inaccuracy, but i will simply leave it at that. we want to talk about fast and furious. this is now the ninth time i have answered questions before a congressional committee about fast and furious. i am the attorney general but put an end to the misguided tactics. the attorney general was briefed on these tactics and did nothing to stop them. nothing. 300 guns at least walked in that instance. i am the attorney general called on an inspector general to look into the matter and investigate. i am also the one that made

personnel changes that was involved in overseeing the changes of prophecies and procedures to make sure that this does not happen ever again, so i do not have any intention of resigning. i heard the white house press officer said yesterday that the president has absolute confidence in me. i do not have any reason to believe that is not the case. in terms of what it is that we have turned over to congress in this regard, let's put something on the record. we have collected data from -- this is part of fast and furious. we collected data from 240 custodians. we process millions of electronic records. turned over 7600 pages over the course of 46 separate productions. we have made available people from the department at the highest levels to be

interviewed, and i have also indicated earlier in my testimony to the extent that all of that is not enough to satisfy the concerns that have been raised in the house committee. i am willing to sit down and talk about the provision of more materials. i have sent letters in that regard. i have not had responses, which leads me to believe that the desire here is not for accommodation, but for a political point making. that is the kind of thing that that you and your side i guess have the ability to do. it is the thing that turns people off about washington. we are still involved in these political gameship. >> mr. attorney general, the problem we have is you will not allow congress to do its job when it comes to our site and -- oversight and you fort a legitimate investigation like fast and furious. you send a letter in february 2011 to this committee in response to senator grassley's

claiming that nothing like fast and furious existed. it took until november 2011 to apologize for misleading congress. finally, you refuse to produce any documents that post-date the false letter of february 2011 to either the house or senate. i am happy to have a conversation about what the facts show at another time and place, but i stand on the record. >> with regards to the letter, let's talk about that. i made available all the material that went into the creation of the letter, which is unheard of. that is something the justice department always tries to protect. we made that available. as i said in will say it again, to the extent there are issues

that remain unresolved, materials that people want to get, i am willing to subject myself to the process to listen to those requests and make available to tngs yet today we have not decided would be appropriate. i want to avoid a constitutional crisis. i will not compromise the integrity of on going prosecutions or put at risk witnesses or people we are working with. aside from those concerns, i am willing to work with congress in this regard. >> i think -- >> out of the fairness to the others, we should go first. i do appreciate that you stopped it. >> welcome, attorney general. i wanted to make one point, and then ask a couple of questions.

the point i would like to make is that it is my belief as a former united states attorney of someone who has been involved with the department of justice, that it should be our baseline expectation that every attorney general, and every united states attorney should be willing and able to follow evidence in the criminal prosecution wherever it leads, and in that regard the department of justice is a somewhat different entity than the other elements of the administration in which political control of the department of agriculture might be more appropriate, but that within the department of justice, we behaved differently. i worry that where this discussion is going is setting

the bar to low with a presumption that then will become the standard that the united states attorneys are not capable of investigating the executive branch of government, which i think is factually wrong and runs against the history of the apartment, and the department has put a lot of effort into building a safeguard of checks and balances to make sure those pressures stay out of the department. i can remember that for a long time there was actually a role based on the letter from senator hatch that only very few members were allowed to contact anyone in the department of justice, and it was a very small number on either side. dark and high points and low points.

there have been all of these offenses built over time. a high point was when the acting attorney general went to the oval office to stand up for the department of justice, independent review of the program was being conducted illegally. if the white house did not back down, he and a considerable number of senior members of that department were all going to resign. faced with the pressure from the department of justice, the white house blinked and the reconstituted the program. but is all a matter of public record. this was led into the white house. the attorney general refused to conduct an investigation was

attached the white house, even though there is the executive privilege between the white house and the u.s. department of justice. that might have been the first time that i am aware of the the department of justice has backed down on pursuing evidence relevant to an investigation because it touched on the white house. that was an unhappy and not representative of the department of justice. i stand with you in arguing that not only should the department of justice be able to do these kinds of investigations, but if they are not, we have a problem on our hands. the attorney general and the u.s. attorney generals have the ability to do that. if we do not think they can, we should not confirm them. that is a point i wanted to make. let's change to another topic for a minute. two points on this. one is that we are looking at

trying to do something serious in terms of legislation to help protect our nation from the cyber attacks that are increasingly prevalent and increasingly sophisticated and dangerous. the core target for foreign and terrorist elements are our infrastructure. our electric grid and the servers and electric transactions for our financial sector, the communications network and so forth. they are privately owned. they provide a critical infrastructure. on june 6, we had a letter that was written to both the majority of leader reid and mcconnell that describes the cyber threat as eminent, and that it represents one of the most serious challenges to the national security since the onset of the nuclear age 60 years ago. the letter continues the protection of our critical

intra structure is essential in order to effectively prect our national and economic security from the growing cyber threats. it continues further in bold italics. we believe that this is to be addressed in any cyber security legislation. it concludes again in bold italicized text that any legislation passed by congress should allow the private and public sectors to harvest the capabilities of the nsa to protect our critical infrastructure from malicious actors. will carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been diverted with the intelligence that happened. we do not want to be in the same position when cyber 911 hits. it is not a question of whether it happens, but when. it is signed by the director of security for president bush. also by the director of central

intelligence agency. also the deputy secretary of defense. what is your position on whether or not the legislation that we are working on should address our should not address the problem of america's infrastructure? >> i think it must absolutely be addressed. there is a bill that has been working through the senate. there are four senators behind it. i am not sure which four, but it looks up the problem comprehensively. this looks at the threat that we monitor and the use of state actors, as well as groups to try to get our nation's infrastructure. i do not want to alarm the american people, but i think the passage you read from the less actively states the concerns we have within the administration.

>> mayor asked that this be part of the full record? >> this is a problem that we must address. our nation is otherwise at risk. to ignore this problem and think it will go away runs headlong into all of the intelligence that we have gathered and the facts we have been able to collect. the problem is getting worse instead of getting better. there are more countries that are becoming more adept at the use of these tools. there are groups are becoming more adept at the use of these tools. the harm that they want to do to the u.s. and to our and to structure and through these means is extremely real. >> mr. chairman, everybody else has gotten several minutes over their time. i will not, but i will do it in a question for the record. i want you to know that i am not satisfied with the answer i got from the department, with

respect to the margolis memo that halls office of legal counsel to a lower standard in terms of duty of candor and a regular trial lawyer, a regular guy with three fouls under his arm is held to. i think that is absolutely wrong. i will pursue the question again. i think answer that was prepared for the department in response to my question sidesteps the issue in a way that does not address it. i am determined to get this adjust. thank you. >> i will look at that response. >> thank you very much. senator schumer. >> thank you. i do believe we have voter fraud in america. i do believe states and cities, counties, have a duty to maintain voting rolls of integrity encouraging the roles

as a way to say you are going through this to make sure people, the people, are not on it. people who are not citizens are not on it. and if you do not have voter i.d., i have observed that someone can walk in to a voting place, they're not a citizen or not alive or in another state and a say they are john jones and vote for that person. that is a danger to the integrity of the ballot and civil-rights required for people to be able to go. people should only but once. i am disturbed on the approach -- people should only vote once. attorney general, in the

fitzgerald appointment, he was the u.s. attorney, but a letter from the acting attorney general told him that it will investigate this. i direct that you exercise that authority and special independent counsel without the supervision or control of any officer of the department. in other words, every u.s. attorneys service at the present pleasure. they are under your supervision. if they are going to investigate cases the reach certain levels of, any person in the position is protection of independence. i think you can abuse the independent counsel statute. i do not think it should be used every time when some matter comes up. let me point out a few things

about this case. first of all, these leaks could very well be criminal. they were leaks dealing with the fact we had informants inside terrorist organizations. there were a lot of things that i think go beyond any reasonable standard. far more serious in my view than the valerie case. she was not out in the field at risk. look at this. "the new york times" article. it quotes, "mr. daley, chief of staff, former chief of staff. the ambassador to pakistan. deniis blair, the informant director. on more than one occasion, and makes reference to mr. obama's aides say -- these were all talking to the

new york times. someone provided them with information that should not have been provided. these are some of the closest people you have in the government that are closest to the president of the united states. it is a dangerous thing. i would also note that in the article, still senior officials at the department of justice and pentagon acknowledge they worry about public perception. that is a troubling statement to begin with. you should do the right thing. the point i would make is that they are talking to people. senior officials of the department of justice. so, can you see how in a manner

of this seriousness that it might be, that people could fill an independent counsel should be appointed? >> well, the extraordinary power jim gave to fitzgerald is extraordinary. i'm not aware of any other u.s. attorney was put in this position, and i do not know what his rationale was for that. as i have indicated previously, i think we have an ability with these two people i have been to follow the evidence wherever it leads us. >> they serve at the pleasure of the president and under your supervision. the president of's top aides and some of your senior officials at the department of people that were talking to the new york times need to be interviewed in an aggressive and

independent way. not as the friendly employees. that is why people feel an independent counsel is important in this matter. investigate separate parts of the matters that may come up. >> i do not want to go into the details, but they have separate matters that they will be looking at. >> well, my time is about up. i will not linger, but i take this as a very serious matter. this is the question of the leaks and how important they are. these are closed hearings dealing with these matters.

it has been a pattern. i do not believe we have seen a greater series of leaks. we need an aggressive investigation. it is required. from now on, members of this administration and the previous administration, should fully understand they will be held accountable if they violate their oaths to protect legitimate secrets of the u.s. >> senator, i do not disagree with you, except maybe in regards about who should do this. with regard to the serious leaks and the need to hold people accountable, i agree with all of that. >> based on the article, couldn't it be that you provided the leaks. it said senior department of justice official. could it be your deputy? >> i have been interviewed are ready, and that was not some

kind of pro forma take it easy interview. we were people who had knowledge of these matters and we wanted to make sure that with regards to the investigation that began with us. and there were a couple of hundred other interviews that they had already conducted. >> well, thank you. >> senator sessions, now i will recognize myself. first, i want to say this. attorney general holder, i agree with senator feinstein, appointing these two u.s. attorneys regarding leaks is the proper way to address these concerns. some of my colleagues brought up the case of valorie plame. the initial leak talked-about senior administrative officials.

what had begun then was just would you had begun. a department of justice investigation. it was not until several months later, when it was clear that the white house was stonewalling rather than giving the information that was asked for, that independent special counsel was called for. an analogy to the plame investigation does not hold. we do not know who leaked it. you can name a lot of people in the book, but who knows who it is. having justice investigate is the right way to go. if we find that some high administration officials are not giving proper information or whenever to your investigators, that kind of lack of cooperation might merit a

special counsel, but we are not at that point yet. this analogy to plame, when even at the beginning the actual source said that it was senior administration officials, still a special counsel was not called for or appointed. you are handling it correctly and i hope that you will not feel politically pressured into doing something that would go beyond that, because you are doing the right thing. let me move on to three other quick issues, if we can get through them. the first involves the lockerbie bomber. as you know, holding them accountable is of utmost importance. particularly in new york, where we had so many people die, including a whole bunch of students from syracuse university. i knew one of the families. it was reported a few weeks ago that the director was in libya to discuss further investigating the bombing. as you know, the only person

held accountable has finally passed away, but it is very likely that he did not act alone. to know that other people are living freely when there is a different libyan government now is not fair. i hope that the doj will renew the investigation into lockerbie. i would like to know if you think that they should do that and if you think other individuals can be brought to justice. >> this is still something that we see as an open investigation. you are right that the director went to libya. i met with the prime minister from libya here in the united states. we wanted counting with regards to pan am 103. this was a matter that certainly he was involved in. i still think there is a basis to believe that more investigation is warranted. we are pressing the libyan

government in that regard. we consider this an open matter. >> glad to hear it. we do not need special counsel or anything else. ok. sex offenders. the adam walsh act mandates that the u.s. marshals service provide assistance to state and local in apprehending sex offenders that to not comply with requirements. one of the national offender -- one of the national regions is the national sex offender investigation and management. as the targeting centers become more successful in tracking down sex offenders that fail to register, they have received a growing number of requests for assistance from state and local police to investigate sex crimes. the problem is that in many

instances they are being asked for help that is arguably outside the current authority, which is limited to sex offenders that failed to register. they often want federal help to apprehend the suspected sex offenders. in cases where the issue is not failure to register, it is not clear that federal help can be made available. let me quickly point out three cases in my state where the help could have been used by local law enforcement. utica, a serial rapist of children failed to show up for a parole hearing and likely he could have been apprehended much more quickly if the targeting center had been involved in assisting the local police. they were not and he went on to commit further horrible crimes. long island, the killer who is believed to have murdered 10 killed -- 10 people associated with the sex trade, dumping their bodies along ocean parkway, the targeting center

could have provided more comprehensive assistance. in new york city, a sex offender who committed sexual assaults on over 12 of victims before he was caught by police would likely have been captured earlier had targeting center resources been available. in each of these cases, local officials would have requested assistance, if it were available to them, and the center could have helped with the favorable assessment between crimes and risk assessments to determine where future bonds would occur. i find it wrong that assistance is not available and i wanted to change. i have attempted to introduce legislation allowing the targeting center to provide investigative and analytic support in cases where these

agencies ask for federal support. would you support such legislation? >> let me say that i want to thank you for raising this issue and appreciate the support that you have given in the department in this regard. we have always been able to count on you. congress has also given us a lot of tools to help in this regard. i have not seen the bill that you are referring to, but i would be glad to work with you on this very real problem. this is an issue that we as a society have focused on too late and too little. >> the basic idea is something that you are sympathetic to. i am not asking you to support legislation you have not seen yet, but you would support the basic idea? >> correct. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator leahy has been waiting patiently. go ahead. >> in our meeting today, use the term constitutional crisis several times.

>> i think constitutional conflict would be a better term. >> one way or another, your use of that term reflects a concern that i share, to make sure that government is operated within the confines of what the constitution allows. like many of my constituents, i have concerns with regards to how this president and his administration have reviewed certain restrictions. so many concerns early on in this a ministration with the president's use of expanded the czars, individuals accountable only to the white house, jobs that in the past have been performed by cabinet level personnel. in the area of religious liberty you have an unprecedented and fairly radical position taken by the

administration which rejected, unanimously, 9-0 by the supreme court, also under the category of religious liberty. you have got a contraception and board mandate that failed to take into account the conscientious objections of religious institutions. reflecting, i think, a somewhat callous disregard for religious liberty. you have the president taking military action in libya without a declaration of war or a congressional authorization. the president's signature legislative achievement, the affordable care act, contains an individual mandate that many consider problematic. then there is one issue that i find extraordinarily troubling but has not gotten as much attention, the president's use

of the resources -- recess appointment power. every president has done this, to my knowledge, but this president did something different, something no other president has done, to my knowledge. he made appointments at a time when the senate did not consider itself to be in recess. the senate, according to its own rules and procedures, had been adjourned for less than 72 hours. this is a concern to me. the concern is compounded by the fact that in the 23 page single spaced memorandum offered by your office of legal counsel, your department seemed to be adopting a rationale that would in effect say that the president may decide, when the president deems the senate to be

in recess, regardless of the rules of the senate. in light of this position, are you concerned that in the future appointments historically requiring the advice and consent of the senate may be made simply unilaterally by the presidents of either party? >> i do not think so. if you look at their opinion, i think that the rationale analysis is constitutionally sound. these pro-forma sessions that were put in place where someone would gavel the senate for a couple of minutes, whatever it was, were seen by the llc -- olc opinion has not keeping the senate in session. >> even though we enacted appointments two weeks prior? >> from january 3 to january 23, there was a 20 day gap and

in that 20 days there was the ability for the president to make those appointments. >> wait a minute, those were made on january 4. only 24 hours or so after the senate had been in recess. was this an act of clairvoyance? >> i may have my date's wrong, but i think that the opinion can speak for itself.

.

>> the reason that spain and greece and italy, if you look it is lowerebt ratio, it than ours. 10 years ago spain give up the right to print currency. the tip of the table the two ways. -- they took off of the table the two ways. it is not nice, but it works. when you bite a u.s. treasury bond, you do worry about inflation -- when you buy a u.s. treasury bond, you do were about inflation. you do not worry about whether not you get $1 back on their

return. there is a powerful prophylactic, but there is an argument to be made that that is not such a great thing. without that kind of market, americans will never make up to the fact -- will never wake up to that fact. the debt keeps growing. more of the resources of our economy are parts of government spending. that affects the growth rate of the country. you end up looking like italy.

>> we have had austerity in this country before. when jimmy carter and ronald reagan were presidents. mortgage rates when your home is 11% or 12%. that was a time of austerity. we do have the stomach for austerity. people talk about the dysfunctional congress. this congress did not materialize out of thin air. in 2010 there was a message that voters wanted an end to big government spending. they wanted austerity. i believe that we will reach an agreement in congress.

you will see austerity and some sectors. what scares me is that our politicians share of the europeans -- they can create the jobs. congress is not taking enough action to create jobs. did not create real jobs. of the private sector creates the jobs. i am hoping that will change regardless of whether there is a change in the administration or not. >> our like to open the q&a session to our audience.

if anyone has a question, we will pass the microphone to you. please be sure to state your name and affiliation. our like to ask each of the panelists, what is your forecast for gdp in the second quarter, and what do you think that will mean for president obama's reelection in november? >> i just know if i can make an accurate distinction. it will not be very good. going much we're over that anytime soon. it certainly does not seem likely that we are. i think the figure that i look more carefully at is the monthly jobs report and what that will tell us about the presidential outcome.

in borrowing a real european collapse and contagion and jobs growth and 100,000 or 200,000 per month. the unemployment rate staying at 8.2%. in that room, it is a shot for either candidate. ad spending, who gets out spent more than the other. i would probably give a tiny edge to president obama in that scenario. it is a real possibility. a significant edge to mitt romney. tank summerrting to into fall, i do not see any way

the president obama is reelected. that is likely a continuation of growth, jobs creation. in terms of other things that can change the dynamic, with the administration really wants to see is a big, sweeping solution to the european crisis which involves the pooling of sovereign debt in europe. if something like that emerges, then we get the grinding 5050 and obama probably losing. >> second quarter, probably

2.2%. people do not focus on gdp numbers that much. but, get to that number, we will be in office. we will have moved on. i think the unemployment numbers will be much stronger. i kind of like his baseline scenario but i think the problem for obama is the risks are not metric. i struggle to come up with a scenario that produces options. i can guess how many things that would go wrong like oil spiking again. an election in mexico that goes against interests. bad news with a new phase in the crisis.

obama does not have a lot to show for his four years in office as it is. which i do not think is his fault. almost every leader of a rich country has been replaced obama survived that phenomenon. amazingly. it is not surprising that he is running a very negative campaign were he is trying to identify why his opponent should not be running the country. his opponents managed to raise people's negative impression of him. in that sense, obama is also in trouble. i guess my forecast to be that an economy could enough we will

see some reasons that will go wrong. >> back in january i was sure that president obama was a shoo- in for a second term. he is likable. he is intelligent. he is one of the most intelligent president's have ever had. today, i think he has already lost the election. if romney can keep his lips sealed. people are not going to vote for mitt romney. he is a hard man to develop warm feelings for. [laughter] just like president bush, this'll be a vote against an incumbent president. it is primarily a vote against the economy. i forget who did it, but it

asked is president obama a doer or a talker. over 50% of responders said he is a talker. civilin a crisis like the war. abraham lincoln was not worry about a second term during the civil war. he spoke about restoring the union. the president is not focused on helping our economy. he is focus on a second term. this american jobs act reminds me of the jobs jar -- it is so small. i think the election has already been decided by the economy. >> i cannot think that is true. i think it's certainly possible he could still wind.

talking about obama is next speech in ohio, maybe, i forget. is to try his prescriptions .ersus mitt romney's the campaign pushed us to come up with some new initiatives, but we do not have any. we have thrown up the stuff to the help that we think will work. they basically admitted there is not much we can do now. it is true. there is not. you can certainly make an economic argument that it would make perfect sense to do that. there is a rational case for stopping be dragged in the economy -- stopping the drag in

the economy. but that is not going to happen. the frustration people have, it is not incorrect for obama to say that congress is blocking his initiatives. but people want a president who can run congress. this is my agenda, this is what i'm going to get done, and congress better not stand in my way. he doesn't have any of that power. there is never been a consistent obama doctrine of, this is what i'm going to do, get out of my way. you do not feel that strength from him. i do not feel like he has all the answers to getting the economy moving again. he has some.

that is why he is where he is, and he is very much in risk of losing. >> unfortunately, when you're trying to convey and economic arguments and the federal reserve seems limited in its ability stimulate growth, there should be more public works are more tax cuts, people are not buying it. the basque people would be the most effective way, 46 percent sign said cut the deficit, 46% said invest in infrastructure. the point is, votes are not expected to do the math. listening to obama say, well, is

not a winning slogan. they only know whether or not they're getting better. they look to the economy and have seen all of the drugs the administration has administered. essentially, the voters are saying, show me. we like results, not hypotheses. i think that is the major issue that obama has struggled with. >> another question. >> i have a simple question. i read a book about obama. what is the difference in the economical promises between

obama and romney? >> their pre start and a straightforward. what romney wants to do is cut taxes. he has proposed 20% across the board marginal rate reductions. i know exactly as a number of proposals for. reducing the crushing regulations on small business and large business. he wants to roll back daughter of frank -- roll back dodd frank financial reform. the potential argument is this and alsotion rate capping government spending as 20% of gdp -- is that what he wants to do? i don't know exactly how the figures add up. what obama wants to do is

actually raise taxes slightly on the top income earners. he wants to push tax cuts on the highest salaries to lapse and extend the tax cuts on the middle-class. and extend the rest of corporate america. he wants to keep the regulations that we have. that is the basic argument between democrats and republicans. >> that is a laundry list. is any of that realistic? possible? >> a lot of it depends on the makeup of the next congress. i doubt they would pass the across-the-board tax cuts he is talking about. he is not going to back off in the general election, but i do not think there will be any mandate for him, should he win. i do not see him sweeping the

senate. it is very likely the republicans take the senate, in which case there will be a block a lot of stuff he wants to get done. so, no. i do not think a lot of what romney has proposed will actually get accomplished. >> everybody knows that romney is a moderate. he is to pretend to be a conservative. so, can he accomplish something in congress? sure. there are a lot of moderates in the democratic party, too. the difference between republicans and democrats were not that extreme. there are a lot of moderates are afraid to come out. but it is a whole new ball game. romney is a businessman. he is against central planning

he is not anti regulation. he is anti oppressive regulation. i think you can give people on both sides of the aisle to agree that regulation is a good thing. obama -- romney has a better energy policy than the president. he has declared war on the oil industry, which is one of the biggest employers in the country. one of my favorite websites is the u.s. bureau of labor statistics. i recommend it for everybody. people never realized that 6% of our workforce is retail salespeople and cashier's. if you read the bureau of labor statistics, it includes not just

computers and software, oil and gas extraction. there are two areas under attack by the obama administration. why do you want to have a war against two of your highest paying areas of the economy? it does not make sense. >> is it not true that has been more oil and gas permits given by this administration than the previous? i do not to cause a war on financial services when you have an industry that potentially can to the economy and landis and the problem we're in now. you could argue that we regulate it -- regulated it incorrectly. i do not know that we are killing the banking industry. >> by saying romney is a

moderate, i think that is pretty key. i think it is ironic that a few years ago if romney and obama sat down over a beer, or a non- alcoholic beer -- [laughter] the two men are temperamentally not that far apart. he has homes in three states, none of which he will carry this fall. he is simply not york caricature of a red state republican who wants to slash of government. if you read the original document, it is a careful, wonky, i-know-more-than-anybody- in-this-room.

most of the things you would consider a more radical came out and the primary campaign, including his commitment to replace ben bernanke. he has policies that would appeal very much to independence. there's not a lot of difference between romney care and obama care of the then romneycare and obamacare -- romneycare is state and obamacare is federal. paul ryan's first budget one year ago, romney treated like

radioactive nuclear waste. one year later, he is embracing it, calling it terrific and wonderful. he says it should have been implemented yesterday and so on. two people on the conservative side, he is an exciting intellectual. grover norquist said, we don't really care what our next president's republican plan is. he only needs five fingers to sign the ryan's budget. i think that is really the big question here. the differences between the type of budget that romney has pressure from on the more conservative side was very significant. i suspect what we will see after romney is sworn in is something

further to the right than originally planned but not as far to the right as he is often made out to be. he will see that the principle of what he is aiming for is more important than the letter he put up there. almost any scenario democrats will still have 41 seats in the senate. there will have to do with the fact that there's only so much they can do. >> question. >> i have a question about what you might see in the economy as bright spots. there is a lot of focus on what is not working and the negative. what do you see as something we can maybe look to and some optimism? >> you guys are doing a terrific job. when the major structural

stories have been the amazing discoveries that prices work. if you raise the prices of oil we will find more of the stuff and we will consume less of it. natural gas, of course, it has been said before, that it is a game changer. one of the reasons i worry less about oil price that i used to it is because we do not consume as much of the stuff as we used to. i think it is a bright spot. a few years ago, the ceo of bp said he will never sell as much gasoline in america as he did in the year 2006. there is a decline in our consumption of fuel going on. that is, i think, an unmitigated positive. >> it is possible to overdo the pessimism and the negativism. the numbers are not negative

right now. jobs are being created. 4 million over the last several months. it is not doing fine, but it is not doing terribly. in some areas, it is doing quite well. europe is a big concern. there are solutions available to them. in some ways, they are also not enormously compact -- enormously complex. at germans control a lot of the money and power. if they could come up with a more cohesive union and share risk, there is a path forward for europe to be solved. restructured in a way that is sustainable. that risk is taken off the table. you have an american economy that has a lot of dynamism behind it.

small businesses are adding jobs. leading this disastrous, everything is horrible economy. we have been through these things before. there's every reason to think we could do that again. i like we are in this era where things were getting a lot better and a few weeks of bad headlines, we are in the tank again. there's really no reason to go to either extreme. a lot of it is media-driven. it does not support a case for catastrophe and another recession or depression. a slow-growing economy that has added jobs. one will assume going or the next three or four years.

>> we are on the road to energy independence. they have extractions' and natural gas. that is a wonderful development that will help our country. the other thing, this hurts the president. it is not his fault, but we are in an era of creative destruction. if you go to your local supermarket, you can probably check yourself out. that is a good thing. it is efficient. it is fast. is is bad for the employees. in 2011 there were 3 million cashiers in this country. the advances and robotics are ecstatic. you do a search of james bond

theme and copter, you'll see an amazing display of robotics that really is the calling card of a revolution. ou take the xbox 3060 kinnect technology and you create a vision of robots. it is quite possible we could have robots within the age. that is a bad thing for the employees, but a good thing overall for society. which is have to learn to adjust. it is a very painful adjustments -- we just have to learn to adjust. it is a very painful adjustment. i am optimistic about these developments. >> we have a question.

>> i just wanted to know what you see, if any, is the major economic impact being held up. >> we get into a lot of partisan arguments about that. the idea of getting thrown out entirely lifts a cloud of uncertainty over job creators who are not hiring people because they are concerned about the cost. you know, i think that is probably not entirely accurate. there is also the question of if it is a split decision that it somehow creates deficit reductions, that it is beneficial to the economy. i do not know the answer to whether it has a huge impact on the economy right now. i do not think it does.

my guess is it is probably fairly minimal. it will have a huge political impact and didn't validate some of his initiatives. it will be a major negative political story for the white house. the one small exception is that this depends partly on whether it is struck down or the individual mandate. one of the provisions was a medicare investment tax. that actually is one of the pieces that makes the fiscal cliff so steep. it will not heard quite as much when we go over the cliff. >> the conventional wisdom on wall street is that it will stand. i am a capitalist.

i was the oldest of six. we managed to survive. i think a capitalist approach to medicare is the best approach, were you spend more out of pocket. you negotiate with the doctor for your treatments and you do not get silly treatments that you may not even the first place. you all know what they are. i will not embarrass the medical profession. there are things really do not have to be treated for today. i think the best way is to get back to the nation's capitalistic routes and stay away from the social. >> i am with the think tank. congress and the president just signed into law the jobs as.

it repealed the small companies going public. i wanted to know your results on that as well as the facebook ipo. >> facebook's ipo, my initial thought is that it was bad. it did not perform well. actually, i think we joke about facebook being overpriced and over height -- overhyped and all that stuff. to some degree, i think it is headlines around it. it impacts the market, which in turn is a major factor. ct, whichof the jobs a

is intended to have other sources of capital raising there are persons who say that it would create a penny stocks and boiler room operations. i think it is probably not all that true. margins is helpful and we should be encouraging small businesses to raise capital and and with it possibly can. it is not a big factor, i do not think, in boosting the economy. i don't think it is a big a factor. >> is there an editorial for the jobs at? -- jobs act? all that said, i think the balance is probably a good thing. we have made it far to the below

difficult for small companies to raise capital. i think politically it is a significant act is because whenever misgivings he may have had, it was a fairly low-cost way of demonstrating that when all of his adversaries paint him as anti-business, he will overcome. to the point that i was making a little while ago, and their opponents' efforts to paint them as more extreme. obama has a terrible ability to connect with business. he needs a teleprompter. he is not the kind of person that business folks can relate to. i think that translates to a sense that he is not sympathetic or understanding how are private

sector works. he did not do anything to attenuate that impression. i think he has directions going forward on policies that are as intrusive towards businesses as possible that are true to his liberal agenda. the affordable care act is one of them. he would have approved it ages ago. days if not minutes of being sworn in, he would approve. he just cannot take the headline risk of the environmental groups of sank i'm going to greenlight this thing. i think deep down, the president would just let that thing go and create the jobs that would be created through it. of this, it is a big political

risk to do that. there was a lot of opposition lined against it. the opposition against this argument is one that just on ground a lot. he does not have the mind-set of a private-sector job creator businessman. he is much more out of the line of mitigating various impacts of the market. he does not have that use that bill clinton did with private sector, with wall street, with the business community. there is the sense that he is very much against them. he'll put in these new regulations, it does not make any political sense. his whole reelection campaign depends on job creation. he will do certain things to crete -- to increase that. that idea that he is hostile to corporate america is absolutely set in stone.

it is not going to change between now and november. he was as have to overcome that if he is going to win again. people used to be fans of his were fans in 2008 and raise money for him. now they cannot stand him. >> you have to love of the people on wall street. i have written a book about this and how they created a high-tech, computerize infrastructure. what happened was, and this was providential. the machine malfunctioned. it is symptomatic of a structural problem.

in terms of the jobs act, we talk about widows and more -- and orphans being taken in vantage of. if you look at their cases, it is rich people who get ripped off more often. the people who should know better. we just project more power and wisdom on regulators. i use the analogy that if you go to a fast-food restaurant, they generally have a rent-a-cop out there with no done to convince you that you will not be robbed. -- with no gun to convince you

that you will not be robbed. people are watching out for you. you do not do your homework. you're just a sucker. the job act, the crowd of funding. keep your eyes wide open. >> we had a question in the back of the room. >> my question is for jim. you took some hard shots today at the fed. i want to think through. what were the alternatives -- what are the alternative scenarios. let's go back to 2008 and the crisis we are facing. what should the fed have done? what would have been a better set of policies? >> the fed should give us savors

a decent return on the deposits. those are used to make loans. our expense was giving the bankers a huge spread in addition to the bailout of wall street, our savings are being used to subsidize the banks and wall street. they should have given us our money. we would have gone out and use that to stimulate the economy. that is my biggest gripe. the other thing is we need to pay for currency in order to improve our exports and make us more competitive. they are reducing our purchasing power. but also hurts the economy.

we did have a credit crisis. we had to unfreeze the credit cycle. at some point, you have to ask the individual saver to stop paying for this. >> can i just -- quickly? i hear this a lot. you have to think of the interest-rate as being the price of saving. the supply of savings equal to the demand for savings. it is a harsh facts of life that there are lots of people who want to save and a lot who want to bar with. they want to -- borrow it. they want to pay down debt. it is not a terribly great time to be a hot saver because you are competing with -- to be a saver. you're competing with others.

i mean, the job in the federal reserve is to maximize employment and keep inflation low for everybody. you can run policy that would have 8% interest rates. everybody would be earning extremely high returns because the wages and statements have been wiped out. the job of the fed, again, is to maximize. there are other policies that they could have pursued that would have worked better. with respect to banks, the big things they complain about is the fed's policy to make good returns on their loans will bear forced to pay some positive numbers to their depositors. they're getting crushed. it is one of the reasons of bank stocks are so weak right now. it is flowing through in terms of the money the depositors are

getting. >> we have one more question. i think that is pretty much the time we have. >> thank you. in a general assignment reporter. -- i am a general assignment reporter. if i was a member of the middle- class, what would i have to be worried about the most? what kind of forecast d.c. for someone like that? if last year it was realizing that someone unemployed, my unemployment is going into month at 12, 14, 18, is there a way for you to know or see, with the next crisis movement would be for that category for your average american?

>> one of them is the student loan interest rates. that is one of the big, open questions. can congress figure out a way to not have the interest rates on government student loans double? if there's not another legislation passed that would put that off. a lot of people in the middle class struggle with a lot of student loan debt. our own president is paid his off a couple of years ago. -- just paid his off a couple of years ago. it also crowds out other economic activity based on the people with limited disposable income, having to use a lot of it to pay down student loans. do we not see the interest rates go up on student loan debts?

which reticulate of discretionary spending. middle-class families are struggling. we see a piece of their budget go to increased costs. there has been a lot of talk on the campaign trail. not so much on among the candidates about this particular issue but the student debt crisis in general and what is to be done about it, how do we address it and not have it turn into another piece of the debt crisis. that opens up the whole question of education, education reform. how do we clear people for the jobs? the technology that will drive income going forward. would not have a lot of talk about that. but i think the immediate near- term thing, the longer-term, the

entire student loan debt. beyond that, how do we get the skills to the people who can use them to get jobs that put people in the middle class. >> i would say the biggest thing to worry about is europe. >> there is that, too. >> i spent most of my life and that economic group. you know? if you live from paycheck to paycheck, you don't really concern yourself. you just concern the worst and live a very spartan existence. if we have a very cold winter coupled with fuel prices, that will be a tremendous burden. food prices are going up. you notice your pain a lot more

for a lot less. so, the other concern is we're not seeing wage growth in the country. if you're expecting a raise from your boss, forget about it. there is more of a wage deflationary going through the economy. that makes life a lot harder to live. >> up front, last question. >> i wonder if you all would talk a little bit more. he mentioned the big things that have to happen to stabilize the crisis. i wonder if you talk about them a little more, like the deposit insurance. the other thing, how hard they are to do and how likely they are to actually get done. >> i should also disclose that i am of my mother -- [laughter]

>> you should have asked a harder question. >> how likely are, those are things that people a lot smarter than me have mentioned as potential steps that could be taken to mitigate the prices. one thing that the federal government did in our crisis in 2008, 2009, was more than double the fdic insurance on deposits for of money market funds to at that point make sure we're not robbing our banks. we were at a point where there was real concern we would have massive bank failures and runs on banks. there was a hank paulson moment talking to his wife on the phone where he was saying, i am more people not be able to buy food and we're going to have real disaster on our hands. banks are going to fail. one thing they would do, they

have a mechanism to do it now, they need some greater political union and banking authority of regulatory union to put in place increased deposits. if he didn't have the increase in which someone takes the money out of the spanish banks and put in the german bank. the need to have everybody assured that their deposits and i'm going to disappear, there euro deposits are not going to disappear. places like spain going above 6% on the fear that you do not have as much as a debt crisis that greece does. eventually, there will be unable to meet the burden of their existing debt. if you have an agreement across europe to put all that sovereign debt into one pool in which germany and stronger countries are consuming some of the rest, presumably interest rates go down and the crisis is reduced.

a lot of this takes difficult, complicated agreements on each of the members of the eurozone. you don't need to have that done. you have to move towards it. this is the set of policies we are going to take eventually. and the split of the neck of some of these countries. >> one of the reasons the united states can run the enormous deficits and bail out its banks, because nobody questions the ability of the treasury to repay the bonds. that is something that spain, italy, and greece cannot do. what europe is trying to inch towards a bit by bit is something like a treasury bond for all of europe. the catch is that this requires an enormous political

compromise. it would mean that the creditor countries like germany would have to extend to the bar or like spain and italy to increase. -- to the borrower like spain and italy to increase. why do you think there will be more careful with our money than they are with their own? we believe in the european project. we are prepared to surrender some of our own sovereignty so that york institutions can make this work. other countries want to keep using the german credit card to solve their problems. for europe to solve their problems, it would require movement on both sides. their credit card will have to play a more important role in keeping europe together and the other countries to realize that credit card will require them to make certain concessions of their own that they are not

prepared to make. >> i do not think europe will solve its problems. unfortunately. that is why you see the stock market here. if your's bank's collapse, we did not know the effect on our banks. that is sort of the secret i have been unable to unearth. i just do not see the euro standing up into the future. >> with that, i think we will conclude. [laughter] then, craig, jim, thank you for this conversation. please watch for more panels like this on the presidential election. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

senate arms committee service chairman said yesterday that republicans in congress should consider tax hikes in order to sidestep automatic cuts. that is next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal" we will talk to grover norquist from americans for tax reform and mary miller. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> the head of jpmorgan chase, jamie dimon, will testify today about the company's recent trading losses in front of the senate banking committee at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. he will also testify next week in front of the house panel. that will be live on c-span 3 next tuesday. defense secretary, leon panetta, will lay out some of the spending priorities. watch live coverage from the senate subcommittee on defense appropriations. that is at 10:30 eastern on c- span 3. >> and nancy pelosi began her career in the u.s. house in 1987. >> mr. speaker, as you know, eight years ago this month the soviet union invaded afghanistan. to no one's surprise, afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with no victors.

it documents countless acts of terror perpetrated against the people. >> the minority leader and former speaker was honored on the floor. watch this or any part of her career online at the c-span2 library. >> the next, a congress -- a conversation on national security. we will hear from me chairman, carl levin's and the joint chiefs of staff. this one hour a event was held at the press club. >> good morning. welcome to the national press club. it is my pleasure to host this morning. i hope it will be a robust conversation with a and national

security in an area of difficult austerity. there's the question that the department of defense and public security as well as the intelligence community are facing tough decisions as they seek to balance the needs with but a reality. today's panel of government officials are on how they can balance this well insuring national security. target to the opening remarks, there will be time for questions and answers. it is a national press club tradition to give priority to working journalists. if he would please identify yourself.

joining us today representing his private sector perspective is the ceo of task. general james scott wright. welcome. with some thoughts on a government point of view is senator carl levin. let's start with you, david. >> good morning. do we dare? the problem with the question is that it suggests we have no choice. one of the greatest threats to national security is our

national debt. as a country we have got to get our fiscal house in order. doing so will require smart sacrifices by everyone including those in government. what we are not hearing enough about is how we meet our goals. we all have to change our behavior. we must embrace the change. we must enact at the national level, not at a parochial level. restoring funds to unnecessary programs will hurt national security and not giving proper funding to the programs that are essential. we must listen to them.

the government has not managed downturns well. if this has led to a hollowing out of our forces. in the past we're fortunate to navigate these downturn in times of relative global stability. today we're navigating a downturn in a time of global volatility. we cannot afford to the national security wrong. we are agreeing on a shared goal. the goal is not to protect jobs in my district. or maximize revenue growth. i would like to suggest three. i would like to suggest three. that must be part of unnecessary conversation of how to accomplish our shared goal with in an austere budget in an austere budget environment