>> sure. thank you. i think what we're seeing and has seen for awhile -- there are a lot of people in this region and hedging their bets against the future. i think the talk of rearming i think the talk of rearming and reforming of militias for the future is overstated. but the temptation is there and the uncertainty about how various groups will advance their interest in the future is very much on the table. that is why i said in a statement and as you said in yours, the upcoming political transition is really vitally important. as i said in a statement, this is not an issue of one party or another. it really is an issue for all afghans and all afghan political

actors to take a really hard look at the significance of the upcoming elections and the political transition and what that means for afghanistan's future and the unity of the country and the body politic. we are already working on that in consultations with the international community and with afghans across the political and civil society spectrum. it is something that i regard as a key element and a key task for all of us who are interested in afghanistan's future, in getting the concept right that the way forward in afghanistan has to be one of a political process, including hopefully in due course, the taliban or elements thereof. and yetit cannot be future the resorts to internal conflict or based on conflict between various arm conflict.

>> do we have sufficient leverage that we could increase our initiatives in that regard? or are we locked in because of the drawdown? >> our leverage is quite potential. -- substantial. i think the logic is there. afghans see that there is a tremendous amount at stake in the coming years. we will have a crucial role in all the elements of our strategy, and not just we, international committee more broadly. one of the core message is that

comes out of all these meetings and discussions we have been having -- most clearly in tokyo -- is that afghans international partners are united behind the proposition that the political process needs to be credible and knees to produce a peaceful transition. >> thank you. thank you both of you and i look forward to seeing you out there. senator lugar? >> i am pleased that you are willing to undertake these responsibilities. i have confidence in both of you and the confirmation process should be an opportunity for us to discuss pakistan and afghanistan to obtain more information for our committee and the republic. i want to raise this question broadly.

deadly brutal attacks within pakistan amounted to well over 3000 pakistanis killed. the threat of violent military groups is pervasive. no part of pakistan is spare. there were suicide and armed attacks in karachi as well as in the tribal areas. how does the government and the people classify this threat? how was the government worked on the internal threat these terror groups represent? can you distinguish between our efforts to support these efforts to combat terrorist threats and the regional threats from the safe havens that is our primary concern?

>> i agree entirely with your assessment about the nature of the challenge that pakistan faces internally. we have seen a great shift in the government of pakistan's approach over the past few years in dealing with the internal threat. there was a time when the pakistan army was primarily deployed along the frontier with india. it is deployed internally and especially in the area near the province to deal with the insurgent threat. we're familiar with the counter insurgency operation a few years ago.

i think that we have recognized and supported this change and thanks to the generosity of the congress, we have a variety of funding mechanisms funding security assistance to build the capability of the pakistanis forces, moving them away from a focus on heavy armor toward lighter counter insurgency operations. there have been challenges with the program but i will look forward to working with you and members of other committees to see what we can do to remove some of the obstacles on the important programs. >> to what extent is this violence undermined any potential for civil government in pakistan?

what are the ramifications to the government itself? >> i think the pakistan government does face many challenges. in the last year regard to the floods, i would say there are some strengths in pakistan it society. there is an active civil society which picks up a considerable amount of the flak. the pakistan military is a strong institution and has been involved in building capacity. our assistance program is focused on building up some of the capacity of the civilian

government, particularly in energy and economic growth and in stabilization, road building in the areas closest to the afghan border. i think all of these programs have been effective. i take on board the point that has been made that we need to exercise diligence oversight and report back to you on the effectiveness of those programs. >> let me ask while teetering on the brink of insolvency on some occasions, pakistan appears to forgo considerable revenue including those associated with transit trade. pakistan signed an agreement with afghanistan.

has been little progress in actual trade across pakistan and jobs continue to be lost. what is the prospect of trade finding alternative routes through iran? what is the total estimate of revenue lost to pakistan during the closure of the resupply routes? we are talking about our assistance to pakistan and the problems they have in terms of internal governance. what is the focus when it comes to trade and other building of income in the country? >> thank you, senator. i agree that the afghan- afghanistan transit and trade

agreement has not fully lived up to its potential. it is an important step potentially. it is one that i was somewhat involved in supporting in my previous position. i will certainly -- i have traveled to islamabad last fall to meet with pakistan officials to urge further implementation. there have been a variety of technical factors that have yet been worked out. i would pursue that if confirmed with great vigor. with regard to the regional trade, one of the promising things that we have seen is the liberalization of trade with india. the indian economy is a period

of rapid expansion. pakistan has granted most favored nation status to india and has move to liberalize its trade from a so-called positive list to a negative list that limits only strategic goods. we want to encourage further progress in the economic dialogue and commercial relationship between india and pakistan. >> thank you very much. >> i want to commend ambassador cunningham and ambassador olson. these are tough posts. also to your family. when you serve they serve with

you in one form or another. i am resisting the temptation to say how great it is that you were born in allentown pennsylvania. new jersey is pretty good, too. i wanted to start with pakistan. provide a little bit of a backdrop for a predicate to my question. it is the question about ied's precursor elements. you say on the second to last page of your testimony, "share a list of combating the use of ied's and looking for ways to increase border controls to restrict the ied's. i am happy to see that in your statement. most americans know what ied's are and the horrific impact they have on our troops.

they now be as familiar with the precursor in greed, the ammonium nitrate or callous and ammonium nitrate flowing from pakistan into afghanistan and become the central element in that explosive capacity. i have spent a lot of time on this issue as have many members of congress. the administration has worked very hard on this. i spoke to secretary clinton about this yesterday. i wanted to get your sense of it because when i was in pakistan last august, in every meeting that we had, whether it was the prime minister then or the president's with the

general, the army chief, we brought this up and they knew we were coming, in a sense. they were prepared for the question and would address the question, express their solidarity with us on the issue. they have lost a lot of civilians in this horrific nightmare. then they went another step to say and providing us a briefing by the interior ministry, outlining their written plan and then the expressed determination to implement what they had written down on paper. we said when is this and they said it is within months. i was expecting some time in the fall we would see some measure of progress. maybe it would take a little longer. to date, there's been no

substantial progress made. you see it in every state. pennsylvania has lost about 79000 troops in afghanistan more than half from ied's. what can you do in your new posting and what will you do in the weeks, the first couple of weeks that you get there to press the pakistan government on at least one fundamental point. this is in their interest as much as it is in our interest to stop this flow of ammonium nitrate to reduce the chance that more civilians or troops will be blown up by these perfect explosions. >> thank you very much senator

casey, both for the question and i do want to acknowledge the central importance of ied's and countering their precursors. i appreciate the enormous cost that these devices have brought about. i want to thank you for spending three days in pakistan and making the effort to spend a significant amount of time. it is appreciated when senators do that. i do think we share a common interest with the pakistanis on ied's. they have suffered heavy losses from ied's. there is a slight distinction because most of the ied's are generated from military -grade explosive devices, which they

have found, chapin leak out into the marketplace. there are ways that we can pursue it. i will work closely with my team if confirmed, with the dot elements, and with the civilian aspects of the mission to develop an approach for approaching the government, as you know, in the early days of my tenure if confirmed to follow-up on this and to report back to you. >> what is your sense as to the reason why there has not been progress made?

i realize the relationship does not help here. the relationship is an impediment to the making progress but i cannot tell you how many times the promise was made to us as representatives of our government promising over and over again that they would make progress. i want to get your sense of what you believe to be the reason why they have not made progress on this. >> senator, i think this is probably an issue where you would ask for me to go out and attempt to get the ground troops on this and come back to you. my very preliminary sense on this is that as you know there have been relationship issues that have perhaps added some friction overall and prevented some movement forward. i think there is also a question of calcium ammonium nitrate

production in pakistan. it is not illegal to produce it because it has agricultural use, so i think that may present a domestic political issue but that is a very preliminary sense. i would like to get out if confirmed on the ground and report back to you. >> i will report back to you about the work. we can both benefit from a previous experience. thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for your public service. mr. cunningham and i had a lot of time here stay in office. i appreciate that. i understand ambassador also, we will be doing the same in about an hour or so. if any of us wanted to be hard on you, hard to do. thank you all for being here.

i know that you all are currently working together. is that correct? or you have spent some time together? i know as we traveled through afghanistan, multiple trips, our military operators there are most concerned about fighting a war in afghanistan that is being, you know, controlled out of pakistan. i think that has been the greatest frustration to our military leaders. i know you have certainly experienced those comments and concerns. which of the two jobs, as you talk, do you consider to be the most difficult? pakistan or afghanistan? seriously. i do not want a long paragraph but which of the two do you consider to be the most difficult. data center, jim cunningham was my boss in kabul -- >> by senator, jim cunningham was my boss. i will let him answer.

>> it is impossible to say. they are both challenging positions and challenging times. certainly being ambassador to pakistan, a country that is so large and has so many problems has got to be a really significant challenge, but my task in a country that is at war and where we are fighting along with our afghan and international partners is a challenge of -- i do not think you can rent them, but it is a challenge of a different order. >> several years ago, we embarked on something called the hobart doctrine. as we talk with people in both countries, but especially pakistan, i think pakistan feud that whole approach to be very offensive. looking at pakistan or looking at pakistan through the eyes of

afghanistan was pretty offensive, i think to the folks in pakistan. we really do not have a relationship in pakistan. or a long-term relationship. it is more of a transaction relationship, almost a pay to play kind of relationship. it has been that way for a long, long time. to mr. olson, as we deal with a country that basically the military controls, and elected leaders are candidly, not particularly effective, how do we as members of congress -- you talk about the generosity of congress. it is really the american taxpayer that is putting this bill and is quite frustrated with pakistan at present -- how do we leverage our relationship with them, since it is more of a transactional relationship, not one that is really built on good will? how do we leverage the resources we have to cause pakistan to act "in ways that we would like to see them act?"

>> thank you, senator. that is an excellent question. i think that we have to remember that our relationship with pakistan goes back quite a ways. the it goes back to the beginning of the pakistani state. for 65 years, we have had a relationship. it has had ups and downs, but there have been period crack of close and intense partnership probably most notably in the 1980's and, of course, that was a relationship that centered around afghanistan. i think that i would agree with you that pakistanis have some concern about being labeled, but at the same time the long- term status of afghanistan is enormously important to pakistanis.

it is one of the critical questions. our interest with pakistan over time is building a more stable relationship, one that is focused on our mutual interest but takes account of the fact that the united states is not going to disengage from afghanistan. the great fear amongst many in the region, i certainly heard this from my afghan friends while i was serving their -- i think it is true and pakistan as well -- is that the international community will repeat the experience of 1989- 1992 when, having accomplished the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan, the international community turned away and disengage. the cost in pakistan, where a generation of military officers who had previously served with

the united states and trade in u.s. institutions no longer have that opportunity -- we are frankly paying a cost now. many of those officers are now general officers and the government, exposed to us in the way their predecessors were. i think that all of the work that ambassador cunningham described that he and ambassador crocker had been doing on the strategic partnership agreement, solidifying the future of the afghanistan will have a reassuring effect on the pakistani sensibility. that will be my priority to have that strategic-level discussion about the united states not disengaging from the region. >> it seems to me that and again i realized that the "elective leadership" of pakistan is more than weak.

if they continue to do things that are only in their self- interest -- the issue that senator casey is mentioning, but also multiple other issues -- it seems that they are concerned about afghanistan, about india not having influence their. they would rather be destabilized that have india have any influence? >> senator, on the question of the doctrine that pakistanis have talked about -- strategic depth. it represents a strategic depth against potential conflict with india. my sense is that the pakistani military and government have

moved away from that. the foreign minister has made public comments about moving away from the doctrine of strategic depth. the chief of the army staff has redeployed his forces internally to deal with the internal threat and heavily towards the border with afghanistan to deal with the threats emanating from that region. there is a basis at a strategic level for further discussion with the pakistanis. these are positive developments that we would want to encourage. as pakistan looks to its strategic position. >> i realize that we as a country need to continue to be involved with pakistan, and i

know that the notion of "cutting off all aid" is not a particularly good way of staying engaged. on the other hand, just to continue as we have been going is also not a good route. sometimes congress can be helpful to people like you by doing certain things that make certain things that cause you to talk with them about that if things do not change, congress will continue doing something. what are things we might do prior to you being there that might help us leverage pakistan. --? i understand all those things, but at present our relationship is very transactional. how do -- and do we have the physician who aided us with osama bin laden in prison?

how do we get them to act in a way different than they are now acting on things important to us. >> i think we need to focus on the core areas of mutual interest. this is primarily in the counter-terrorism area. as i noted, we have made enormous progress against al qaeda over the last decade. we are within grasp of shutting them down. that has got to be our primary strategic objective. i think that we need to have some very candid and direct discussions with the pakistani government about the question of safe havens and the haqqani network. it is important that that

discussion take place against a context of kirk -- predictability in the overall relationship. that is what i would be hoping to, if confirmed, and to the relationship, some sense that we want to move away from a more transactional relationship into one that is based on a longer- term policy of engagement. the assistance that has been so generously provided by the american people has had a significant role in potentially -- and potentially has a significant role in the future on stabilizing that relationship and showing that our interests are long-term. >> our interests are in our interests. i would say -- i have taken too much time. i thank both of you for your service.

we have an election that is going to be over here soon. regardless of what the outcome is, in many ways there is a clean slate, if you will. there will not be the issue of dealing with who did what -- we will have a clean slate, no matter what the outcome is. i would just ask that both of you continue to be totally transparent with us. the fact is that we candidly have leaders in both countries that are extremely deal -- extremely difficult to deal with. in many cases, they are not working in ways beneficial to us. i hope that you will continue to be as transparent as you were in our office, mr. cunningham, and as you will be in the next hour. we look forward to your service. >> i wanted to turn to some questions for ambassador cunningham. two broad areas -- we do not

have enough time, but we can further amplify them in questions for the record. first, about women and girls in afghanistan. by one level, we could assert that over the last decade significant progress has been made when you look at one metric, which has a lot of meaning and value, the number of girls in school. it was almost zero or in the area of almost no girls in school one decade ago. now it is maybe as high as 1/3 or more of the millions in school. that is a great measure of progress. also, the participation of women in the government of afghanistan is also a significant measure of progress.

the concern is that, even as that progress is marching forward and president karzai speaks to this issue, those gains will be diminished or maybe even wiped out as a result of our reconciliation process that results in a conclusion after negotiations where women are set back to where they were or at least a place where the gains would be substantially eroded. embassador cunningham, you might remember -- we had a meeting with women parliamentarians. they were inspirational on a lot of levels.

we think politics here is tough -- over there, it is a lot tougher when your life is at stake very often. one of them, i remember, asking my foreign-policy expert to give me the name -- kofi -- she talked about her father and husband participating in politics, both killed in the process, yet here she was talking about her own involvement and her own focus on the future of being involved in politics in afghanistan. i wanted to get your sense of not just where we are, but how our strategy can prevent the dramatic erosion of those gains. >> that is an important issue. before i comment on that, i wanted to thank you for your focus on ied's.

we discussed this when you are in afghanistan in august. they are now the killer of choice for both military and horrific lee, four civilians. they then are a real challenge. i appreciate your focus. women -- we have something called the woman of courage -- women of courage award in the department that the secretary gives every year. for the past six years an afghan woman has been the recipient. there are 10 every year from around the world. we had a reception hosted by ambassador crocker to welcome this year's recipient, a politician and media person in kandahar, and absolutely and -- incredible man.

previous recipients, a number of women from the region, were at this event. in the event, ambassador crocker said quite perceptively that to be a woman in public like in afghanistan, and the woman is a woman of courage. -- any woman is a woman of courage. it is a marvel to hear these stories and their determination and commitment as you did. they have literally invested their lives and their personal safety and that of their families in taking up a public role, whether in business or even teaching or working in a health clinic or being a politician. there are a lot of female politicians now in afghanistan including at the provincial and district level as well as the national level.

several female ministers, deputy ministers -- the president's deputy chief of staff is a woman. they have worked hard to create this space and to create the space for those who are coming after them. britain's particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities -- it is particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities and a coming out educated, looking for opportunities, sometimes with the support of their families, but many times not. this is a long way of saying that many at -- a lot has been invested in bringing afghanistan's women in -- those who can and want to -- bring them into society in a constructive way. we have, i am proud to say played a significant role in this. we have programs across the board, from education to midwifing, teaching entrepreneurial skills,

language, information technology -- educating women about the law. there is a law that prohibits violence against women in afghanistan. we contribute to a network of shelters that, unfortunately are necessary in afghan society but they are extremely valuable and providing refuge for women who cannot stay for whatever reason with their families or husbands. a tremendous amount has been accomplished over the last years. it is one of the significant success stories and a real tribute to the american people that we have supported that. we have made the united states and our international partners to a series of declarations made very clear that these gains are not to be rolled back.

they are protected under afghan law in the constitution. it is the cardinal principle for us in discussions about reconciliation and the future of afghanistan, and i expect that will continue -- i am sure that will continue to be the case. it will certainly be my point of view if i'm confirmed as ambassador. >> thanks for a much. i know that secretary clinton has made that a central focus of her work. we are grateful for that. i'm out of time. i wanted to turn to senator mendez. >> thank you. thank you both for your lawn service to our country. ambassador cunningham, i look at -- might understanding of the president's goal is the shifting of the military mission to lend assistance mission in afghanistan.

this is in hopes of creating a functioning government that house rebuilt lives in institutions -- helps rebuild lives and institutions. we have done that elsewhere within much more committed partner. look at the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction's new report that speaks to a significant portion of $400 million of investments in infrastructure projects designed to win support from local governments, which may be wasted because of delays and weaknesses and planning such that the programs may not be completed until american troops leave or have already left. i look at the commitment by the united states of more than $90 billion to development in afghanistan, with the administration requesting $9 billion in 2013 -- a look at all of this and say, given

continued -- given continued problems with instability and corruption, how do we justify and expect that we will effectively, if we were to commit to those funds, effectively use those funds towards the development of a sustainable economy in afghanistan, something that i could go to taxpayers in new jersey and say, this is worthy of our support and will be well-spent based upon the experience we have had so far? >> that is an important issue. thank you for raising it. we have a very broad and have had a very broad assistance and development program in afghanistan. the specific issues of the afghan infrastructure fund that

you referenced -- we have some differences of view with the inspector, as we often do, but we also agree with many recommendations they have made. it was an innovative program that tried to do something new which was to bring together several different u.s. entities that had not been cooperating well. and to try to use this fund to bridge the difference between what normally have been short term infrastructure projects designed to influence the counterinsurgency campaign and longer-term infrastructure that is really necessary for stability and longer-term growth, particularly with

this has taken longer to get under way that we would have hoped, but it has taken a government approach, and the program is constantly being reviewed, and each iteration has gotten better in terms of the coordination of oversight and evaluation while it will take longer than expected, we are working to -- afghans and the economy had the electrical power that they need.

i understand very well that this is -- entails sacrifice on the part of all of our taxpayers americans and the others who are supporting these efforts, but it has produced results, and it will continue to produce results. it is really an investment on preserving the gains that we have made on the field at great cost, through our own efforts on security and the efforts that the afghans are increasingly taking on on security. afghanistan is a very poor country. under the best of circumstances, it would still be in very poor country with tremendous problems. our work in development assistance is part of our campaign to prepare and afghanistan which can stand on its own feet in a way that it has stability that is sustainable over time, and this

goes to the point that the senator raised about what our enduring vital interest is in afghanistan. >> i do not mean to interrupt. i wanted to hear you go on at length, but here is my problem. i understand the goals, but we have an administration and and afghanistan that is significantly corrupt. we have an administration in afghanistan that we see has wasted amounts of money. so if afghanistan is going to be a ward of the united states for over a decade, and we are going to spend $90 billion and maybe more, at least, at least there should be a expectation that there should be greater transparency greater efficiency, less corruption, and unless there are benchmarks to do that, i do not see how in fact we can continue to make this long term, open-ended

commitment without a concurring response, and i know, you know, that there are some responsibilities because we went in there, but by the same token, there are responsibilities by the afghan government to be responsive, transparent, honest, and more efficient, and i just do not get the sense that we accomplish those goals and as much as giving money. if there is a strong commitment here, not here for us to give, but for us to get, at the end of the day. would it be my understanding that that is going to be part of your drive year? >> absolutely. i have been in afghanistan for the past year, and it is, as he knows, it is a daily part of not just our business with the

afghan government but everybody's business with the afghan government, and one of the key outcomes of the series of international meetings that i discussed earlier especially the tokyo conference, is putting clearly on the record that there is precisely this expectation on the part of the people who are supporting afghanistan who want to support afghanistan, but we need to see that real progress is being made, particularly when dealing with corruption and governance issues, and what is called the mutual accountability framework, there are specific things laid out better expectations that the government will address, and as we speak, my eight colleagues still in kabul are looking at these going forward, and it is very much the things you say,

greater transparency, greater accountability. we are doing that internally in our own processes to make sure we know where american assistance is going and what it is being used for, and we will absolutely be insisting that the afghan government produce greater transparency and accountability. >> mr. chairman, i see the time, but i have one more question, if i may? for myself, i have been supportive, but it is not open ended support, speaking as one member. i have to see the movement towards those elements, and, you know, i cannot continue at a time when we face such enormous challenges here at home to vote for billions of dollars that at the end of the day do not lead towards a more open, transparent, on this process at a minimum, at a minimum. >> i understand.

>> in a similar light, senator corker and i have a while back looked for some benchmarks as it relates to our assistance with the support funds to pakistan. you know, in my view, it is incongruent to provide enormous sums for the pakistan military for the coalition's support funds unless we are certain that the pakistan these are willing to locate and dismantle terrorist threat within its border. my understanding is that this new deal that we have cut with pakistan to cut the transport of the military supply convoys also promises to deliver more than $1 billion in delayed military aid -- what process are we getting in return beyond the convoy to a commitment that the pakistan military is committed to ceasing to support terrorist

and extremist groups and promoting the taliban and al qaeda and other terror groups working in the area of pakistan. all i hear is them seeking an end to the drone attacks the one successful effort in turning it over to them. again, if we're going to be providing billions of dollars, then what is the commitment, the concurrent commitment here? >> thank you, senator. excellent question. with regard to the coalition's support funds, as you know, this is a reimbursement for expenses incurred in support of coalition activities, and my understanding of the process is that the pakistan is submit certain expenditures for our review, and we review them very

carefully and do not in any way accept all of those expenditures. in other words, we are very careful to make sure of our own standards and our own criteria. the support for counter- terrorism, the record of the last decade shows that we have had substantial cooperation from the pakistan is on the question of al qaeda in particular. we are in the grasp of defeating al qaeda as an organization. a lot of that, as president obama indicated, is due to support from the pakistan government.

in addition, the pakistan government is concerned about the internal threat from insurgents and extremist organizations. the pakistan army has been effectively redeployed. many of the units that have been on the border have been redeployed internally. they are dealing with the threat coming from extremists. on the question of drones, senator, as you well know, the president has said that we will go after extremists. there is a threat wherever we find them. it is beyond a level of classification for this hearing

to discuss those in any great detail, but if it is confirmed to continue to follow the president's direction on the question of defending our national interests. >> i take it what you are telling me is you are satisfied? >> senator, i think that there is more that can be done, absolutely. i think that particularly with regard to the county network and this is a very difficult issue. i am coming at this as having served. for the last year, i was on the embassy on the days that been attacks took place, from the county network out of waziristan. we are looking at all of the ways that we can as a whole of

the u.s. government attack the question of the network and the support we of already designated a number of individuals. i will, if confirmed, take it as an urgent responsibility and the most urgent of my responsibilitieso press the pakistan as for more information on the network in every way possible. >> thank you, senator menendez. we are at the end of the hearing. we want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony and for your continuing commitment to public service particularly with these difficult postings, and we again think your families. it will be open until noon time tomorrow for the senators to submit their questions and unless there is anything further, we are adjourned. >> tonight on c-span a

conversation on civility in politics with a look at what this ability is inherent in our society or a threat to our democracy. now, author and professor henry brady talks about civility in congress and government. >> i think we have to think about structural changes in some of our government institutions. not necessarily real big ones. right now, i think it is a shame that you can force a filibuster and actually go home. you do not have to stay in the pit of the senate and complain about the law you are against and do what you see in the old movies where somebody is filibustering and reading and staying up all night. you can just go home and say that you're not going to be there to vote for anything and therefore we continue to filibuster. we should have a cost imposed on people who want to filibuster. do you want to stop discussion and compromise? and there is a cost imposed and all of us can watch on c-span -- at least some of us can watch on

c-span -- and we can watch and see what folks are doing to try to make their case as to why the filibuster is a good idea. that might mean that we would have less filibustering. filibustering has increased by a factor of 10 since the 1960's. we are less violent. there is someone who actually comes acts of legislative violence in our history. 31 hostile confrontations primarily on the floor of congress. 34 goals or challenges. we do not do that so much anymore. south carolinian is sometimes right? >> right. there's no question there is less violence in the world. there is a lot of data on this. i think violence is a somewhat different kind of thing. we were talking about stability and the willingness to compromise. we have areas were polarizing issues come along. they are tough issues. i think it makes for a real

distinction between the two parties that mean each side really has something to worry about. republicans do not want to lose the tax base which are helpful to them. democrats do not want to lose the spending from government which is helpful to them. therefore, you have tremendous polarization. then, of course, the social issues i mentioned before. those kind of things cause a failure to be civil with one another and a failure to have compromised. >> join us tonight at 8:00 eastern for the complete discussion of stability in politics, hosted by zocalo public square and cal humanities here on c-span. on "newsmakers" this week, texas senator john cornyn outlines the key republican campaign strategy to win a senate majority in this year's election. join us sunday at 10:00 a.m. and

6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> on wednesday the house approved a bill to extend all the bush-era tax cuts for another year. the vote was 256-171. 19 democrats voting for the extension and one republican against. the vote came after the gop defeated the democratic alternative passed by the senate last week, which would extend tax cuts to households that make under $250,000 annually. here is a portion of the floor debate on the republican proposal. it is about 20 minutes. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 8 the job prevention and recession prevention act. in doing so i and my fellow republican house colleagues have made an important choice, the choice to focus on job creation. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose this important piece of legislation have made a

different choice. the choice to focus on tax hikes that destroy jobs. the job prevention and recession prevention act stops the tax hike we face at the end of the year and provides a one-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended again in 2010. the 2010 bill was supported by 85 current house democrats, 40 current senate democrats and president obama. importantly, this legislation allows congress time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform. without causing undo harm to our fragile economy. economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, could lead to the creation of one million american jobs in the first year alone. the choice republicans have made is to pass this bill, work

toward comprehensive tax reform and create jobs. in contrast, my democrat colleagues have proposed raising taxes. they claim the tax hike will only affect the rich. what they don't want to tell you is that in reality this tax hike will hit nearly one million small businesses and 53% of small business income. a study conducted by ernst & young concluded that the democrat tax hike could lead to the loss of over 700,000 jobs. that's the choice that democrats made, to raise taxes on families and small businesses and destroy jobs. america is at a crossroads. as this chart illustrates and the question is, which path will our country take? the democrats' path will cause

700,000 lost jobs. or the republicans' plan that will lead to the creation of one million jobs in the first year? what's even worse is that in their quest to raise taxes on the so-called wealthy, several of my democrat colleagues have made it clear that they're willing to hold low and middle income americans hostage by threatening to let all taxes rise at the schedule -- as scheduled at the end of the year if they don't get their way. now, these massive and imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff or jobs cliff as i offer refer to it that we face at the end of the year. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says going over the fiscal cliff could cost america two million to three million jobs. this will be a devastating blow to almost 13 million americans who are unemployed as well as to the middle class americans who have been struggling in the obama economy. now, mr. speaker, the choice to

me is obvious. let's pass this bill let's work toward comprehensive fax reform that creates a simpler, fairer tax code for all americans, most importantly, that creates the jobs we so badly need. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their choice, to increase taxes and destroy over 700,000 jobs. now is not the time to dig the hole we're in any deeper. instead, democrats should take the advice of people like former president clinton and larry sommers and join republicans to stop the tax hike, work to strengthen our economy and get our country back on track. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. levin: there is a choice to be made here and it isn't what the chairman has put forth for one second. everyone in this body agrees that we should extend the middle class tax cut. the senate passed a bill that does just that. the president is ready to sign it this week. the middle class families of this country need certainty, not some vague promises about something to be done in the future. so the question is, if everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cut, why don't we come together?

the answer is this. the senate bill continues all the tax cuts for every american household on their first $250,000 of income. 114 million families would see their tax cuts extended in full. 97% of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts, according to the joint tax committee. 97%. so why don't the republicans join us in acting? i think the answer is clear. this chart shows it. they're insistent their priority is cutting taxes for the very wealthy. they want to give households that earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut on average of

$160,000. this chart shows that we have here for middle class families $2,200. for the verywelly $160,000. that's over 70 times more a tax cut for millionaires than for typical families. and what makes it worse, if possible is it would add $49 billion to deficit this republican bill also would raise taxes on 25 million families 25 million. those who benefited from the eitc, from the child tax credit and a higher education tax cut which they would credit -- credit that they would eliminate altogether. and it's still worse. the bill we're going to discuss

tomorrow so-called tax reform, essentially would provide someone earning more than $1 million a $331,000 tax cut. this debate is not about tax reform. it's about whether or not we protect the very wealthy at all costs. at all costs. for middle income families. for everybody except the very wealthy. there's talk about 700,000 jobs being lost. that study financed by special interest friends, it's been discredited by every fact checker. and you know, they're talking about 70 times more for the

millionaire than for middle income families on average when in 201193% -- in 2011, 93% of income growth went to the top 1% of wealthy households. 93%. and they come here and say, as their first priority, is protecting the very wealthy. now this isn't about tax reform. we need to work on this. this is about whether the first priority of the republicans is protecting the very wealthy holding hostage middle income families. let middle income family hostages be released. be released. join together for what everybody says they are for. let's pass today our substitute and give a middle income tax

cut to everybody. including 97% of small businesses. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker this house must act to stop the midnight tax hike that threatens to hit all american taxpayers on december 31. this midnight menace includes a 50% cut in the value of the child tax credit. higher taxes on dividends for seniors living on fixed income. the return ofhe infamous marriage penalty for working families. and the alternative minimum tax

ensnaring middle income taxpayers. an average family of four with an income of $50,000 could see a tax increase of almost $2,200 a career. the president says he wants to stop the midnight tax hike for some taxpayers but not all. he claims that he merely wants the wealthy to pay more but the truth is, that his tax increase proposal would especially hit small business owners. as someone who comes from a small business background myself, i understand that many small businesses pay taxes as individuals. their income includes money that they reinvest in the business to expand and hire more workers. a big tax increase could harm the very businesses we are relying on to create more jobs.

in fact, a new study bierness & young suggests that the president -- by ernst & young suggests that the president's tax proposal would cost more than 700,000 american jobs. mr. speaker, what lane will you choose? i urge the house to pass h.r. 8 and prevent a tax hike for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. when you look at mr. herger's district, he's standing up to protect 180 people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle income tax cut for 285,000. i now yield two minutes to the very distinguished chairman

former chairman, and a gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. chairman. i've never been so fortunate in this house to have the republicans state the argument as clearly as they have this afternoon. and i think wally herger said it. it is possible not that we're talking about a tax cut. people are working every day to try to make ends meet. they don't know the wonderful tax cut that they are enjoying. but you bet your life if we don't come together, we don't reach agreement, they'll understand what a tax hike is. and that's exactly what's going to happen to 98% of the tax paying people of this great country. taxpayers who work every day who raise their families porks buy from the local merchants

that keep small business alive are going to find out, probably too late that the republican party says you don't deserve the lower tax rate. then they may ask, what's holding this up? if everyone agrees that they should have it? we're going to have to explain to the middle class what the republicans are explaining to us. that somehow we are to believe that less than 2% of the population is creating the jobs and really supporting the economy. i don't know where they've been or how they're going to come become but they haven't been creating jobs and they haven't been spending and investing money. but even if there was a controversy, why the heck are we holding hostage 98% of the people? if republicans agree and

democrats agree and liberal and conservatives and even tea party people agree that these people work hard every day, should continue to have this tax cut, then why the heck don't we agree to give it to them? and if it ever becomes that we're in a political debate and it's only about less than 2% of 100%, then let's fight like the devil over that and see who prevails. but it's not going to be hard for us to explain this if you do this to the hardworking american people, shame on you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to pause and just listen and think through a couple of arguments we've been hearing over the past couple of weeks from our friends on the other side of the aisle and from the president of the

united states and one is that people should pay their fair share. that's an interesting argument, mr. speaker. let's look at that a little bit closer. so if the president's will were to prevail on this, in other words if this tax hike goes into place, then the top tax rate for some small businesses would be over 44%. now contrast that to the top tax rate that president obama is proposing would be 28%. now, all afternoon, you're going to hear a lot of things go back and forth but you won't hear anyone contradict those numbers -- those numbers and that disparity mr. speaker, because they are true. there is no sense in telling corporations you get a 28% rate and the top rate for small business is 44%, there's nothing fair about that. let's look at another argument. another argument is that this smu closes a budget gap and this is deficit reduction and

we're all about deficit reduction and let's have at it. the little secret on the deficit reduction is at best, the most generous estimate, is this would take care of what, maybe seven eight nine, 10 days of spending, maybe. but who would pay the cost for that? i'll tell you who pays the cost for that. the job creators and the people who are looking for jobs right now, mr. speaker. according to ernst & young and other who was looked at this, some estimates are that it would cost 700,000 jobs. i know nobody that is willing to say you know what we have got too many jobs. let's thin the herd. there's too many people working. let's thin the herd, there's too many people working and let's do it buzz of democratic dogma. we have leading depps on the other side of the rotunda saying let's embrace the fiscal cliff and grab on to the dogma and go right off the cliff

regardless of the outcome. you know what? that's ridiculous. and we have an opportunity here to make some certainty, to move to the next year, not to the move to the next year just for the sake of another year but to move to next year to fundamentally reform our tax system. to create a more competitive tax code that is broad and fair and wise and well thought out and that does what? that creates the most competitive tax code in the world right here in the united states. mr. speaker, it could be great. we could have a great tax code but what we've got to do is create a year of certainty to move forward. i urge the passage of this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. it's ironic that the gentleman from illinois min midses adding $50 billion to the deficit over 10 years of continued -- if

continued, which is your policy, would be $1 trillion. that's something you just shrug your shoulders at? i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, another distinguished member of our committee, earl blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. it is an interesting question, which lane are we going to choose. the study that's been offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle is bogus and i invite people to actually look at it and look at the critiques that have been offered up. but we've had a real-life experiment. because these tax rates that are being talked about are exactly what we had in the clinton years. at which time some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle predicted calamity. job loss. the economy would crash. what in fact happened is we had

22 million jobs that were created. what has happened is that when they had a chance to experiment with their vision in the bush years when they put in place these tax reductions if they would have worked, what would have happened? did employment even match what happened in the clinton years? no. in fact, it was barely 5% of what happened in the eight years of bill clinton. in fact, the obama administration when it took after the first few months when it was in office and could be credited with responsibility for the economy, has produced more private sector jobs than the entire bush admferings in eight years. -- administration in eight

years. the job loss that's gone negative has been slashing in the public sector, primarily teachers and firefighters and police officers at the state and local level. mr. speaker, the strategy here is to continue punting. our republican friends are punting on the farm bill. our republican friends are punting on s.g.r. they're now proposing a budget solution that gets us past the election because they can't face up to their own tea party extremists and they're split. may i have 30 seconds? mr. levin: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. blumenauer spak that's -- mr. blumenauer: that's what is at sfake here. i suggest we take what we can agree on, the 98% of this tax reduction, agree on that, not punt, give some real certainty and then have an honest debate

about their proposal to increase taxes on the middle class at the expense of -- to be >> the political parties are holding their platform hearing in advance of the summer conventions. followed in mid august as republican star their platform process at their convention site. c-span coverage begins august 10 with the reform party in philadelphia followed by coverage of the republican national convention beginning monday august 27 and the democratic convention from charlotte, n.c., monday, september 3. >> we have to be really clear about the very many ways that we own our self and we own our

history and we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, vital, and special. >> if former college president right and comment on politics, education, and african american history. this sunday, your questions and calls for the author of a new book. live at noon eastern on c-span2. the national security branch executive assistant director said he agrees with the independent report on the fort hood shootings that the agency could have better handled intelligence related to the accused army major, nidal hassan. the report accuses the fbi of poor information sharing and disagreements between field offices. major nidal malik hasan is awaiting a court martial set to begin august 20. the subcommittee hearing is over 2 hours.

those that worked with judge webster on the commission. i also want to thank the men and women of the fbi who over the years have done an outstanding job in so many areas and also the purpose of the hearing is to do what we can to make sure that we prevent this from ever taking again. i am disappointed the director could not be here. this would be an appropriate hearing for him to be here but today's hearing on the counter- terrorism intelligence and the events at fort hood, texas. thank you for your appearance today and thank you for the service to the country. on november 5, the united states army maj nidal hassan entered a deployment center carrying two pistols. he shouted "god is great" in

arabic and started opening fire. hassan has a weighted military trial for 13 counts of murder. the report was issued publicly on july 19. the report includes extensive factual findings on the fbi's counter-terrorism authority programs and assistance as well as specifics on the fbi investigation of [unintelligible] and the assessment of nidal hassan. the report analyzes the euro's actions as well as recommendations for other actions. i am concerned that there were warning signs and there were more aggressive investigations. there was a chance that this incident could have been proven -- prevented. the reason for less and less- aggressive investigation could have been political sensitivities, maybe in the fbi.

an active duty member of the communicating -- should have taken more seriously that was. at the time -- they believed at that time. the commission found that the decision not to interview hassan was flawed. i am concerned the culture and guidelines made this the path of least resistance. the webster commission makes no recommendations on changes to the fbi's domestic investigations and operations guide. of these -- if these guidelines were followed, and that failed to prevent these deaths and injuries, it may be worthwhile to question whether the guidelines themselves r problem. we want to understand what took place and ensure that agents are empowered to prevent

similar attacks in the future. i will also have questions based on the report's findings and recommendations and what steps have been taken and will be taken to improve counter- terrorism assessments and investigations. several of these recommendations have a resource implication but we want to consider in terms of the fy 13. i would urge that after this hearing, in the interim during august, the fbi come up and meet with the staff on both sides to see as we're putting together the so-called cr. what the ramifications are and what can and cannot. he should have the staff meet with both -- you should have the staff meet with both sides. the fbi -- i am concerned the fbi may have not provided the commission with a full accounting of its prior interactions. including the return to the u.s. in october 2002 when the fbi dropped an outstanding award

--what -- it would not have been good if the fbi had not communicated to judge webster. i would like to recognize my colleague, for any comments he would like to make. >> we have had an opportunity in a classified session to take in this information and a chance to process it. i want to say that -- it is important that the congress to appropriate oversight in these issues but given the issues related to fast and furious and

-- want to make it clear at least for in my view that none of our work should be in terms of criticizing law enforcement. law enforcement officials are doing an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances and it is easy for us to go back and look at these things and we should create better policies going for a period -- for it. the chairman, whose father was himself a policeman, has a greater appreciation for law enforcement. i think the issues here in terms of what we ought to do going forward are well represented in the 18 recommendations the commission

has laid out. as we did looking at the mcveigh case, when there are these horrific incidents, we have to look and make sure that we are doing all we can do, but there is little ability to figure out exactly what an individual is actually a two in all circumstances. i think the commission under the webster commission for the work it has done. the chairman is correct to say that obviously we do need to look at how we prioritized leads and this question between discretionary lades and it will have some discussion about the fact -- the policy has been changed. i want to welcome you to the hearing and i will think the

bureau for the work it does each and every day to protect the united states of america and it's the sense in -- and the great work you have done since 9/11 to deal with this real focus of -- to -- changing this book is to terrorism. you're trying to prevent incidents versus catching the bad guy. i look forward to your testimony. >> you may proceed. >> thank you. good morning, chairman members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. following the tragic events of fort hood, the fbi director ordered an immediate internal review of what the fbi knew about major the $ -- nidal hassan. the fbi identified several

shortcomings in our training and we started to take corrective action almost immediately. the director recognized the need for a broader, more independent review on how the fbi handled and acted on counter-terrorism intelligence before the fort hood shootings. the director for -- former director -- to conduct the review. as has been stated judge webster completed the report and the report has been made available to congress and to the public. the webster commission have full access to fbi holdings. the conducted more than 100 formal and informal interviews and meetings and briefings and they reviewed more than 10,000 fbi documents. the commission also consulted outside experts on counter- terrorism and intelligence operations on information

technology and on violent extremism. the commission found a number of shortcomings in fbi policies in its technology and training and made 18 recommendations for corrective action. as you know, there are limits to what can be discussed today in an open hearing and hassan is the subject of an ongoing criminal prosecution. many aspects of the information related to this matter remain classified. as was noted, we did provide a full classified briefing and will answer as many questions as we can in this open setting. next, let me summarize the commission's findings and recommendations and review the corrective actions taken by the fbi already. the committee opposing recommendations fall generally into four distinct categories. one was information sharing. operational policies, as was noted. information technology and trading. i will discuss shortly each one. starting with information sharing. the commission found that more formation could have and should have been shared -- information could have and should have been shared from the headquarters level.

from the fbi to the pentagon. our -- review came to the same conclusion. the fbi and department of defense created new information sharing agreements regarding counterterrorism investigations of military personnel. this agreement made sure that senior pentagon officials as well as the department of defense task force officers on jttf's the fbi continued to work closely with the military in these matters and have clear policies in place to make sure that information sharing continues. turning to operational policy. the commission recommended there be clear policies covering all counter-terrorism lead and for resolving disputes as they relate to those leads. we will get into that more as the questions come up. the internal review found similar issues with the policy. as a result the fbi has set new time limits and reinforced our existing policy and responsibility for every one of the leads and provided

additional guidance to make clear that any disputes must be pushed up to the supervisor level both in the field office and at headquarters. lastly, the fbi has provided enhanced analytical investigative resources for strategically significant investigations to make sure that all proper steps are taken and there is additional oversight. in the area of good rational technology, and include software and search capabilities in are classified data bases could have assisted the investigators in the one in san diego and the one in the washington field office. the fbi develop new software improvements to connect intelligence information more effectively and efficiently. new programs and now up and running and the fbi is providing greater search capabilities across all holdings. the commission made

recommendations to improve training for all joint terrorism task force officers related to the intelligence bases. within months the fbi had entreated -- completed training and we have since instituted a nine-day mandatory training course for all agency participants. there are additional detailed recommendations and we have publicly responded to each on our website. as we stayed on a daily basis, the fbi and its partners across the globe must identify and respond to palace terrorism threats. we do this in an ever-changing and complex environment. in recent years we have been able to disrupt dozens of terrorist plots. we know that the threat never wanes and we cannot overlook a single lead. at the fbi we accept this responsibility every day and we are committed to improving our

capabilities to protect this great nation out and in the future. with that, a look forward to your questions. >> i ask unanimous consent that he be able to sit, since board who was in his district. >> the first question, the reason that hus on first comes to anyone's attention is his initiation of contacted it becomes important to understand who the fbi thought him to be. and understand what the government knew about him at the time. according to the report, he was under full investigation by the washington field office starting in 2001. the report mentions he moved to england in spring of 2002 but does not mention his return to the u.s. in october 2002. the outstanding warrant for his arrest was inexplicably withdrawn by the washington field office. why was the return to the u.s.

not referenced in the report and why was the warrant withdrawn that he was under full investigation at the time? >> he did return in 2002. there was a diplomatic security service warrant out for him. we knew he was coming back and had information that he was coming back. the colorado u.s. attorney's office looked at the warrant and the factual basis for the warrant. it was not an fbi warrant and was dismissed simply because they did not feel they had the ability to prosecute him for the alleged passport fraud. it was not an fbi warrant and certainly if we felt that a warrant was good and there was a way we could have incarcerated him at the time, we would have done that.

that was a state department warrant. the u.s. attorneys will look at a warrant when somebody is coming back into the country to see a process can be served bid that determined there was not enough evidence to prosecute him on that passport fraud case there. >> it was very unusual and at the time it was early in the morning. there is more there than i think is obvious. why was the return to the u.s. not referenced in the report? did the judge know of his return? >> the commission had full access to all of his information. it was not an fbi warrant and we did not ask for it to be dismissed. >> of york confident that judge webster knew of his return and the fbi told him of that return?

>> i am confident he had all the documentation that would have referenced this. >> if he was under full investigation from 2001-2003 why was he approved by dod security to speak at the pentagon? >> i cannot speak for dod. i cannot answer your question. >> what was the fbi's understanding of the relationship between him and the 9/11 hijackers in january 2009? >> after 9/11, he came up in a commission report and there were allegations that he had supported some of the 9/11 hijackers. investigation was done to try to determine whether he had anything to do with 9/11.

early on he was the imam of a mosque where some of the hijackers went and then transferred to a mosque in falls church, virginia. we interviewed him after 9/11 on three separate occasions. he identified one of the hijackers as someone he knew as going to his mosque. we were never able to obtain any evidence that showed he knew beforehand about 9/11 or supported the 9/11 hijackers . >> based on history, do you think that is still accurate? >> i do, sir. >> did he ever meet with him? >> not that we know of. >> did he meet with the 9/11 hijackers? >> he was the imam of a mosque in san diego where we know to of the 9/11 hijackers went. he admitted that one of the

hijackers went to his moscow. he knew him -- win to his mosque. we were never able to substantiate any intimation that he supported the 9/11 hijackers. >> report comes in and the connection of any communication with him would have said that something is wrong here. report was issued on the fort hood incident. a statement praised the webster report. they also stated that we are concerned that the report fails to address the specific cause for the fourth attack, which is violent islamic extremists and. do you believe it was specific or was it because of the court had a tax?

>> i cannot say specifically. >> do you believe it played any role at all? >> he is getting ready to go to trial. i cannot comment on what was in his mind when he made that determination. clearly al-awlaki was well known within the community. he was a propagandist at that point. we know from some of the e- mails hasan saw him as a leader and an activist, but i cannot get into his head. >> have there been specific changes in the way the fbi approaches and responds to islam is extremists based on the lessons learned from fort hood? >> there been a number of changes made, starting with radicalization. this comes from the senate committee report. we have added classes on radicalization so at the earliest stages, our agents are looking for and no -- it is then

all of our basic courses for a joint terrorism task forces. there is more training on radicalization from the standpoint of understanding an individual like al-awlaki. when somebody is moving from a propagandist to being operational, where we saw him go later, there needs to be field office eyes on what we are recovering, like the e-mails. there needs to be additional from the community from some of the interagency so we make sure there is a fuller picture of someone like al-awlaki and those that have incoming contact with him.

>> there seems to be a significantly different view of his relationship with al-awlaki between san diego in the washington field office. what was the fbi assessment of al-awlaki until he contacted hasan through his website? >> that is an interesting question. we looked at al-awlaki for a number of years. in that timeframe, al-awlaki was incarcerated in yemen. we interviewed him while he was in jail. he gets out at the end of 2007 and comes on line very quickly with his website, and mocks the

very careful line between what he puts on his website and his e-mails. the interagency intelligence community begins to look at al- awlaki to determine whether he has become operational. we do not see that at that point. at that time we are just looking at him. he appears to be a propagandist. there is information and he is starting to get involved with individuals who are related to aq. our understanding is that time is he is an individual who was born in the u.s., spent time in yemen, was educated in the u.s.. for many people, he was considered an individual they went to advice for. we also know he was becoming more radical at that time. that is the look that we had in that snapshot of time.

>> who were some of the people that we know of who worked radicalized by a lot dee perry >> there are a number of other investigations -- who were radicalized by al-awlaki. >> there was a sermon is hot line. without a doubt he was part of the radicalization process. >> i know he looked at al- awlaki. >> there are a number of others. will you submit for the record who you believe for part who was radicalized? the prior investigations shake the fbi's understanding our misunderstanding of the threat he posed? >> i think if you look at the lead that came out of san diego, that felt that they had

an accurate reflection of what al-awlaki was at that time, at that snapshot of time. >> how many other u.s. government or military employees were found to have contacted all lockheed during this time? have these individuals been fully investigated and it in the hold security clearances liked hasan did? a story indicated that the fbi has conducted over 100 investigations within the u.s. military. is that accurate? >> the exact number is classified so i cannot talk about it in this setting. it is something that we looked

at very carefully. there are many investigations we are running jointly with the department of defense right now. to get your point, we believe we know who has been in contact with al-awlaki or at least potentially having listened to him, his sermons, etc. i believe we have them will cover. >> the e-mail shown in the report are troubling and the first e-mail raises the question of religious justification for muslims in the u.s. armed forces' killing other u.s. soldiers. he praises al-awlaki's religious understanding and ask for a reply. it is hard for me to understand the context of what such -- why such an exchange was found to be benign without any

investigation. does that seem unusual to you? >> there are a couple of issues here. the commission found that we certainly fell short. hasan is asking al-awlaki to make some general comments about muslims in the military from his e-mail number one. the second e-mail which is pushed forward and san diego pushes that lead to the washington field office and says all the e-mails may seem somewhat in eight, if he should be in the military it is something that should concern you. a couple of things occurred. there were additional e-mails that the field office agent was not privy to. when he looked at these two, he did a couple of things. he went to his dod counterpart.

the task force agents from the department of defense. he does database searches on hasan 2/6 -- to see if he is tied to any other terrorist group or anyone have under investigation. then he asked them to provide him their reports on him. he goes to his online files. he goes to the defense manpower data center and retrieves 30 files from dod. he retrieves his defense employee interactive data systems and retrieves about five or six of his recent performance appraisals. the agent does the checks and finds nothing else unusual about hasan.

within that month he had been promoted from captain to major. the other thing and he found unusual is that he held a secret security clearance and at the time was getting his master's degree, specifically talking about what it was like to be a muslim in the military and the conflict that occurred there. so when he looked at -- he was lauded for his research there saying it was cutting edge and was looked at by his peers as cutting edge research. >> over his standpoint, he is looking at an individual who hold secret security clearance who has recently been promoted from captain to major, who is not trying to hi his invitation -- his identification in any form from pawloski. -- from al-awlaki.

he believes that it is in line with the research he is doing from where he sits. all his performance appraisals are positive. they state that he should be promoted, and he does not want to take a chance to move forward at that time and potentially risk the fact that al-awlaki is under investigation. again, a snapshot in time. we can go back and second-guess that task force officer, and again, i am not making excuses. i am trying to put it into context with what he had available to him at the time he made that decision. >> i have a few more questions. did the effort by -- did the fbi questioning follow the guidelines as delineated in the

operation guidelines, and if so does that indicate a problem with the guidelines in that it discourages the greater pursuit of leads? when it was adopted, and how does it differ previous guidelines? were outside groups involved? >> i don't think so. >> when it was adopted, how does it differ from previous guidelines? the believe it should be changed to encourage more investigation of leaks, based on the circumstances? it is mentioned in the webster report. >> i will try to get all your points.

the first question, did the agents follow the guidelines and the way it was written at the time. the answer is they did. >> does that mean it should be changed to encourage more investigation of leaks? somehow as i did into this here is an individual who follows the guidelines and the guidelines results in 13 people dead and numerous wounded. should the guidelines be changed? >> we have changed a number of things since this occurred. at the time, the lead was set as a discretionary lead. that has been changed. there are no longer discretionary leads. it asked the agents to use the least intrusive methods possible.

gives an escalation of our ability to utilize the tools congress has given us to investigate those potentially involved in terrorism. its state that we need to use the least intrusive means necessary as we escalate the tools available to us. in this case, acting under those rules, the least intrusive, the agent felt that with the database if he had checked and the information that came out of the dod files, with the fact that he used his own name and did not try to hide it his recent promotion, he had done everything it needed to do based on information he had. the way it is that right now it gives us the tools to do what we need to do. >> so you do not think it needs to be changed? >> i believe we have the tools available to do what we need our investigators are among the

most aggressive in the world. when we armchair quarterback and second-guess, which we need to do to make sure we get better at what we do, i believe the tools of their period of a live the way it is written it gives us the ability to do it and i believe the fact that it requires us to use the least intrusive means to be able to escalate the tools you have given us, it make sure that we are walking that fine balance between protecting civil liberties in this country and making sure there is not another 9/11. >> the report faulted the decision not to interview hasan. the washington field office feared it could jeopardize the al-awlaki investigation.

the washington field office believed that an interview did not satisfy the least intrusive means test. a simple records check was clearly not sufficient to uncover the threat. what could have been done to determine whether hasan was involved in terrorist activities? are you confident that in a similar case today, two years from now or another year from now, we will wake up and a newspaper some morning something like this has happened again. what further could have been done to determine whether he was involved in terrorist activity and are you confident and is the fbi confident that in a similar case today, an agent would feel empowered to pursue with their instincts -- what their instincts tell them that

there was something amiss. would we take the current circumstances and are you confident that in a similar case we would not have another of fort hood? >> there are two prongs to the answer to that question. first of all, the way the information sharing set up is now with the department of defense, so at the ground level, the fbi shared with the individuals on the task force the information it had. where there was a clear lath is there was not headquarters to the pentagon sharing of information. had that happen, there is a possibility we would have seen the dod look at hasan differently and that could have

changed the complexity of the investigation. the second thing that has changed is when there is a difference of opinion between a san diego and a washington field office, it needs to be pushed up to management so they will help steer that direction. that potentially could have changed what happened. i don't think we will ever know whether an interview would have changed anything, but it would have allowed us to get a better handle on what the fbi had and what the department of defense on the ground had. >> why was it that it was not done? why did they not go to the higher authority directly? >> that is a great question and i do not have a good answer for that. it happens every single day where there are disagreements on the complexity or tone of how

we conduct an investigation. they are pushed up to management and headquarters. headquarters is involved. in this case, -- gillon >> is this the san diego office? >> that is correct, sir pitt >> was a a lack of aggressiveness on their part? >> -- that is correct, sir. >> i think san diego felt they should have been more aggressive. it did not get pushed up the san diego chain of command, which would have pushed it up to headquarters. we would most likely have said we wanted an interview to be conducted. >> a final phone call -- i commend the bureau. the public report almost has as

much information as you need. the final phone call between san diego and the washington field office included an exchange of interview and muslims who visit extremist website as a politically sensitive subject. the conversation was to have considered this. what does this mean to you? was political correctness why this was not a lead? what has been done to prevent the reoccurrence? i have a number of fbi come up to me. they believe there is a political correctness and cruelty into the department of justice and interior. it was said it was a bipartisan thing. they said the same thing with the final years of the bush

administration. what does that mean to you? >> i am aware of the comments you are making. the report did not define political credit mess that was responsible for his lack of going forward with the interview. that is a snapshot of the conversation that took place. the agent on the receiving end is not recall that. it is hardest for me to get into the minds. i do not believe plans cool christmas -- political correctness have a thing to do with this. it is easy to go back in second guess. i believe an interview would have proven but i do not believe political correctness was a reason.

>> some time, all of that the opportunity to speak to the field office. i want to ask them. bad i am making this official request to meet with them. i really want to know, i want to make sure this never, ever happens again, and no lead is not pursued because of fear that your career will be ruined because you do something that may save people's lives. >> thank you, and i want to thank the chairman. let me cover a number of pieces of this puzzle. right after 9/11, former speaker newt gingrich was testifying. i asked him a question, at that point, it was about how far we needed to go to prevent future

9/11's. and i have reminded the speaker we have criticized countries like china for locking people up without charges, not having access to lawyers, so forth and so on, and what was going to be the rule of law relative to these new challenges because our system of criminal justice in the country was basically on the notion that we would rather somebody guilty go free than someone innocent be convicted right? so we kind of lean on protecting people's rights and due process. but terrorism is a different situation because you try to prevent the incident and the first place. i don't vary much by an to the notion of political correctness. i think we have an issue out around constitutional correctness, when you have an

american citizen that questions whether they can listen to or read something or associate themselves in some grouping. it is pretty clear in the constitution those things are protected. and then there is a set of actions that are of concern. now, this question of radicalization is not new in the military. there have been any number of groups the fbi has to be concerned about, attempting to either get members train to the military or to radicalized present members of the military. and this has nothing to do with any particular set of dynamics. this is a concern on going. i thought congressman dicks's

question was interesting this issue of dod and coordination is something we may want to structurally look at better, because maybe we need to create a process in which the fbi could have greater access and maybe some joint alignment with some of the investigating units inside of dod. i was out at the terrorist screening center in virginia and the agency seemed to be working well together. the agencies seem to be working well together, and obviously a lot of good work is taking place, but we need to be mindful as we go forward that we have constitutional prohibitions, a constitutional protections, depending on one might view it. i believe it is our right to

uphold the constitution, and that each of our agencies of the government have that responsibility. when we determined political correctness, i think that it cheapens the issue. we have a responsibility to follow these rules, and we also have a responsibility to create a safe environment as possible. i want to go to what the bureau's responses to these recommendations. they have been made in a number of different categories. if you could take the time in this hearing, which this hearing is about these recommendations and how we will go forward, and respond to the recommendations i would appreciate it. >> thank you, sir. just a couple of comments, if it is. and, regarding our relationship with dod and how it is indicated.

they have increased the number of personnel throughout the country, and the kind of node that we coordinate all of these investigations now occurs at the national joint terrorism task force with the deputy is a member of the department of defense. so that deputy is a dod person. he sees every investigation that touches the military immediately, and is the belly button that pushes that over to the put pick on rigid over to the pentagon. so that formal process that you spoke about is in place, and that would be glad to talk with you about that more offline. and it's kind of go through the recommendations. one of the recommendations surrounded training, and one of the concerns was there was not enough training done through jttf personnel especially

relating to the number of databases the bureau has and where collection is stored. we recognize that immediately after 9/11 and brought some 3000-plus task force officers to be trained in our databases. the director asked us to look further into training and step back and assess whether the training we were giving to our jttf as a whole was enough. we went back and looked at that and change the way we do training as a whole for the personnel. there were a number of on-line courses they took before they came on and regional training, but now that has been moved to quantico and it has gone from a couple of days to a nine-day mandatory basic training for everybody. >> this new system, and the chairman has led the way, and we have invested tens of millions of dollars in this, this is the training through 3000 on this

new system to access the databases? >> that is right, so that process will continue. the training will continue, some of the new software that we have been able to purchase, again, at the behest of the committee to help us do a better job analyzing data is also being pushed out and trained. the other issues could your earlier comments, just about the lead being covered, how it was covered, and disagreements and how those are taking place. there are a number of policy issues that have been identified and changed. it took too long and both our opinion and in the opinion of the other committees to cover the lead it to begin with. we have changed policy there. it reiterates and requires leads to be covered in a shorter time and duration.

>> in plain english, this came as a discretionary lead. we have eliminated that. there is no discretionary lead and there is a timeline to follow-up on all leads? >> that is correct discretionary leads wert discontinued immediately. the time line for routine leads was tightened up. we have also reiterated in a number of venues and change the policy -- we have written policy where there is disagreement in the leads and that needs to be pushed up to the supervisor and the officer and the appropriate oversight group at headquarters. i think the other point, going back to the comment, is that we have also looked at other cases and decide it that not only did the leads need to be covered more carefully and closely but they need another group to oversee them. there is a robust analytical

group back at headquarters that looks at those individuals to make sure that there is nothing that is missed in those leads as they go out. the other thing that was highlighted, and i think rightfully so, in the commission report was the i.t. system being used to look at the email. it required the case agents to go back and the analyst to go back every time there was a new e-mail to search and see what other emails were in the queue. that was fine for the way we used to do business, but an individual like lackey, that system simply was not up to par for what it needed to be. now the system has been changed so if there is an email of interest, where a court authorizes us to look at or we are able to get those emails, the system automatically threads all of those email together and also tips the case agents or the analyst when a

lead has been set as it relates to that specific e-mail address. the point is that some of those other emails that were not pushed to the washington field office would have been queued up by the system automatically selected look at them as a whole and maybe make a more informed decision. >> let's drill down to this in english. go back to the first point. the point is there have been changes, and we went through some of this and a classified briefing, but there have been significant changes in the pruning of the information, the way that it is looked at and total, so you are putting the e-mail from a hasan together with others and with that sees the whole picture, not just one part. >> right, the system will allow all of those emails to be dropped and be looked at in total. >> the commission's recommendation on this working

through challenges relative to but the control and determination of leads. you say that will be bumped up stairs. so any time there is a dispute between two field agents field locations, it will not be just settled through mulling through or doing nothing. somebody will have to make a decision. >> that is right, sir, and that occurs and has occurred every day. what we found when we went back, even though it was standard operating procedure, there was not clear cut policy that set that out. that is what has changed there. >> any of these recommendations that the bureau does not agree with? of 18? >> there are none that we did not agree with.

the only one that we are continuing to wrestle with is their assessment that this lead should not have gone to somebody from the department of defense rather it should have gone to somebody from their home agency. our experience and my experience in running jttf is when you push a lead to somebody from that home agency, they are in the best position to understand the nuances of that agency, how to cut through red tape and get the information and cover the leads. in most cases, they are investigators from their agencies to have an expertise in investigation. we're still trying to find that sweet spot between that recommendation and how we make sure there is more oversight from the fbi. >> we have had this discussion before, and i will conclude on this point, which at some point this became a subjective matter. so you can look at the employee file.

you can see top-secret clearance, the recent promotion. and one could have saw that as a reason to be more concerned, and one could have saw that as some type of information that would say, well, there is no reason to be concerned. some of that has to do with one's view of the responsibility. so when we get to maybe ordinary what might be potentially criminal activity, that is one judgment call. when the judgment call is about saving lives, then that is where the fbi's post 9/11 role, if you would, this prevention in which pushing the envelope -- i know that you agree there should have been this face-to-face

interview. not to say that hasan may not have been able to get through that interview in a way that would have alleviated concerns but there should have been at least eyes and a talk directly with him, in case you really were not trying to track down bank fraud or some other you know, unrelated matter. the issue here was whether or not or something more nefarious afoot relative to a potentiality that was not necessarily based on a criminal enterprise. i think you for your service to the country and i would be glad to yield, yes. >> in december, 2008 a question, what would he think of muslims who have joined the military and have even killed or tried to kill other u.s. soldiers?

that seems pretty stark to me. >> yes, sir. >> i don't know how you do that he is doing a master's degree or something not to justify looking into that. >> sir, i don't disagree. as you go to the next line it says can you make general comments about muslims and the u.s. military. we to consider somebody like soldiers who have committed such acts of jihad, and if you did, what would it mean to you? i agree, when you look in context, exactly how it is, it is startling. the problem is if you put yourself back into the agent's position at the time and you look at this e-mail with what he is looking at on the performance appraisal, where it states and i quote, "he is going for his masters of public health. he has outstanding moral integrity. he took on a challenging topic

for his mph, on views regarding military service on the global war on terror." without question, sitting by itself, i concur 100%. when you look from this aspect, it changes the dynamics of that. again -- >> but sometimes in the history of this country, we had information and did not act on it. i mean, people going to flight school to learn to take off, how to take off an airplane but not landed, and that was sent to the fbi. and nobody acted on it. at some point, you have to have some instinct, some gut instinct that something is not right here and to follow through. pearl harbor could have been

avoided. i mean, all of these things -- what is always so frustrating is you look back, hindsight, what is so frustrating is we have the information. we knew that this guy had a relationship with a known terrorist and we did not act. that is what frustrates me. thank you. >> thank you. mr. culbertson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i cannot agree more with mr. dick's statement, and i really appreciate chairman wolf having this hearing today. i want to thank you, mr. giuliano, for your service. all of us admire the fbi and the work that you do. it is important, though, as mr. dix and the chairman has said, that we all learn from this.

it is distressing to see the one sentence, looking at the december 2008 email, but looking at that one sentence, you don't really need the context. the statement itself is of real concern. i wanted if i could to zero in on the question that chairman wolf asked in a little more detail, if i could, sir, when the washington field office had assumed, because they were the recipient i understand -- i understand it is standard practice at the fbi that the washington field office in this case, looking at page 56 of the report, the washington field office owned the hasan lead and were responsible for its outcome because had been referred to the washington field office by the san diego office, and the san diego office was not satisfied

with the washington field office's response. the san diego agent, i believe the assessment was slim and was concerned enough that for the first time in his career, san diego officer followed up with the washington field office to pursue this because the san diego office could not understand why the washington field office would not pursue this lead and actually go out and interviewed this guy. i see from the report, mr. giuliano, that the fbi has had a policy, i cannot be stated or not, of pursuing an investigation using the least intrusive means necessary, is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. at that and it in this case, the washington field office decided that the least intrusive

means necessary was to check the records and not conduct the interview because the washington field office was concerned that might affect major hasan's military career? that was one of the factors? >> that is correct, as the webster commission went and talked to the agents, as he lay out all of the reasons why he felt an interview was not germane at the time, that was one of the comments. i do want to make a comment about least intrusive. at least intrusive has never meant not aggressive. i will tell you, and i cannot talk about it in this setting, but investigations we have across the nation and the world are extremely, extremely aggressive. this was a judgment call and unfortunately we make these judgment calls every single day and we have to be right every single time. as you look through it an interview would have been prudent at this time. but it is hard to tell whether

it would have changed things but the fact the least intrusive means, it is just a way to ensure that we use the tools congress has given us in a way the are ratcheted up appropriately. that is the purpose of that. that should not have and does not mean that we cannot conduct an interview. >> sure. but in this case, an assessment was made by the washington field office that would perhaps endanger major hasan's career if they pursue this further? >> that was one of the statements. >> ok, and looking at the december 17, 2008 email, major hasan asked the question -- i am looking for it in here. some appeared to have internal conflicts or may have killed in the name of islam. clearly, he is asking a question whether or not if a muslim in the military tries to

kill other u.s. soldiers, is that a problem, does that fit within -- is that something that muslims' faith -- what would the muslim -- how would he look at that from the perspective of the muslim faith. if major hasan -- what if that email had come from a senior fbi officer? >> sir, i think it would have raised the same concern from san diego and as with the individual in the military. i think the difference here is when you have a guy like hasan

who is doing research on that issue, and it goes on to say make some general comments about muslims and the u.s. military, it puts it into a different context. again, i am not here to make any excuses as to whether the interview was conducted or not but it puts it in a slightly different context. >> yes, sir. if the email had been sent by a senior officer in the dea or the department of homeland security or border patrol or some senior law enforcement officer, some senior officer in the law-enforcement community of the united states had sent an e- mail to a maniac a terrorist what would have been the response of the fbi? a similar set of circumstances but hasan is in the u.s. law enforcement community? >> two things, olague had thousands of people writing to his website asking for a legitimate islamic advice. that is a slightly different

terrorist back them. that is number one. no. 2, if the fbi agent had been writing a thesis that was similar to what hasan did, there may have been a different viewpoint. however, i think san diego would have looked at it with just as much alarm as they did when they sent this to lead to the washington field office. >> asking the same set of circumstances, but he is a senior officer in the u.s. intelligence service or a law enforcement officer. it seems to me that the statement itself, in fact an individual is working for the u.s., for the military or the intelligence services or u.s. law enforcement, that major hasan's position alone should have been enough to require further action on this. >> sir, again, i think that is the debate of the commission

and i think they find that we should have done more, and i don't deny that. >> have you changed a policy so if you find somebody in a high- level position in the u.s. law enforcement community or in the u.s. military making inquiries like this that it automatically kicks it up to a higher level of inquiry, including a personal interview, automatically? >> sir, there are no automatics and what we do. what we have changed is if somebody and law enforcement or the department of homeland security if we saw something like this, it would come up to headquarters the same way now that it is mandatory and the investigation of the eddy, and we go to the national joint terrorism task force with another set of eyes. that has not changed. >> i should have not used the word out automatic. i heard you now have a procedure in place when there is a conflict that is reviewed by a senior level official, and that is a change and improvement.

>> yes, sir, that is correct. >> what i am driving at is regardless of whether or not he was in the military, you have policies in place that would elevate the scrutiny of an e- mail exchange like this if the individual is an officer in the the the military or the u.s. law enforcement committee. >> that is correct. it is not just email. if we have an investigation that is predicated on what enforcement on somebody who hold secret security clearance, has access to military bases, we have broadened it wider. >> thank you, the chairman has been generous with the time. but just to follow, talk to us about what political sensitivity -- you have a reference in the

report on page 60 that the washington field office indicated the subject is "politically sensitive." what types of things are politically sensitive and inquiries of this type? >> i will go back to the comments made, that i don't believe political sensitivity had anything to do with the decisions that were made here. the commission found, i think, the same exact thing. there are sensitivities as it relates to the first amendment. there are sensitivities as it relates to civil liberties and civil rights. i think our job with the powers given to us by congress are to make sure that we keep this country safe while protecting civil liberties and civil rights. it is a fine balance every single day.

i don't believe political sensitivity played any part in this decision, sir. >> we know you do, sir, and god bless you for all that you do in the fbi does. the remember any discussions about political sensitivity, whether or not it is politically sensitive or could be offensive to the moslem committee or the islamic community, without reference to a particular lead but to what extent have you seen or heard discussions from the fbi or doj about political sensitivity or insulting or offending the muslim community? >> sir, there is varied little talk about political sensitivity and side of the bureau. the bureau is in a political organization and we try to stay apolitical. there are sensitivities as relates to training. there are sensitivities as relates to the first amendment

and civil liberties. those are things that we always look at, always strive to find the right balance between both. and as you know, sometimes finding that balance is very difficult, because there are strong advocates on both sides of the table. but where i sit in my position as the executive assistant director for national security, i am not concerned about political sensitivity in what we do to protect this nation. >> we deeply appreciate what you do in our midst a supportive of the fbi. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, i think, mr. giuliano, you're misleading or overstating something. i read the report twice. on what page does is say there has been no political

correctness, no political sensitivity? the commission is silent on it. you have led us to believe the commission has said that is not a problem. sir, would you tell me the page that i missed where it says that is not a problem? >> i think my point is if you look at the reasons the committee set forth as to why the interview was not conducted, it does not say that their findings was because of -- >> but nowhere does this commission -- >> that is correct. >> ok, let the record to show that. i think you misled us another way, probably inadvertently. you indicated that the decision to drop the award was made by diplomatic security in the u.s. attorney's office, but it is my understanding that the washington field office agent made the call to release al- aulaqi. the washington field office was conducting a full investigation of it al-aulaqi at that time and was a pit bull case. you remember the paint ball case? >> sir, i do. >> and that person is in jail for life, correct?

>> i don't know that, sir. >> well, i think he is. you may want to check that out. and there is some concern that al-aulaqi was kicking it there. when you say that was not our gang, that was diplomat at security, this is a washington agent of the fbi called to say to drop the case. he was the very agent who apparently is still with the fbi today and was the fbi agent on the paint all case. again, those two things were sort of misleading like brushing and bump and move. they were involved. this was done at the request of an fbi agent. correct or not correct? >> that is not correct. an agent of the fbi cannot tell the prosecutor whether or not to drop the case. >> to drop a warrant? >> to drop a warrant. >> he never called?

>> there was a dialogue. if a case agent has a case on somebody who is coming into the country, the system is set up so there will be a call to that case agent. >> what time was that? >> i don't know. >> sunday, early morning. >> i don't know. am i want to get to the bottom. we're going to get a hearing and we may even subpoena the thing, but think it is important. the inference was the bureau had nothing to do with it. where if there was a call from the fbi agent who worked the paintball case, that has bearing to the attorney. i could be corrected, but i think it was like, we will get this for the record. i think it was somewhere before 7:00 in the morning, perhaps on a day when the government was not operating. sir, i think it is a little misleading.

>> can we give the witness a chance to explain? >> sir, i disagree with that comment. no matter what time it was the fbi does not have a power to tell the prosecutor whether to drop the case or not. the prosecutor makes that call based on the evidence at hand. if the prosecutor at the time, regardless of whether a call was made on not, looked at the evidence and decided there was not enough to be about to arrest that individual, as it would be in any case, the warrant would be dropped. but i assure you the bureau, if anything at that point, if we could have incarcerated al- aulaqi, we would have. >> we could go back and forth on this. it could have been the fbi said something else. >> i don't know. >> so with that, let me just go to mr. carter. >> first, i would like to thank

the chairman for allowing me to participate in this hearing. i have a different line of questioning. i have a constituency to answer to. i have a lot of questions that have been raised. i want you to tell me what i should tell these people who have raised this question. we're talking about people who were killed, many of whom had been deployed two, three four times fighting in the war against terror, which until recently was the subject matter of why we went to war. it seems to have changed in this administration, but the previous administration, it was the war on terror. they went to fight the war on terror. they went to fight the war on terror that involved people of the islamic community.

now they're coming my light and saying, my husband went in harm's way for this country three times, my son went in harm's way for this country three times and he gets killed where he is stationed by a member of his own military who begins a shooting career as a murderer by shouting. it gets investigated and a fine it is a work force of violence incident. and nobody seems to talk about is the war against terror involved in this killing, but my husband is dead, my son is dead after fighting for this country in numerous occasions in the war against terror in the islamic community.

and what i got from the defense department was a whole series of places where excuses were made for why did not catch this. and there you have a whole series of recommendations to change their procedures so they can hopefully catch it next time. and then the agency, the law enforcement agency, at least historically in america in my lifetime, americans have looked to you for the highest and best investigative procedures in the world -- not in america, in the whole wide world -- at least in my generation, anybody who said we need this investigated, who is the best, we would say, the fbi. and so the same person comes to me now and says now from the law enforcement community, what do i get?

i get the same story. yes, mistakes were made, it really is more excuses are being made as to why "procedures did not work." when did we stop having people use their brain to investigate and start having people who used procedures to investigate? have we discovered that procedures written by bureaucrats actually operates better than somebody's common sense that says it look at this, this guy is talking about shooting somebody, maybe we ought to look into this? what do i say to that woman who has lost her husband, or to that father who called me and lost his son? who can i look to in my government, my son or daughter has fought for, who will stand up and say it is our job, it is our responsibility, we failed. and instead of coming up with excuses, coming up with new

procedures. can you tell me what i say to them? >> sir, i don't think there's anything that you could say to them that will take away the pain they have suffered. as i stated in the beginning, i am not here to make excuses. we will not make excuses. they should and do turn to the fbi to do exactly what you said, and we have to be right all the time, 100% of the time. and when we are not, the consequences are dire. the goal is to figure out what we could have done better. we strive to be better every single day. this entire commission report was commissioned by the director after the senate already did their review, after we did our internal review to make sure it never happens again. he is committed to it, i am committed to it, our department is here committed to it, but i

am not here to make excuses. >> you just made a statement the consequences will be dire. what are the dire consequences as a result of the failure of the fbi? who got fired? that changed, promoted, moved? i would like to know the situations. >> sir, any action taken by the bureau, the boss, the director had to be held until this report is done. this report has been pushed over to our inspection staff and our inspection division which handles all reviews of how our individuals conducted themselves during the investigation. was that is done, it will be pushed to the director for a determination of what action if any. >> what kind of time schedule are we looking at on that? >> i would say between 60 and 90 days, sir.

>> so i think i can tell these people at least as far as the fbi is concerned, there are dire consequences -- your statement -- that come to the people who failed this project. >> sir, i said when we fail, there are dire consequences to the public. i do not and cannot -- >> to the public. that is a different statement. of course we know there are dire consequences. there are a bunch of dead people stacked up at fort hood right now. those are dire consequences. >> sir, that is right. my statement was where i sit, we have to be right 100% of the time, and if we are not, there are dire consequences. as we see at fort hood. what occurs here internally will be determined by our internal inspection process, and it will go to the boss at once they

conduct their review. i'm sorry i missed that. >> ok, that is a good explanation. so maybe there will not be dire consequences. i just think at some point in time we have to decide, we all know our rights, it and we are all protecting our rights but we're also protecting the rights of a lot of other people, and i don't have a problem with that. i have done that most of my life. but more and more i have people asking me, who is going to take responsibility for this instead of just telling us, oh, it is not our responsibility, our procedures were bad. if you are the procedures, you are responsible, and so is the defense department, and both of you have gotten through this, both reports, and you say there is no political correctness, but how to why it explain to them that still would get no indication of a man with a heavily loaded automatic to walks down shooting uniform

shoulders who have been to war or are on the way to war, it is not a battlefield, it is not a war action, they are not entitled to the benefits of a soldier at war, and yet they are dead or wounded or they are shot in the brain and a half to rehabilitate themselves to just a alive. all of these things have happened to these people and nobody is even defining the enemy. i just don't understand -- two of the most important agencies in government still have not defined what happened at fort hood. even mentioning that islamic terrorism had anything to do with anything. if he yelled out, "jesus christ is god," what they have said

christians were involved? at what point does it become terrorism? that is the simple question. >> airey is a difference between somebody who is tied to a terrorist group and islamic terrorist organization, which we could not tied hasan to during our investigation, and somebody who appears to be radicalized by them. again, i'm not here to make excuses, but where the difficulty lies is when you have somebody like hasan who are listening to somebody liked al- aulaqi and trying to determine the difference between what is in their head, there radicalization and mobilization and that is something we did not foresee.

the question is whether we had moved forward and done an interview, would that have changed the facts. >> once again, getting back to this life or father who contacted me, that would say wait a minute, all this stuff that he was talking to al-aulaqi about, isn't this the same guy the president said he authorized a hit on because he is a terrorist and he we killed him with a groan? >> it certainly is. >> it certainly is, and once again we see hindsight is. >> al-aulaqi who met his demise recently is different from who we knew. he had not been involved, that we could tell operationally, at this point. it does not change the facts but he was and is a different person at the end of his life. >> well, finally, i guess i better quit, but i want to say one more thing. 9/11 took place, but the american people look at it, all they do is say, we screwed up. they were all kinds of indicators, not only from your

agency but others that should have kept those people in new york alive and at the pentagon all live, but we failed. we have spent trillions of dollars to fix that problem, and we failed. who does the individual american look to to protect us? the defense department? no. the fbi? no. it was responsible? i think i am. i think most of the people sitting up here think they are. and we depend on you and the other folks involved in this fight with us to be effective. and quite honestly, if the

average american is on to be frightened it as to who this government is going to protect them from who is going to kill us after 10 years, 12 years -- >> if i could just interrupt. it is a very unfortunate incident at fort hood, but i want the record to be clear there have been many, many many other incidences where the fbi has prevented circumstances that would have harmed american since 9/11. i don't want to say this was the next incident. this was a circumstance in which the fbi did not hire hasan. they did not give him a gun. they did not let him on this base. they made a shot at looking at this e-mail and made a wrong call. but i think you are correct in that the dod, which had plenty of opportunities over a number of years to look at this person right, and to make some

judgments is more comfortable than the circumstance in which somebody gets a discretionary lead. so i just want to be clear that at least my view of this situation is this was i think preventable. i'm not sure that it was profitable in terms of where we put the weight at, more on the dod side, then on anybody else. >> and i thank you for the comment. i realize my time has probably run out, but i want to point out that the frustration level, at some point in time, somebody has to be able who has some authority -- and this was the

commission that looked into this incident as it relates to our law enforcement authority -- if the dod should have declared it an islamic terrorist event and did not and that had some inputs on the law enforcement side, it ought to be part of the report. what shots from these two reports is there is nothing in it. as the chairman pointed out there is nothing in it to indicate that this has anything to do with what we have spent 10 years fighting a war about. it dumbfounds me, and you cannot explain it to people who have lost their families and our being just treated as if they were casualties of the workforce. it is really hard to explain. that is why i wanted to protest. thank you. >> well, i think what judge

carter is saying, and i share his concerns, is there were 170 or more people from my congressional district who died in the attack on the pentagon, on the day of the pentagon. i rushed out and sat on the hill and watched what was taking place. we will not make this into a 9/11 hearing, and let me just back up withoutmr. giuliano, you are a good guy. everybody tells me your a good guy. i don't think that is the issue. but the washington office, somebody in washington miss the opportunity to open the laptop. had it been opened, we don't know, maybe -- and this is not a 9/11 commission hearing, but maybe ted olson's wife would still be alive. what dr. carter is saying is people don't understand.

the laptop was not opened, and or recommendations coming from your guy out of phoenix about the flight schools, and there were things that were missed. and we want to make sure that nothing is missed in the future. also, i have other questions that i want to go through, but we're going to do a letter to you on this. but i think people have to think about this. i think you were misleading on the cameramen case. the dates and times where al- aulaqi came in at 4:00 in the morning, washington time, that is 4:00 denver time. 4:00 a.m., where is he?

probably at home. 5:40, the drop the case. al-aulaqi was arrested they dropped the case at 5:40 in the morning denver time. then he takes a flight to washington. u.s. attorney is in denver so all of this decision was done by 5:40 denver time. wow, that is amazing. >> sir, can i make -- >> sure. >> he was coming in before that. >> i am sure he did. if you go back and check in fairness, if you don't think you were a little bit misleading then we went to different high school, you have different approaches. you act as though the fbi had no

involvement. while the fbi cannot tell him to drop, they can give a recommendation. we will give you a letter asking you to comment, but i think dr. carter, judge carter speaks for a lot of concerns people have had. i was the author of the master commission on terror in 1998. there were a lot of recommendations. guys appear on both sides of the aisle to not think there was terrorism involved, people said why are you doing this. you found the bush administration and then the clinton administration missed some things. what judge carter and his committee wants to make sure is it is not missed going into the future. were agents or supervisors rated on their relationships

with an outside groups? >> can you repeat that? >> were washington field office agents or supervisors rated on the development of relationships with an average two muslim groups? i have had some agents tell me that they were graded on their outreach. >> the community average personnel, maybe, sir, but as a regular part of their performance appraisal, i don't know how much that would way and to an investigator's day in and day out. >> so it could be in the rating? >> i don't know the answer to that question, sir. >> could you -- >> sure. >> was al-aulaqi or hasan advert a confidential informant for the fbi, as the san diego office appears to have suspected? >> no, sir. >> we understand that the fbi has a counter violence office with the national security branch.

this was done without submitting the reprogramming administration preparation required. what does this office do, and how will the work of this office do and handling leads like that of the hasan lead where political extremism could have played a role? >> sir, it is a very small office. about how many? >> one gs-15 and less than a handful of analysts. it came out of the requirement from the white house for all of us -- the department of homeland security, us, nctc -- to try to get back to the route, mr. carter's point, of homegrown violent extremism, but going back and trying to figure out whether we can get on the front and rather than being on the back end of it. in other words, can we learn

from what we and the fbi in particular, which is what this office is set up to do, can we learn from our investigations, can we learn from somebody you has become radicalized from somebody like al-aulaqi or somebody else and push that in some way back into the community to protect it from happening in the meantime. that is the purpose of this very small office that falls directly under the national security branch. >> on page 11 of the report, there is a list of 13 violent plots that were foiled. are any of these 13 incidents involving islamic extremism? >> i'm sorry, sir, what page are you want? >> page 11, a list of 13 violent plots foiled.

>> many of them are homegrown violent extremism. not all of them. >> ok. >> he did not answer. >> were any of them not islamic extremism? >> so all of them had some kind of ties to islamic extremism. i guess my point is, and maybe i misspoke, they were not all considered home run violent extremism. i stand corrected. >> ok. based on the report, it appears that the most urgent task would be timely and throw pursuit of leads and reassure employees that legitimate and aggressive pursuit of leads suggesting violent islamic extremism will not be perceived as politically incorrect and not be detrimental to their careers. is this what the office is doing?

>> so it is an office that i think will help, and hopefully the other offices help us, our investigators, better understand what is causing radicalization and what indicators there are of those being radicalized. again, i go back to the point that it is not good enough to just understand those who are radicalized. it takes more. there are many people who are radicalize to never do what hasan did. we need to understand those who were radicalized and we need to understand mobilization so we can prevent another fort hood. >> the commission report recommends a written policy on the division of the port among the fbi headquarters and field entities. it's just the fbi has already done that. is that accurate? >> yes, sir, it is.

>> can you provide written testimony to that. >> i will take that back. it is classified. >> one of the major findings is a lack of clarity over the ownership of the hasan lead, where the san diego and washington field office disagreed on the formality of the lead. as a bit formalize the process of resolving disagreements were a process kicks in? >> we put out written guidance which will go into our policy the next time it comes around. it is on a cyclical basis. >> one of the most troubling revelations in the report is the lifetime that was taken to act on the lead. the san diego field office send the lead to the washington field office in january, and it was not looked at until february. a task force officer didn't read the lead until may 27.

a cold, snowy day in january and then may the azaleas are out. a good deal of time has gone by. during that time there were numerous contacts between hasan and al-aulaqi. is the time taken to act on this lead standard for a lead of this type corporate? >> it would have been then but not now under the new guidelines. >> was this lead given a priority that was not correct? >> not at the time. >> is the delay in acting on the lead, could that have been related to workload? >> it could have been. the squad was working on the inauguration and subseently the shooting at the holocaust museum.

again, regardless of workload, it should have been covered. >> what does the fbi now believe is a reasonable deadline? >> immediately within 24 hours for priority one, seven days. and from the second that it is set, it does not matter, when it is assigned. 60 days from the time san diego would have sent it, it would been completed. >> i think you have answered this, but you may want to repeat it. the report recommends that the fbi has a policy whereby no task force officer shall be assigned a lead from the assessment of an employee within his or her own

agency. the sec because judge webster believes it is so difficult -- was that because judge webster believes it is so difficult to investigate your own people? you make a pretty good thing point, to be honest but they make the same point that you have made. >> sir -- >> is there a blend? or is -- because it would be very difficult for somebody of a certain group to then investigate the people in the group. we all know each other and then have to have an objective person come from outside. could you elaborate a little more? >> i think you have hit the point very well. it is the one area where we are still wrestling with it. if you go back to the san diego lead, they consulted with their department of defense people for

guidance on records checks, on how to get the records back in a timely fashion, and then subsequently assigned to dod personnel in the washington field office. the webster commission felt there is a potential for bias from those investigating within their own organization. our argument is those people are by nature people who are investigators. if you look at the composition whether it is defense criminal and cis army, that is what they do and they are good at it. we think there is value added to the tax force. we think there needs to be a blend with me the -- added to the task force. ed we think there needs to be a blend with maybe some more oversight. >> mr. carter may remember this. i watched the chief of staff of

the army out side. do you recall what he said? i want to make sure i am accurate. >> i cannot quote him exactly but it was something along the lines of i hope this does not disturb our islamic outreach program. >> if you are a major or a captain and chief of staff of the army says that, and he went to west point you want a career that can be tough. i think it is one you're going to have to kind of nail down, because when the top person in the organization says that's -- but i must say i have talked to others and they have all said pretty much what you have said, but i think there has to be some

mechanism to catch it in case you have a problem. the fiscal year 13 budget request did not include any increases for the national security program. within the national security portfolio, what is the priority would give to increasing the number of intelligence analysts, and are you seeking such an increase in future budgets? >> there have been many machinations of the budget. i do not know where this last bill sets. our intelligence analysts are absolutely critical to what we do. there is probably not an sac in the field that would say an increase of intelligence analysts would not help them going forward. quest the commission seeks funding immediately for acquisition of new hardware and data. this hardware would enhance

search analysis did it -- what is the cost associated to acquire such hardware during this fiscal year? >> i would have to get back to you on that, where we are. we have made a lot of changes in our software and hardware since judge webster started his report. i just need to go back and see when this recommendation was and get a snapshot of our i.t. request and i will get back to on that. >> clearly, i think the committee would approve reprogramming, particularly of the high importance that judge webster gave this. if you could as soon as possible have them contact the committee, i would appreciate it. the report highlights the fact of staff members in the san

diego field office were unaware of key data systems or were not trained on how to use them. have steps been taken to correct this totally? >> yes, they were taken immediately afterwards. >> and it is mandatory as the commission recommends. thank you. >> and officers will complete the training with and how many days? >> right now is 90 days. >> was a recommendation 90 days or 60 days? >> i think it was 60, but with a number of people we're putting through quantico, we are at about 60. >> i want to ask this last question before i go back to the other members. the purpose of the hearing is to really find out what happened so that it never happens again. i would like to have the opportunity to talk to the person in the washington field

office, but the commission did not find any misconduct to warrant is a planning -- disciplinary action but declined to express views on whether administrative action should be taken. has the fbi taken any of administrative action in relationship to this particular case? >> all of the findings were pushed to the inspection division as is normal course of action for us. the team is reviewing it for action and determine whether any action will be taken. >> what is the timetable for completion of this process? >> between 60-90 days. >> out side of the task force was anyone else at w. f. poe or fbi headquarters aware of the length of time -- wfo or fbi

headquarters aware of the length of time it was taking to act on this lead? >> it has changed under the new system. >> are now the management would monitor this? >> is monitored. there are 90 day file reviews that would have caught that it had lagged. again though, the commission report stated -- and we concurred -- that the time. it's still too long. >> i am going to go on. >> let me try to cover some of the details but also get into some othe broader issues. so, it is how many months after 9/11 desoes he land at jfk? >> it was october of 2002 i believe. >> almost a year after 9/11.

he comes back. he is arrested but the warrant is withdrawn, right? >> he is held and the warrant is withdrawn. >> so, you know, i think that the chairman's interest in this has got a lot of merit, just to find out exactly what the circumstances -- because you would think there would be heightened attention. the bush administration is focused on the fact that we have just had this attack within the air. we have a full-court press going on but for some reason the rest is not pursued. -- the arrest is not pursued. you said at one point that this was a process al colloquy is

going through. if you look aged a lot ht timothy mcveigh, and there is a radicalization going on but it has not taken hold. obviously, president obama and he has been commended and criticized that his administration through a drawn attack killed -- drone attack kille al-alaqi. was he someone who had moved from having a set of beliefs that are protected in our constitution to being an active enemy of our country?

>> it is a fair question and i will try to answer it as specifically as i can. he changed and he changed a lot over the years. when he went to prison in yemen in 2006-2007, and he came out and came back on line in early 2008, he still had somewhat of a moderate tone but began to be more of a propagandist, began to show more radical tendencies. but we could not see him as operational or in an operational role at that time. >> this was four years after the jfk incident. >> that's right. crazy has been imprisoned. he seems to becoming -- he has been imprisoned. he seems to be becoming more radical. >> the intelligence community

did not assess him to be operational at that point. it really comes down to where we see him -- where really, obviously changes, and it changed over the years was like to 53 -- flight 253 and the printer cartridge clearly he was in an operational role at that time. if you go back to the 2000-2001 timeframe, he was still an imam at a mosque locally and was quite well respected. >> a year ago when the president and his administration caused his demise, there were members of the house on the floor criticizing his demise.

there was no question he was a radical. >> there was no question he was trying to kill americans. >> and it was proper for us to protect ourselves, in my judgment. i do not want to put words in your mouth. i think it is important to put things in some context. this young man who walked in the movie theater and shot these people, you know, five years before that in high school was a different young man. something happened, right? so this is where we have to kind of get into the kind of context -- if you take something out of context, it is a pretext, right? it is not the truth at that time. so the truth at this time, a year after 9/11, when the bush administration was dealing with this question and he was released in 2002, he was not

operational at that point. he became much more radicalized if we are using that term, in yemen, in jail in 2006-2007. and then when president obama ordered his demise in november 2011, he was an operational figure and was an active enemy of the united states of america. then you come into the hassan deal, which is what the fort hood issue is about because al- aulaqi was not at fort hood. the connection was the e-mails from him to have signed and whether they should have caused a more intense effort -- from him to hassan, and whether they should have caused a more intense effort. the sign is asking him at one

point of bounce -- hassan is asking him at one point about fairly mundane issues. but there was reason why this could have taken a different tone. if one had -- if one's instincts might have taken you in that direction, and that is what this really is about. it is about the judgment call that got made, right? >> correct. >> but he is just one of thousands of people the mailing -- so the first thing is when you have a circumstance where you have thousands of people interacting, and that you also kind of connect up where these strings tied together. and that is being fixed by the recommendation of the webster commission. the bureau agrees with that recommendation. >> correct. >> and the software and everything to make that work

together has been put in place. this is very important. there is a tendency here to confuse national security with politics. this is not politics. i think what we have to do as a committee is to focus in on the efforts that have taken place over a number of administrations one in which he was let go, and the other in which he was sent on to his afterlife, but the difference is that in both cases people were acting based on the information they had at the time and acting in the best interests as they perceived it of the citizens of our country. i again want to thank the chairman. i agree with the chairman that we want to know a little bit more about the release and why the warrant was withdrawn but

there is no reason to look at this under any other basis other than that there is a difference between this character in colorado -- he was stopped for traffic violations or something a year ago, but at that point he was not someone who was gathering 6000 rounds of ammunition and automatic bands to -- or semiautomatic to go into a movie theater. there are points along t process on which judgments are made based on the information at hand. they could be different judgments made, and i think you agree, i know you agree that there should have been a face- to-face interview. how long had he been in the military at the time of the fort hood incident? >> i would have to go back and check on that. >> he had been there for many

years, right? >> a number of years. that is correct. >> so, you know, of the situation as we see it today we're looking at it in the fullness of a rear view mirror and which we have all this information and it is a little bit different than going at it on a current knowledge bases. i think the chairman and i would be willing to sign on to his request that we have more information about the warrant being withdrawn. >> thank you. i generally -- we generally agree on this. he may be right. he may not. my own feeling, and it is an opinion, is that al-aulaqi was a

bad guy from the beginning. another potentially san diego cigna again contact -- significant contact was al- aulaqi. did you know he went to school on your tax payer dollars? did you know that? he had a scholarship. >> i knew he had a scholarship and went to school in colorado. >> we do not know how orlando -- or when they met. they may have met or at least talk to him the same day they moved from san diego -- to san diego. they reportedly respected him as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.

he left san diego in 2000 and by 2001 had relocated to virginia. he eventually showed up at the mosque in virginia, an appearance that may not have been coincidental. we have been unable to learn enough about their relationship to reach a conclusion. then there is more. so, you know, in closing, if we could have a briefing with regard to the report on the number in the military. secondly, if you have your budget people, and tell the committee if you need the reprogramming so that you can follow through on that one system. third, if there is anything in next year that is out -- dealing -- that we can because this year will be put together over the august break. fourthly, i want to sit down and

see the person in the washington field office that made the decision. i guess the question i would have about this is given -- and webster was really silent. i think it is poured in for people -- given the fact that webster was silent on the political correctness, did it play a role did it not have you gone back internally and done an internal evaluation of the people involved, privately to ask them? because what is in somebody's mind might be different than what the reality was. maybe somebody said i was lighted, but maybe they were slighted because the person was looking the other way. i think it is important to ask the agents involved both in san diego and in washington, did anything that was going on make them reluctant to act? and lastly, what have you done as an agency, agency-wide to

make sure that fbi agents do not have this in addition to move as many other members have reference and to do something so that we can prevent the next fort hood or the next 9/11. do you want to discover that before we end? >> so, internally to answer your question, the first one all the individuals were -- >> but asked that specific question because the webster report does not really put that to rest, to ask. >> again, i think we just disagree on that point. >> show me then. go to the point and show me where it says the. >> it does not. >> well then how -- this is the report that we're operating on. >> i think the facts -- 9 >> did judge webster call you and tell you that there was no political

correctness involved? >> sir if you look at the decision that was made and the criteria laid forward as to why the decision was made, i think it lays out why the task force officer made that decision, at least in the opinion of those that's did the investigation. i believe that if they would have found it, there is no reason for them not to put it in the report. >> but it is not in the report. they did not say clearly there is not. in fact, there is an inference that it may very well have been. >> ok. >> have you done an internal to ask other people outside? does an fbi agent that i talk to is here she feeling is great reluctance because my career could be over or is there some sensitivity now that the bureau wants them to do what they should be doing to make sure we

never having another forehead. i think if you sat -- another for ted. -- fortt hood. >> i think if you sat through the sessions with each individual in the field and their executives, you would see that in his fbi, political correctness is not tolerated. he expects us to follow the letter of the law and constitution and to turn over every rock and every lead, so i do not believe that is the issue here, sir. i believe that the commission would have seen it. they would have gone down that path. >> well, maybe and maybe not and i guess we will end with this. you had an assistant, we see a transcript to said, i'm on the

mailing list on my blackberry for care. care is a group that the fbi is supposed to have no involvement with. i get 10 e-mails a day from them. they were undoubtedly a co- conspirator in the holy land foundation. we want to make sure your men and women do not feel reluctant to do with the need to do to prevent another 9/11 or fort hood. these take back to the men and women of the bureau our great respect of the job that they do and we want to make sure if they can do it in a way that they do not feel restrained so if there is a budgetary thing i hope you will come here, nor should they

feel encumbered by being politically correct. >> mr. chairman. >> we will have some questions to follow up. and the last thing is to make sure a washington field office person talks to me. >> first of all, if i am -- if you felt in any way like i was attacking you i apologize. i just want to ask one more question. you mentioned all these investigatory branches of the d.o.t.d. which i also have high respect for as you do. but one thing i really believe is endemic in the military is the perception that soldiers have that certain things, if they bring them up, hurt their career. i will stay away from this for just a second and say that a perfect example is psychiatric treatment when you come back from war. we have spent literally millions and millions of dollars

convincing our soldiers if you have something wrong, please tell us. it will not hurt your career. but they believe in their heart of hearts it would. and i believe this political correctness issue at least place among the average soldier even up into the officer corps as a possible career killer. you mention that you talked with some at the department of defense and others. have you worked out procedures where if the fbi has a suspicion that an officer or enlisted man in the military -- if the question is raised, like in this case in somebody's mind, they can contact the 0 d and say we have a question here -- department of defense and say we have a question here? i think if the fbi's inquiry came rather than the average shoulders -- soldiers angry it

might break the deadlock of the perception that asking these questions could get you fired? >> is your point that it would be better the interview had been conducted by the fbi? >> either that or contact the department of defense and say we have a situation here with one of your officers who you have been promoting regular and looks like he is an officer in good standing but an issue has come up and we will give the ball to you or whenever, but what you hear from people in the dod is that there were all kinds of indicators clear back to medical school that he took these positions and yet nobody said anything and you will hear from people over at walter reed that they said we were for getting

him out of here and getting him someplace else because he was asking all these questions. did you ever consider that your re-tackine attacking religious people and all this stuff? they would not raise the issue because of fear of their career. i am just trying to get past that taboo that we seem to see in the military. it sure would help if you had a communication as to how could we touch base with you when we have a problem. >> i think under this new procedure, even an assessment guardian lead, which is our tickly for tips that may come in from the -- tip lead for tips that may come in from the general public anywhere else, that is shared with all personnel. >> that is dead. that was my question.

that is very dead. -- that is good. that was my question. that is very good. thank you very much. >> the interview may very well find that the person is totally innocent. so just for -- if the person was going off to the wrong path to do the wrong thing -- the very interview of the fbi may very well put pause in their mind and divert that. would that not be accurate? >> that is correct. >> so i think the more interviews the better. with [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight on c-span a conversation on civility in politics with a look at whether civility is inherent in society or a threat to our democracy. now here is author henry brady talking about civility in congress and in government.

>> i think we have to think about structural changes in some of our government institutions, not necessarily real big ones. right now, i think it is a shame that you can force a filibuster and go home. you do not have to stay in the pit of the senate and complain about the law that you are against and do what you see in the old movies were somebody is filibustering, standing there reading stuff, staying there all night. you can go home and say look, i am not going to be there to vote and therefore we are going to filibuster. we should have the cost imposed on people who want to filibuster. if you want to stop discussion and compromise, then there is the cost imposed and all of us can watch on c-span -- at least some of us can watch on c-span -- and we can watch and see what folks are doing to try to make their case as to why the filibuster is a good idea. i think we would have less filibustering. filibustering has increased by a

factor of 10 since the 1960's. >> we are less violent. there is somebody who counts acts of legislative violence in our history. 31 axects. >> there is no question there is less violence in the world. there is a lot of data on this and less violence in our society as well. but i think violence is a different thing. we're talking about political stability and the willingness to compromise. you have areas like we have now where polarizing issues come along ofeach side has something to worry about. republicans do not want to lose tax breaks that are helpful to them. democrats do not want to loose spending that is helpful to them. you have tremendous polarization over those issues. then of course there are the

social issues that i mentioned before. those kind of things cause a failure to be able to be civil to one another and a failure to have compromised. >> joins us tonight it 8:00 eastern for the complete discussion of civility in politics in society. here on c-span. house majority whip kevin mccarthy talk to political journalists last week about the 112th congress sequestration and the upcoming 2012 elections around the country. he also mentioned last week's victory by tea party candidate ted cruz and said it is an indication that what happened in the house in 2010 is starting to happen in the senate. >> you'll get a full 50 minutes of rep mccarthy.

it is his fourth session with our heart healthy breakfast club. his last was in march of last year. he hails from california's 22nd district which have some of the richest farmland in the world. he holds an nba from cal state bakersfield. he started a business with some lottery winnings and joined the district office of bill thomas, rising to become district leader. he served on governor schwarzenegger's transition team. in 2006, he ran for the seat representative thomas was vacating and shared the platform committee of the republican national convention. he was named chief deputy whip in 2009 and became whip in 2010. so much for a quick tour of his rapid rise. now on to the rich will recitation of mechanical details. as always, we are on the record. there is no embargo.

there is no live blogging or tweeting during the breakfast. c-span will hold the tape until 10:50 a.m. so that those of you who actually paid are not added disadvantage. we are adjourning at 8:50 a.m. so that representative mccarthy can get back to the hill. we will allow our guest to make opening comments and then move to questions around the table. thank you for doing this. >> thank you for having me back. i appreciate the opportunity. just to give you a quick overlay, i guess we have a few days left here until you have the august recess. then one of the biggest challenges we have for the rest of this weekend for going into the rest of the year is really going to be the debate on the economy and the best way to go about doing it.

we will talk about stopping the president's tax hike of one of the biggest challenges i see out there. in this timeframe with just last friday growth being lower to 1.5%, republicans have done a good job in this congress of trying to control spending. we are only the third congress since world war ii to cut discretionary spending year over year. mandatory spending continues to grow in the process. we will not get out of this problem by cutting. we have to expand the economy grow the economy. that means you need overall tax reform. two years ago the democrats extended the tax cuts. they said they did not want to raise taxes and a down economy. we still have a weak economy and i think that still holds true. we should extend the tax cuts. an independent study shows that

if the president's tax increase goes through it will pay eight and a half days and cut more than 700,000 jobs. we should propose extending it for a year and reforming the entire tax code system. make it flatter fairer, more competitive as a nation. we think that is the right direction to go economically. we think that will continue to be a discussion. a lot of members have been out across the country listening to small businesses. i want to be brief but i will touch on one thing. if you measure growth in america and job growth in america, the best measurement you should always do is small business. if you take the end of the last recession, 2001, and you cover america to the beginning of this recession, 2007, think about that. 2001-2007, a lot of people say that was a good thing time of job growth in america and it was, but if you look at who

created those jobs, if you're a small business, 500 or fewer you added 700 million jobs. if you're a corporation you cut 1 million jobs during that time. you look today new start-ups for small business is at its lowest point in 17 years. if you want to get the country moving again that is an early indicator of where the country will go based on who is taking the risk with small-business. if you look at small businesses and say why are people not creating them, we will tell you three main factors. uncertainty with the tax code system. uncertainty when it comes to regulations. uncertainty when it comes to health care costs. if you are able to eliminate the uncertainty, it would be one of the largest in u.s. and american history with no government money being borrowed -- stimulus in american history with no government money being borrowed. there is more cash on hand in america than any other time in

the last 50 years, but if you ask people why they are holding their money, uncertainty. that is why as you watch this new congress coming in, the items we have passed, from health care to regulation last week to the rains act now stopping the tax hike, it is exactly when you look at the country asking to unshackle and unleash what they have been waiting for. mr. shields read an article today were people ask why have we not on all the way? well, there is the frustration we have with the senate. i understand the senate can do what they like but the one thing i want the senate to do is first at least let the bills come up for a vote. if you have the majority, if you think you can beat them, bring them up. let them have a vote. but i think it really does to the core of the responsibility of elected officials the first thing you should do is a budget. when we came and took the

majority we produced a budget in four months. a lot of people sat around the room and said politically, you will never survive. well we pass dead and we passed it again. we think -- passed it and passed it again. we think we have to show america what we're willing to do. the president passed a budget. no one has ever voted for it. the democrats never even produced a budget. i think that will play and. since we are outside the capital, i will touch on one part political. i am sure the election year has played into some of the policy and politics of what has gone on from the standpoint of the president i do not know how many days it has been since he has met with his business council. he says he is too busy. the senate is totally up in the

air of who becomes the majority. republicans will gain in the senate. i think they will probably gain a majority. i think they could probably get up to 52. the presidential house is totally up and play. if you look at the statistics and the metrics, which i love to follow their 3141 counties in america. think back to the last time obama 1. he only carried 875. you think it was a big election victory for obama, a big night? that is the lotus -- lowest margin of county carries to ever be elected president. he got his entire margin of victory from 29 counties. what that means is you divide the nation. three major statistics you want to look out for a president's reelected. right track, wrong track

approval rating and unemployment level. all of those mean the presidency is in play. the house, and i do not just say this from being the republican whip i believe the republicans maintain the house. democrats will go for the challenge of winning it back and they will focus on what is called the oregon state -- orphan states. the california illinois and new york. california, it is only the third time since 1886, no republican won statewide siin california. we had redistricting done by a commission. we had a new open primary system where only the top two go forward. republicans did much better than the democrats or pelosi said she

would do. if you look for the challenge of what is happening in california now, republicans are in a good position. we have one district, district 31 the recruited a young hispanic mayor, raised more than half a million dollars, there is no democrat on the ballot in november. democrats been a tremendous amount of money. the central valley is more than 72% hispanic. the republican got 50% of the vote in an open primary. i think we out-recruited in california. >> can i ask your question? quite sure. i see talk about the presidency being in place -- and i >> you talk about the presidency being in play. a new poll shows the president has a significant lead.

i was wondering what your response was to the romney international tour d? does it filly with confidence and make you think things are going swimmingly? >> this race is going to come down to the wire i believe. his international tour i think was important from a couple of different perspectives. one, of venting frustration for the press. everybody can write in the way they want. i thought looking at what had transpired -- i mean, i believe this country is more than an idea. it transfers be on the world and when he sits with -- in poland you see what america is able to accomplish and other countries as well. to be that began. i think it is important and it shows that romney is willing to

be that began around the world. it raises human rights. it raises freedom in many places. that is what the president should do, should lead. any time you go around the world, it is not going to be perfect. in a time of need in salt lake city when the olympics was not doing well, the comet romney and and he was the turnaround. he showed -- they called mitt romney in and he was the turnaround. he showed he could perform. republicans have to win ohio and florida. we have to win north carolina. we have to win virginia. those of the states that have gone for the president, and and we can win any other state. it is going to be competitive all the way through. every time the economic numbers come out the president goes back to what he does not want to talk about his economic policy.

i remember when they controlled the ball and the president said i need this stimulus past and unemployment will never go above 8%. more than 40 months later, it is still above 8%. he does not want to talk about policy. he wants to make the race about romney. romney needs to talk about the economy and who is the best to deal with it. >> last question from me. what did you take from the texas primary about the continuing power of the tea party and loyalty within republican ranks? >> well, i think what is happening in the senate has happened in the house. it just has not gotten to the senate yet. think for a moment. in the house we saw something revolutionary. people are tired of the gimmicks of the past. 63 democrats lost the election in the last one.

i have a philosophical belief that minorities do not tax majorities. majorities' lose majorities. if you watched 2006, 2008, these big sweeps come in, but they lost it based on the policies on which they voted. i came in in 2006, the smallest republican class since 1940. think for a minute. who is up for reelection in the senate? those people who came up in 2006. they never had to go before the voters for what they voted for. of those new 89 republican freshmen, more than 40 had never been elected before. they came from small business communities, being leaders there, finding solutions. that same thing that shown in the house is going to get to the senate. my other philosophy the senate

is like a country club. the houses like stopping at a truck stop for breakfast. we are a microcosm of society and we reflect a first. the senate has not had an opportunity to reflect it yet. it has changed not just from the perspective of one believe but a change that they want washington to wake up. there's anger from both parties and they do not want business as usual. >> i want to get to the point of uncertainty causing constipation. [inaudible]

cannula but that uncertainty in tell us what would be the principal features of -- can you look at that uncertainty and tell us what would be the principal features of your reform? >> i appreciate the question. one thing we have done, just to what you back, we have been holding inside my office these listings sessions with members on what tax reform would look like. if you watched this week our legislation stops the president's tax increase. if you lose the uncertainty of losing 710,000 jobs. bennett puts a free market principles and there. it is not what you -- then it puts a framework of principles in there. if you read through it, it's as the number of brackets limited to two from 25. corporate rate cannot be over

25. it sets a framework from where you start from. in our budget, we have shown some of that, and the discussion has shown some of that. then we lay the framework of a time line to get it done. it is not just a discussion that you're going to stop the tax hike. if you just do that for another year that could build uncertainty. but let some overall tax reform so we can compete. when i go round the country, i hear the challenge all the time from our economy is competing worldwide. it lays out a framework some more ideas can gather. it lays out a time off line the timeline and the framework of principles. that takes the politics out of it. if you have an idea, let the idea work at the end of the day. it shows the american people we're serious about tax reform. it shows a time frame that can

do it. it shows a framework of what it will deal with. tax reform will not be easy. when you deal with ending loopholes a lot of people come out of the woodwork to go after you. when you lay the principal down you know what has to be within, so that takes a little of the discussion and gives a broader perspective. >> our colleague from the washington post wrote a column a few weeks ago called the worst congress ever. it alleges that things are broken in washington and the republicans had a great deal to do with that. i want to know what you think of that series that this may be the

worst congress ever and what responsibility do house republicans bear for that? >> referring to congress or the senate? >> congress writ large. >> i disagree with the house of representatives. if you watch congress and you have followed it, look at the framework. let's take the last six years. in the last six years four of which under democratic control you never had an appropriation bill. you never even offer an amendment. bills were brought to the floor without being read. what the house has done now not from a republican perspective but from an american and transparency perspective anybody can offer amendments. you do not see these big omnibus approach bills. we have taken them one by one.

anybody can offer anything. and the floor determines which route it will go. you have even watched in the process take the two-engine situation. people would argue that in ohio that is jobs. you have republicans and the speaker from ohio or the will of the floor one-out. that is what the american people want, and honest debate. everyone gets elected based on a certain number when we do redistricting. those people should have the voice. that is a big change in congress that you can go back 10-12 years in the process. i think it is healthier, drives to the notion that the idea can win, so you have to come up with better ideas, and your idea is going to be challenged. it does not matter if one party

controls. that is a much better congress. now, having referred to the senate i would probably agree with him. one, bills do not come up. you cannot have the challenge. you do not even produce a budget. i mean, i would sit back and the first way i would score an individual, have you done the fundamentals of producing a budget and passing one? and if you have not, why have you moved on to anything else? we did one in four months. there is merit to it when you talk about the senate. when you talk about the house, i see great improvement and more improvement for us to do. >> what was the point in revealing obamacare more than 30 times? >> there are different avenues of what we brought up with an air. if you're going -- in there. if you're going to criticize us because we will fight for something we believe in and not give up, i will take the

criticism. we believe in making it better. we believe in making reforms, so we try harder. >> you mentioned that in california that you do not have a single statewide elected official in the legislature. for those of us that a watch that over the years, it is pretty clear that one of the biggest reasons is the alienation of latino voters from the republican party in california. on the national front, that same pattern seems to be developing a lot of it has to do with immigration. are you going to try to bring an immigration bill next year and what would it do? >> and the immigration bill you do is going to have to be bipartisan. at the end of the bush administration, one was tried and not able to be achieved. it is a big challenge for both

parties. it is a big challenge for our nation as a whole. we are a country of immigrants. we want to be able to maintain that. we want to be able to maintain and protect our borders. at the same time, we want to still be the magnet the people want to come to as the world. it is a challenge from all -- i do not know exactly what that would look like, but if you take that issue away and look at congress as a whole, i am not sure congress regardless of the issue, i can take big massive bills because i do not believe the trust of the american people like these amerimassive bills. you may have to break up into different portions of the issue and take segments to be able to move forward. >> historical and that issue

others as well but that issue particularly when you take up the pieces, the pieces get defeated individually and the only way to pass the bill has been to come up with an overall package where everybody gets something and nobody gets everything. >> it is the same thing about an appropriations bill. >> what you have not gotten one pass through both houses of that argument seems pretty dead. >> that is the senate's problem. >> but you know that. >> you can dislike congress like the rest of the american people do. i can agree with that. if you're going to judge based on past congresses, and that is fine, but i was not here. >> how would you do immigration? >> semifinished--- let me finish my a question. we have passed seven appropriations bill. that is different. if we-- i do not know what the

immigration bill will look like. i believe if you are looking for principals and from work to make it happen, it will take by partisanship. if i look at the structure of what has gone through the house, big comprehensive bills die. what will i judge about that? i watch the republican president put it big comprehensive bill try on both sides and it tried -- its died. my goal is to solve problems. i would rather learn from somebody else's mistakes because i do not have enough time and live to make all of my own mistakes. if i want to solve a problem, i will probably have to take it by pieces. you are judging based on an >> congress. was it what the makeup is of the

next congress. >> i was struck by the fact people question or the most conservative members of the house and senate and in your chamber. could you talk about how that process was in their involvement? on the sequestered you talk about a framework for reform going forward. obviously the sequester falls into that. you have had republicans talking about this this week. how do you see congress dealing with a sequester over the next few months? >> i have sequestration and the -- ok. the six months. no one can sit back and say government will be shut down. you have watched both sides come together reid and banner

announce -- john boehner announced there will be a conclusion. some wanted three months instead of six months. i do not think there was any debate if we would get to a cr. from one stand. you look at where we have been able to control the growth of government. the argument between three months and six months, everybody looks at -- you have a lot of living things from tax increases coming sequestration it could be in other debt limit. this could all hinge into a lame duck scenario. you could have a new presidency and congress and senate. six months gives a little bit of a longer time. some say if you put it out further it is not everything collapsing at once. the argument being giving

yourself more time to do things. it gives the flexibility. it does not mean you cannot do things earlier. that is a better way about going about it in the short time. if you watched what republicans have done in our budget, we took up and dealt with sequestration. it was one year ago week of $497 billion from military. those were planned cuts. when you cut the military, it is programs you want to look at when you make cuts. you cannot say, i will cut half a billion dollars. when you make your house payment, you cannot send them 10% less next month. you cannot cut programs 10% across the board. we have been trying to find ways we can solve this. we put in our budget. i think there is a coalition of

democrats and republicans trying to build something. i know harry reid said he will not bring it up before hand. it is almost an education to america what sequestration means. we found other places you can make the cut. do a better planned scenario of what the military looks like. that issue will continue to grow and go into the framework of the election in november. i hope we do something sooner. being the whip, i do not look forward to a lame duck. >> thank you. congressman mccarthy, it sounds like from listening to you almost a slam dunk that republicans in the house are going to extend all of the bush tax cuts. they are not going to back down. if that happens and if the senate in turn of votes to

extend a 98% and the house stays firm can you picture a scenario where the american people are upset at republicans for holding up the entire process for not backing down? >> i can see the american public upset for washington as a whole. cutting another 710,000 jobs where growth continues to slow. we had 11 recessions since world war ii. this has been one of the longest lasting recessions. i think it is on the policies of washington that extended it longer. 1982 was a much deeper recession. if you measure the growth out of 1982 compared to now we would have 40 million more jobs.

stimulus, what did it do for us? let's take that question of what you just gave me. two years ago, the same question rose to the american people. the makeup of congress was a little different. democrats controlled the house, too. 139 democrats voted to extend it. the president roh you should not raise taxes in a down economy. 86 democrats still reside in the house. are they going to flip-flop and think something is different? bill clinton believes he should not raise taxes in a down economy. 710,000 more jobs lost. if we are serious about changing this economy and making america competitive again, eliminate some of the uncertainty. i think the american public are tired of continual and short-

term and taking politics over people. if the president said two years ago it was wrong, why is it right now? this is right, did this come from his business council? no, he has never had time to meet with them. he has had over 100 fund raisers. they are tired of the gimmicks. they are tired of the process of washington. just solve the problem and move on. >> we are going to try to squeeze in the following in 20 minutes. >> something that stymied the house so far you represent an agricultural district. your caucus does not seem to know what it was. can you let up the road map in the farm bill arrangement and will you have to get an extension?

>> thank you for the question. if i go back and i studied the house. our transportation bills come out of committee. they are five-year bills. the committee studies these and these are the big items of the committee. the floor itself does not know because you go late into the night. the last amendment was at 2:00. it became controversial. you do not move them directly to floor. you allow both sides to see what is in them. maybe that is different in past congresses. i believe we will get the farm bill done. one thing i think that has started working better between the house and senate is conferencing. every time we go into conference we get back out. same thing with transportation. same thing with faa.

before you did not go to conference. because the democrats farm bill last time did not deal with the disaster. the only ticket four-years because they extended spending on other items, we will have to go in and fix this. we will deal with the disaster because what has gone on up there, especially for the cattle. we will take care of that. the farm bill does not expire until the end of september. we will find a way to move to get into conference and come back with full bill. >> what do you mean by -- reauthorize and complete by conference before september 30? >> i always have goals. that is my goal. >> will you say a quick sentence about how bad your district has been hit by the drought. >> the old saying in california has always been, whiskey is for drinking and water is fighting.

our water comes from the north and down to the south. we have had a drought four years. ours is done more about man-made decisions about whether you can pump based on an environmental issue. i have communities where you have 40% unemployment. has anybody even a baby carrot? two families in my district grow 80% of the carrots in the country. there is no such thing as a baby carrot. it is a big carrot chopin they charge you more and it is healthier. it is innovation. cesar chavez is buried in my district. when the nation had a depression in the 1930's, you have a dust ball across the drought in the middle part of the country.

people put everything in their tracks and went to california. the hopes of a better future. they came and they work in our fields. those people who were in line for food one year and a half ago, they are handing out food -- the carry capital of the world, there were carrots from china they were giving out. this is because the ability to pump and bring water down, a court decision based upon a face that did not originate from their. we have watched land get plowed under. we have watched small communities, many of them highly immigrant communities with 40% unemployment. we have been hit with a drought that was man-made, even when you had 136% snowcap.

you watch the draft getting worse for other reasons. -- the drought and getting worse for other reasons. >> what is the likelihood of getting this done before the land back? you voted for the sequestration would year ago. you said defense cuts were a bad thing. was that not the point of it? did you not realize this would happen? >> let's walk back and walk through the debt limit scenario. inside the debt limit the discussion became, if you want to raise the debt limit let's have the ability to cut as much as we want to raise. speaker john boehner had many discussions with the president. there came a moment in time where leadership has to rise up and make a decision. not from parties, but from individuals whether you can come to an agreement. the president could not come to

an agreement. he walked away from the talks. john boehner turned to harry reid and laid out the framework. harry reid ask for one thing. he said, i need a super committee. i cannot deal with 60 votes. we had the last 1 -- i do not want people from the outside and it. let's set this up. how do you know you will ever get it done? if not, we will make the cuts you want to get to. it will make it so painful people will have to actually do it. my study of the super committee, republicans put a proposal out, senate democrats try to come to a conclusion. house democrats never produced a

plan. it did not seem like much they wanted to get something done. the goal was to find the cuts. it has never been my belief that all the power rests with the super committee. the goal of the debt limit was to find the cuts. if they did not in the super committee, it went across. that does not mean that congress cannot act and find cuts as well and it is better planned. if they were not able to achieve a, that does not mean we cannot. we have a responsibility. that is why in our budget we proved it could work. we put a plan out there. it takes away sequestration for a year. it gives you the ability to solve it out for the other end. we have already shown we can cut $497 billion. from that framework, i have always said, we wanted to find

the cuts. we believe we can. we have proven be can do it and get off the floor of the house. this goes back to my earlier point. something has to happen in the senate. >> will it be done before the lame-duck? >> do not criticize me because i am hopeful. >>\ a kid from bakersfield. if he were to ask me that question years ago people would say that is just as crazy. maybe we can get it done before the land back. >> prior to mitt romney's candidacy, did you know -- [unintelligible] >> i followed the olympics early on. what got me interested and it was mcdonald's would give me the scratch off and i would win

fries if we won the 100 yard dash. i am upset they still do not have the game. >> you did talk about the three factors of presidential election presidential job rating, and the unemployment rate. 16 elections from harry truman to dwight eisenhower to george w. bush and barack obama, the president is elected with one dramatic exception they have been immeasurably more likable. every measurement shows president obama despite of the economy and in spite of the job ratings, is considered more likable. what would be your advice to mitt romney where he has not broken through on a personal

level. this is a guy he would like to have a beer with them. >> i think all things you bring up are true. i think what happens also in the nature is the time in which you run. if you take me for a moment, i knew -- i think the time that i would equate the similarity is to 1980. in 1980 i was in junior high or starting high school. i would read about japan about to surpass america in our economy. today we think about maybe china or india. i watched iran bank hold us hostage every day. you watch iran today trying to

hold the world hostage. every generation improved on the generation before. 1980 was the first time it hit 50.4% of americans who believed the best days of america is behind us. you ask that question today 74%. we had an energy crisis and he said put a sweater on and turn the heat on. we battled the soviet union for the best form of government whether it was the free market or communism. we have the same battle today in america itself that is really a struggle for what size of the government you want. i think it is a different place for this election. i think people are talking about what they wanted america to look like. if i was mitt romney, but i would do is a couple of different things. every city i would go into an event, i would first stop at

staples. why would i stop at staples? who do they sell to every small business around. just go in. mitt romney has achieved some remarkable things in his life. mitt romney is probably the last person to talk about it. he does not go and sell himself. he is based on action. if i look at where america is at they like obama. they probably want to go golfing with obama. he does a lot. it want to join him. in the time of the place where america is i want somebody who can make sure the trains run on time and get the place moving again. when you look at the skill set -- i think this will happen. the american public does not have a description of who mitt romney as. one of the best things i saw

described was when he was at bain capital and one of the employees' children got kidnapped in the new york. what did mitt romney do? he sent everybody up there. it was not based on a running for an office in the future. was based on a friend in a time of need. all hands on deck. when america had a problem with the olympics they brought him in. did he go make a political because he was running profits? no. he took a risk on different companies. some signs -- sometimes successful and sometimes not. you are correct that likability is a big factor. the time and place of what is happening today, it will not be the biggest determinant. people are hurting. people want to get back to work. the one to look at the person who would go through and have

the best skill set to put the country back to work. i would emphasize that more than anything. when you go into a convention, i would give the narrative of who mitt romney and who he is. i think america would pay more attention than. they will have to come back and a lot of people will like the decisions he makes. also what they will liked is that it is not so political. it is a little more based on policy. >> i have been wondering. baby carrots are really -- >> you can buy the little ones that are small. have you ever seen a carrot perfectly round of like that? i will take up to my district that let you see. >> yesterday in connecticut and

another judge found that doma was unconstitutional. nancy pelosi put out a statement saying that banner -- john boehner and eric cantor and you had found ways the more tax dollars defending doma in court. i wonder what your response is to her calling this a waste of taxpayer dollars. how long do you plan to keep funding doma? >> i have not seen her press release, but what you talked about from what transpired for the house to be engaged, it is not the subject itself but the idea that what one individual can decide even though something is lost, what is up held and what is not. the rule of law keeps america strong. when you break down the rule of

law, you break down society. the idea that the house defends what becomes law is a very responsible item to have. from my perspective, that is what you find -- i do not want to see within our constitution somebody decides, that is law, i just do not like it. we have a court system, we have a rule of law to go through. i think you have to go through the system to determine that. >> you and john boehner and eric cantor are trying to sign a medicaid. >> i think it is a responsibility in the house and as americans to defend the rule of law for america. it is not based upon what the issue is, it is based upon what this country has -- what this country is created on. if we will allow one person the power to determine something

even though individuals have passed it, i think that is wrong no matter what it is. you have to go through and you have to have a check and balance and have a system to make the answer. if that is the case, what law is really lot then? it goes to every subject. >> yesterday he said he will not run for reelection. he blames it on polarization of congress. did he contact you to talk to the leaders? were you involved in any part of this decision? >> another member had resigned, not based upon that. there are a lot of issues that transpire. steve has been a tremendous member who served here since 1994. that is a long time to serve. i know people get frustrated. i know we do not have term limits.

this is a place that can wear you down and where you out. the voters have the power to decide who is there. if steve says he is frustrated i still see how things have changed for the better in the short amount of time we have been the majority. i will have disagreed that from that premise this place can get things done. >> he is from ohio. he is very close to the speaker. i believe they had these talks. >> two minutes left. >> you guys have a bill and has the votes. does it? could you overcome the various amendments that might be proposed to it. there were reports that eric cantor had some questions from

robert dole on the floor about another abortion bill. why was this one under contention? >> what was the first one again? >> postal. >> u.s. postal service needs to be reformed. for anybody who believes there will not have to be tough decisions -- i was at a town hall last night. i had a postal worker ask me this question and said, a stamp is not that much. people go out there and start mailing stand. how many people have sent something in the last day? how many have sent an e-mail? technology changes everything. how much does your business changed in the last 10 years because of technology? >> i feel confident. how about you?

>> we have to make rules. that committee is working at it. i think we will be able to get something moved and get it done. i think ice's proposal has more support the what the senate has been proposing. that is something that will be further discussed. i was not there with it -- when the discussion -- i do not know if that was the discussion they had with the leader. >> the leaders scheduled the floor. >> do you have any other concerns about holding out on an abortion bill? >> directly to us? i do not schedule before, so i do not know that they really come to me for that judgment. . i have members that discuss everything with me. >> is there enough concern you should not be voting on a

before in -- before the election in november? >> how many suspenses did we have yesterday? he portrayed as being the only one. >>there are a lot of issues that come before us. i think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. >> thank you. we appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

cahoot >> on news makers this week, john corn andnyn -- cornyn. join us at 10:00 and 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> we have to be really clear about the very many ways that we own the ourselves and that we own our history. that we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, of vital and a special. >>