of the man that was killed while bravely fighting the gunman. it was not the american dream of the two brothers in the community. their family came to america for the first time for their funeral. and it was not the american dream of the others who were injured in the massacre. he may never fully recover from his malta gunshot wounds. we ate for our loved ones. -- ache for our loved ones. our heads held high. our mother was it about sikh. like all sikhs, she was born to live in a state of high spirits and optimism. like her, my brother and i work every day to be in a state of high spirits and optimism. we know that we are not alone.

many people have sent us letters, attended a vigils, and given us their support. the mayor and police chief, wisconsin's governor, the president and first lady. senators, i came here today to ask the government to give my mother did monday. they do not -- dignity. they do not track hate crimes against sikhs. it would not even count on a federal form. you cannot solve the problem you refuse to recognize. senator, i ask the government to pursue domestic there it -- terrorism with the same vigor as attacks from abroad. the man who killed my mother was on the watch list of public interest groups. i believe the government could have tracked him long before he killed my mother.

finally, senators, as lawmakers and leaders, you have the power to shape public opinion. your words carry weight. while others scapegoat or demean people because of who they are, use your power to say that is wrong. so many blame for attacks against our community -- we are not muslims, but we will not blame anybody else. and a talk on any of us is an attack on all of us. i want to be part of the solution. i want to protect other people from what happened to my mother. i want to combat hate. not just against sikhs, but

against all people. i know that what happened was not an isolated incident. i feared happen again. if you do not stand up and do something. i do not anywhere -- want anyone to suffer what we have suffered. i want to build a world where all people can live, work, and worship in america in peace. despite everything, i still believe in the american dream. in my mother's memory, i ask that you stand up for that dream. with me, today, and in the days to come. thank you for hearing the testimony. >> that testimony was touching. it was such a tribute to your mother, to family, your religion, your community, to the values of this nation. so many things that you said

need to be heard, not just in this hearing room, but across this country. i hope that the spirit that you bring will teach all of us to be more tolerant and to fight forms of discrimination wherever we can, whenever we can. thank you for your courage and testimony today. professor jacobs from new york university -- your can -- invited to testify. >> thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to share my years with the subcommittee. i, too, was touched by his presentation and very moved by it. i have been a critic of hate crime laws for the last 20 years. i think it was the whole movement to read -- real- criminalize violent crime with

this new wave of hate crime laws was this -- a wrong turn. it was perhaps more divisive than it is consensus-building for this society. but i hasten to add that i deplore discrimination and bias , and of course violent crime motivated by bias. however, as we all recognize, all violent crime, no matter what to the bias or the motivation, is deplorable, and therefore rightly carry significant punishment. i do not think it is desirable or useful to create a hierarchy of crimes and victims based on racial, religious, gender, and sexual orientation, identity of

the perpetrator and the victim. i think ultimately it would be dangerous for society to begin thinking about crimes in terms of which groups and races and religions are doing the most offending and which are being the most offended against. the labeling of offenses as hate crimes or bias crimes is subjective and generates unnecessary and divisive controversy. the early efforts by hate crime proponents to resist including gender-motivated violence as a crime was regarded by women as insensitive at best and indicative of blatant bias at worst. the subsequent effort by many to

resist including anti-gay motivation as a bias crime trigger was similarly regarded as blatantly discriminatory and intolerance. even now, as we heard this afternoon, there continues to be debate about what biases against which groups should warrant specific recognition and extra punishment. determining what is a bias crime is fraught with difficulty, frustrating the aims of the federal hate crimes statistics act and frustrating many prosecutions. some offenders are not caught. therefore, of course, we do not know their motivations, even if it could be said they had a clear motivation. when they are caught, it is usually difficult to determine an offender's motivations. most offenders, especially of

extreme violence, are very confused and disturbed individuals. even if prosecutors and investigators believe that they can determine motivation, it is often very difficult to prove. one need only recall a recent controversy of whether one man's effort to photograph his roommate's homosexual encounter should have been charged as a bias crime. while all americans could agree and come together in thinking that invading a roommate's privacy is wrong, there was great division and great controversy over whether the perpetrator's punishment should be doubled or tripled because the roommate was gay. the whole fight was so unnecessary, since simple invasion of privacy is a crime

and is punishable in new jersey by a maximum punishment of a five years in prison. the politics of hate crime laws divide rather than unite. in 1986 -- the 1980's, when the term hate crime was invented, the proponents said they meant for the laws to crime murderous -- punish plots by neo-nazis and similar his crew spent on terrorizing and destroying whole communities. the reality is that bias crimes are far more likely to be prosecutions directed against the archie bunker's of the world rather than the white supremacists of the world. indeed, most hate crime prosecutions involve young defendants, frequently mixed up

teen-agers who commit low-level offenses such as criminal mischief and simple assault, typically escalating from spontaneous altercations at a party, in a parking lot, or at a school event. many cases that are initially called hate crimes, upon closer inspection, involve serious mental illness rather than some firm ideological commitment or organizational campaign against a particular group. it is worth pondering that the federal hate crime a statute passed in 2009 to bring a federal law enforcement resources to bear on hard-core murderous hate crime groups is this week being used to prosecute a breakaway homage cleric in ohio for religiously degrading on ashman who did not follow his -- amish men who did

not follow his teachings by ordering that their beards be cut off. bias crime laws are unnecessary. failure to provide for a maximum punishment adequate to sanctify -- satisfy criminal offenders is not a american problem. we have the longest maximum sentence in the free world. for the most serious crimes, we have life imprisonment without parole or capital punishment. there is no more that can be added. ironically, some states, in the name of creating a more tolerant society, have made by s motivation and aggravating factors emerged -- making a murderer eligible for capital punishment. prisons, as we know, are the number 1 spawning grounds for hate groups like the aryan brotherhood. hate crime laws are

counterproductive, politicize crime, and spawned charges of hypocrisy and double standards. those who are prosecuted call themselves victims of political correctness, martyrs to the first amendment. hate crime laws conflict with their proponents usual criticism of overuse of criminal law and especially over-incarceration, sending more people to prison for lumber periods of time -- is not likely to contribute to a more tolerant society. thank you. >> thank you, professor jacobs. i asked the question of the first panel based on your request -- the category be added to this report. so they would have some collection of statistics and numbers. i think the response was positive. i promise you i will follow up to make sure it is considered in a timely basis. let me ask you -- what impact

has this terrible massacre had on your sikh community? >> the people have been wonderful. everybody has come together now. as one. just for that to happen. this was not a loss, this was a gain. >> you mentioned the president persuaded the governor and other leaders to express their sympathy for this terrible event. had you noticed any other efforts by people of other religions, other backgrounds, who had not been part of your sikh community before, are now closely more associated? >> yes. there are a lot of people -- muslims, christians, hindus, everybody has come and has been

there for us. >> what about around the country? ledyard any similar stories from other members of the sikh alex triantafilou -- sikh community? >> yes. same thing. people came from all around the country. from new york, from india, all over the world. >> i am sorry you had to lose so much for this outpouring of support to occur. i hope in your mother's memory it will be a positive thing for you and your family and for your community in years to come. thank you again for your great testimony. such an impact. professor jacobs, we will move to this constitutional or legal debate, however it might be. the supreme court considered your point of view and surprisingly, it was justice rehnquist who wrote the opinion

that rejected your point of view. he said we should draw a line between expression, statements, speech, and, as he said, a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. that seems declarative and final in its nature. do you disagree with that conclusion? >> definitely not. >> so, i do not want to put words in your mouth -- your argument is not that those who killed in the name of hate are expressing themselves under some constitutional protection? >> of course not. i have not said anything constitutional at all. my point here is that murder is already punished as severely as it can be punished. it cannot be punished and more. >> let me take the next up --

you have said, next to the testimony of this brave young man who has come to tell you the impact that this heinous act had on his family and his life -- you have questioned before whether there is any special emotional or psychological impact in a hate crime. the still hold the position that a hate crime victim is no sadder, no worse off than some other victim of a crime? >> i do. many crime victims of different kinds of crimes, felony murders, killings and a park, killings of children -- none of it is pleasant, as you know. the pain is excruciating. is there any need for us to compare one person's paine in a heinous murder to another person's pain and put one on a higher pedestal than in other persons? will that help us as a society? >> it turns out that when we

rode our terrorism laws, we felt it did. the federal terrorism statute provides enhanced penalties if they appear to be intended to influence the policy of government and by influential coercion. we've gone beyond the physical act and said, what is the motivation behind it? we have drawn the line when it comes to terrorism. you oppose enhanced penalties for terrorism? >> i do not. >> so how you make the distinction? >> terrorist acts, when you have a crime that threatens a large number of people, it should be punished to the maximum. i think those statutes are meant to give federal jurisdiction over the crime. we need federal jurisdiction over those crimes. >> i hate to quarrel with a law professor, but it seems to me that what we are talking about is intent in both instances.

the intent is terrorist- inspired, he sits there will be a higher penalty. when comes to a hate crime, when it is inspired by the hated person because of a religion or race or gender or sexual orientation, the enhanced penalty -- the to run in parallel. >> i will not go down that road. i think all homicidal crime is filled with hate of one kind or another. a lot of it is filled with just plain confused and deranged thinking. most of the people we arrest for such crimes -- it looks clearer in the abstract, but when you address them, like the apparent perpetrator in aurora, they are very confused and disturbed individuals. >> i would just say -- i would question whether or not you are consistent in allowing for

enhanced penalties for terrorism but not for hate crimes. that seems to be my note. you disagree. mr. johnson -- you heard the testimony. the man had been called out by at least two organizations as a dangerous individual. apparently that was not enough to warrant an investigation. there was nothing the fbi could point to which would single him out for special investigation or attention. was this an intelligence failure in wisconsin? >do you think there could have been things done to prevent this attack that were not done? >> i think the fbi late at where the problem was. they're really good at investigating after the fact, after things happen, but we had a delicate balance between people's constitutional right to assemble and express their speech, however weil, but we also have to be board cleaning

and look at ideologies that have long histories of -- forward- looking and the ideologies that have long histories of spawning violence. i'm not talking about doing covert operations and people with extremist police, but i think it is important we have an overt monitoring police system on what is causing people to act of violence may. was this an intelligence failure? i do not think it is. but one thing the department of homeland security and the fbi could have done -- where was the warning the that sikhs and muslims have been victims of shooting attacks? i think there could have been a threat assessment prepared on that very subject sent out to the fifth base communities affected. i believe that may have provided a first line of defense by identifying the problem and providing countermeasures to encourage people to be increasingly vigilant towards the threat. that may have played a possible

role in maybe preventing some type of attack. >> i readily agree with your premise. people have tattoos -- simply because people have tattoos or listen to music or gather and say certain things is not evidence of criminal intent. that was the point made by the fbi. what you also say is worthy of note. when you hear this over and over, it raises the level of prices. whether it is anti-semitism against a jewish synagogue, the burning of christian churches in the south, attacks on muslim mosques or sikh temples, each of these warrants special effort. the last question i will ask -- you know today seems to be a reduction in force of the people at homeland security who are working on these issues. mr. mcallister was not altogether clear on the subject -- would you like to say more on that? >> you have outlined in your testimony, when i was the team

leader at the department of homeland security, we had analysts under supervision, but also additional analysts supplementing us. we had as many as eight analysts looking at this issue. today, there is one. that is a fact. >> the last point -- when he said the militia investigated in michigan had a larger arsenal of weapons and all of the terrorists who have been arrested since 9/11 in the united states -- was that your testimony? >> is a daunting statistics. i got this information of a steve emerson's investigative product website, where he has all the court records of every single muslim are extremists arrested in the country since 9/11. that is my sources can pump. -- that is where my sources came from. >> many people in the community did not understand to sikhs -- who they were intel the tragedy

occurred. how does the sikh fit into milwaukee before the tragedy, and how would you describe the outpouring corresponds that occurred? >> sikhs are a different religion, a different race -- they will come up to you and asking for you are. people do not ask towho sikhs are. if a person asks me, who am i? what is that on your head? i would love to tell them what it is. people do not do that. they should start doing that. to get the fact that it is right. it is a turban. >> ok. how have you been moving forward

since the tragedy with respect to your place of worship and your ability to come and worship without fear? >> on my what? >> the level of fear that occurred when the tragedy happened -- has that abated? >> beshear is still around. but we are -- the fear is still around but we are getting over it as much as we can. trying to get over it with people you love. >> is the level of attendance for services equal to what it was before this tragedy? are some people still worried about attending? >> it has actually gone up. a lot more people showed up this time, after the incident. the attendance has been enormous now. it has gone up. >> that is terrific. thank you bir much.

>> thank you to this entire panel ford's testimony. -- before its testimony. senator bling and paul. >> thank you. a -- blumenthal. >> thank you. i apologize for not being here earlier. i had another committee hearing. out like to first of all follow up -- my condolences for your loss. even in a place as geographically distant as connecticut, there has been an outpouring of feeling in sympathy for the victims and their families. i have attended two of the ceremonies and services marking this horrendous incident. i would say that i joined

senator kohl in the expressions of satisfaction that there is a strengthening of your community and of attendance and involvement. that is the case, is it not? >> yes. >> if i may turn to mr. johnson -- you have pat day long career -- had a long career in intelligence. enforcement efforts. you referred earlier to the possibility that there might have been prevented action possible. do you think it is a realistic assessment, intelligence or better, do you think prevention is a realistic and practical likelihood? >> basically raising awareness and increasing vigilance and putting in countermeasures,

putting up barriers of defense that could serve as a prevention. is it an interdiction? will it stop the incident from happening? probably not. but if you have your awareness up, then perhaps you can take countermeasures to prevent the amount of loss. >> and is the issue one of resources -- you mentioned the number of analysts diminishing from 8 to 1. is that the principle barrier? is it a matter of hearing information? what would you analyze as the issue? >> the written testimony, i outlined a number of limitations, one of which is resources. we are also lacking in strategic analysis. that is where we look at emerging national trends and patterns of criminal activity. there were some other things i mentioned in my written testimony that you referred to. it is a multi-layered approach.

information sharing has gotten better, but we can still make improvements there as well. >> so it is a multifaceted challenge. >> that is right. i mentioned training as an issue. we have a whole new group of officers moving through the ranks to need to be trained on these types of subjects and what the different extremists' tactics and activity levels are. >> professor jacobs, i know that you have raised in your testimony and also in your written testimony reservations and qualms about the hate crime definition and prove issues. why does issues any norm -- any different than normal criminal intent elements of proof that have to be presented in a criminal trial? >> is different, defining which

biases and so forth -- on the question of purpose, i think it is harder to get into a person's motivations, whether it was intended or not intended is a fairly thin mental state when you start to get into what is their bias, looking at these various crimes that have been prosecuted. the one in new jersey is a very good example. what was his motivation? he himself may not have known what his motivation was. a lot of motivations. maybe no clear motivation. what he did do was infringe upon the privacy of his roommate. that was clear and could easily be proved. but the prosecution was not able to prove that it was an anti-gay bias. that is often the case.

>> that may be true in a variety of criminal cases where the prosecution has the continuing burden of proof and has to present evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a motivation existed. i do not understand why that burden does not place sufficient -- a sufficiently high threshold for the proof of a hate crime. >> i do not think it is necessary. we have criminal laws against assault and against murder and against rape and kidnapping. in order to express even more outraged, we have gone through the criminal code and kind of read criminalize crimes that already carry huge punishments, more than we have the resources to actually implement.

>> which is true of other crimes as well that may be prosecutable under different laws. >> they are all prosecutable under different laws, senator. >> correct. so why not permit prosecution of hate crimes when they are in fact motivated by bigotry and bias, that kind of intent, as an expression of community outrage which our criminal law does? >> that is the route we are going down. i think that if it is successful we will see. if it helps to lead to a more tolerant society, that would be good. but it might also be very divisive. juries might begin to seek criminal prosecutions as political trials in which the crime is about making a statement about the perpetrators group as opposed to the victims group. we will start to see the crime problem as one that is divided

along all of the fractures of american society. i would not welcome seeing the crime problem in that way. i think it is unnecessary to do that. >> i think the reservation you have expressed has been articulated at least in my experience in state legislatures, when these issues are rows and those reservations or objections were overcome. because people do feel that the expression of the community paulson tolerance for violence -- community's in tolerance for violence fueled by community -- bigotry and hatred is a proper and appropriate measure to take and hopefully will also have a deterrent effect. if it deters these kinds of crimes, perhaps it would serve a

legitimate purpose in criminal law as well. i.n.d. stand, and you articulate and well your concerns -- i understand, and you have articulated well your concerns, but the growing awareness of the severity and frequency of these crimes will probably and hopefully result in greater and tougher enforcement. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal, senator kohl. more than 400 people were in attendance at this hearing in the overflow room and on this main level. it has shown a lot of interest in this important topic. many from the sikh community and all across the united states. we thank you very much for joining all of us and expressing our sentiments of sorrow for what has taken place in your community. we are not alone in our feelings about this. we've had enormous amount of interest from many groups. 80 written statements for today's hearing.

from the chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, the anti- defamation league, the chicago city council, the chicago police department, the council on american islamic relations, a human-rights campaign, interfaith alliance, the islamic society of north america, the japanese-american citizens league, latina justice, muslim advocates, the national gay and lesbian task force, the oak creek police department, people for the american way, the african-american minister leadership council, the sikh coalition, south asian americans leading together, the southern poverty law center. without objection, i would like to put the statements into the record. hearing no objection, that will be the case. the record will be open for a week to accept additional statements. if there are witnesses or

questions, i hope you will answer in a timely fashion. i think the witnesses for attending and colleagues for per dissipating. the hearing stands adjourned. -- for participating. the hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[inaudible conversation] >> the house financial-services committee hears from the consumer financial protection bureau director in the semi annual report to congress.

we'll be live after morning our speeches in the house on c-span. >> in just over two weeks, the first of the presidential debates. live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span -- c-span.org. coming up tonight, u.s. house discussions of -- honoring ambassador chris stevens and other americans killed in the embassy attacks. then, homeland security sect -- secretary janet polycom a testifies about how homeland security janet napolitano testifies about homeland security threats and the federal response. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow, representative tom call of oklahoma will take your questions about the fiscal cliff and other issues. a democrat from washington will

talk about his bills to help voters who do not have proper i.d. on election day. we look at irs tax data on who pays and does not pay federal taxes. our guest is director of the tax policy center. "washington journal" is live on c-span, every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> all this weekend, but tv has live coverage of the national book festival from the national mall. today's of all the presentations and interviews, including walter isaacson, douglas brinkley, david meredith. also, your e-mail, phone calls, tweets. live on c-span 2. scheduled details at booktv.org. >> on this c-span 2 goal plus hang out, our focus is ohio, one of the key battleground states in this election. joining us from cincinnati, chair of the democratic ohio

party, tim burke. and republican share alex triantafilou from hamilton county. also the political correspondent from cbs-tv. let me begin with you. hamilton county, ohio, has traditionally been a republican county. 1968 until 2004, a traditional republican county. in 2008, it went democratic. what changed? >> a lot of republicans had moved out of hamilton county into the surrounding counties. one thing that is certain in this election, like past elections, the southwestern corner of ohio will be pivotal for mitt romney. he has got to get that back and perform better in hamilton county then john mccain did four years ago. there is every expectation that will happen. i think a lot of ohio republicans will privately admit that they wish that rob portman had been on the ticket.

he has a heavy presence and background in hamilton county and the southwestern corner of the state. it would have almost assured that it would be very successful there. it may have given a shot of enthusiasm in republican activists that would not be measured by polls. i know the polls were showing portman has marginal help in ohio, but i do not quite believe that. i think the enthusiasm level would have been happy to read the end of the day, a lot of republicans are very heavy in the southwestern corner. democrats have the northeast. republicans must have the southwest corner. >> give us a larger sense of the politics and ohio, what both politics -- campaigns are facing in the ground game. >> isa reported from both conventions. in tampa, the republican strategists said they will go after undecided voters in the state. there are probably only 5% of ohio winds that are "undecided."

they decide to spend heavily to get them. they believe the undecided voter in this election cycle -- they will probably not be with him. the flip side of that, in charlotte, the democrats said that they are less concerned about winning over those undecided voters and now want to get out their base. they believe that if they can do what they did last year, with senate bill 5, a very controversial issue, if they can get the same vote they did to get out that controversial anti- union bill, which they did with 61% of the vote, if they can do that again, they will have a successful effort for president obama. for republicans is their ground game for the undecided voter. for democrats, it is trying to get out the vote. unions, minorities, women, students -- try to reinvigorate their base to get out be sp 5

vote a year ago. >> tim burke, chairman of the democratic party in hamilton county -- give us a sense of the political demographics in york county and how it is changing. >> this county is almost 50-50 now between the two parties. the state of -- cincinnati is very heavily democrat. the outside of the city, the rest of the county, leans more republican. we feel very good about what the democrats are going to do and how president obama will perform in the county this year. we believe hamilton county will go blue again. we have already got eight offices open for president obama. we have literally got hundreds of volunteers on the front and going door-to-door every day. >> alex triantafilou from the republican side -- hamilton county, what are the demographics? >> the demographics have shifted. his assessment of the county is

as true. jim said appropriately -- this is a close county. president obama did win this county for years ago. however, our governor turned around and won this county again in 2010. the demographics make this a very close county. we feel similarly confident, frankly. we believe we have a terrific energy on our side that we have not had in the last couple of years. there is a tea party, energize conservatives, in this part of the state. we have lots of activists on the ground. we feel pretty confident. >> at the moment the poll numbers show and all the leading service said the president is ahead of mitt romney in ohio. why is that? >> we see that -- we think that a lot of these polls. first of all, it is tough to be an incumbent. the poles will eventually migrate in the right direction.

we agree with dick morris when he said the undecided vote to break a candidate. the president has had a good week, but by the end of these debates people will ask themselves, are you better off now than you were four years ago? does this president is service second term? we do not think he does. we think we are -- does this president deserve a second term? we do not think he does. as we can this, we talked to a lot of voters who were for the president last time and will not be again. >> tim burke, let me ask you about the economics of hamilton county. how was it doing? what is the unemployment rate, and what impact will that have on overall results in november? >> let me speak to ohio in general, as alex just did. i think the reason president obama is doing so well -- the biggest one may be the of the rescue.

750,000 jobs in ohio -- many right here in southwest ohio -- depend on the auto industry. the fact that has come back as strongly as it has has ohio doing better than the national economy is doing. just yesterday we had president obama here. the individual who introduced him came from one of the steel plants that produces a lot of steel for the automobile industry. that means a lot for the middle class workers. that is to president obama is successfully speaking to in this campaign. >> can i step quickly that it has created a very interesting dynamic this year. before super tuesday, i was covering governor romney in places like lorain, ohio, where he was campaigning to shut down steel mills and manufacturing plants. the governor's team was not very happy. their narrative was that they

have eight unemployment rate four points lower than the national average. iran campaign is now voiding that discussion altogether. -- the romney campaign is avoiding that discussion altogether. both campaigns are trying to take credit for improving the conditions. john kasich will have to wait two years. >> let me go back to the issue of the ground game. we hear about this every two or four years. you are honest assessment, and then tim burke, we will go to you -- how important is that in a presidential election? how much chesley people who may be undecided -- yes, i will vote for this candidate because i received a phone call or somebody knocked on my door? >> i think both sides have bought into this idea that talking to and touching, for lack of a better word, undecided voters in their neighborhoods can really swing voters.

we bought into that program. we did it pretty effectively in 2004. the president and his team did well in 2008 . we got the momentum back. having that conversation, identifying them, and later making sure that they get to the polls -- we think that is a really important way to swing the electorate. we are fully engaged in that process in hamilton county. >> tim burke, your assessment -- how important is it to sway the voter? >> for democrats is critical. -- it is critical. to execute a get-out-the-vote operation to get voters to the polls. the obama grande dame has been in place for the past four years. it had an extraordinary tuneup last year with sp 5 and then the referendum to force the repeal of voter suppression

legislation. the obama ground campaign is incredibly sophisticated. not only have they been out there touching voters, but they are recording that information so that as we roll into the tv operations in the next few weeks, we know exactly who we have to get to the polls. >> jim, as the polls come in, numbers on election night, two scenarios. the first is that mitt romney winds ohio. what does that tell you about what we can expect on tuesday november 6? >> he will be president. i think that the way ohio goes will determine that. they have the longest streak now picking the correct presidential winner. no republican has ever won the white house without ohio. it has been since john f. kennedy that a democrat has been able to win without ohio. they are the best political barometer in the country. on election night, romney will have to do very well from the or the votes -- early votes in the

southwestern part of the state. we will see how they do in the central part, referred to as the swingiest part of a swing state. the ground game -- we will see how that is for president obama in the northeast part of the state, in cleveland. typically, republicans jump out in the lead early. then it is a question about whether or not they get out the vote in this county and have enough strength to overturn that. it will be a fascinating night. we all expected to be a long night. we hear this all the time, but i believe it -- as ohio goes, so will go the presidency. >> do you think barack obama winds ohio, it is over? >> there is no way, mathematically, that they can get to 270 elector votes without the 18 from ohio. i talked to a senior romney strategist last week. he told me there was a strategy to win wisconsin -- wisconsin only has 10 electoral votes. then they have to win iowa and new hampshire. it is like several states to

make up for moot -- losing ohio. if they lose here, i think obama will be reelected. >> i will turn to you question that the party -- turn that to the party chairs. >> what can you tell us about the disappointment of senator portman not being on that ticket? it would have made your life easier and treated more of an enthusiastic based in the state. >> so many of us know senator portman personally. he is an outstanding person. but look -- paul ryan brought something else to this campaign. some of the viewers may not know, he went to miami university, just up the road from cincinnati. he has a cincinnati connection. there is a connection here.

those of us who know and love paul -- rob portman would have loved to see him on the ticket. that conversation occurred for a couple of hours on that saturday morning. those of us who were down here on the ground -- we were energized. paul ryan has brought a new energy. he has impacted our tea party, who are very excited about a young conservative voice to act has a plan for the future of the government, a great budget, a proposal, who is talking about the economy. we were disappointed, but we're also energized by paul ryan in a way that may not have happened otherwise. i do not know. >> let me flip the question -- a lot of folks here, particularly moderate republicans and i kranz, who suggested to me that if the president had put hillary clinton on the ticket and put joe biden in the spot as the secretary of state, that would have reenergize the state, particularly for the crucial women vote. would that have helped?

is joe biden a net gain or net loss? >> i think joe biden is a net plus. i love hillary. she will be a great candidate at some point. but we have joe biden -- terrific out on the stump. he really speaks to the middle class and connects exceptionally well with organized labor. he connects exceptionally well with the democratic base. we came out of the democratic national convention completely fired up. our folks are out there and ready to go. the interesting thing about rob portman, and i do not know that he would have delivered ohio to romney. i do not think that is the case. the fact of the matter is, when romney went in a different direction, rather than picking somebody who led a reputation as a moderate, able to work both sides, he went hard to the right again. that does nothing but help us, i believe. >> tim burke is the chair of the hamilton county ohio democratic party.

alex triantafilou is the chair of the republican party. also in hamilton county, jim heath, political correspondent for the cbs affiliate, joining us from columbus. thank you for sharing your insights into ohio, a better brand state on this c-span 2 " hangout. >> thank you. >> wednesday in the u.s. house, members on a u.s. ambassador to libya chris stevens and three other americans killed when terrorists attacked the u.s. consul at benghazi. debated a resolution on the house for. this is 20 minutes. the clerk: house resolution 786, honoring the four united states public servants who died in libya and condemning the attacks on the united states diplomatic facilities in lya, egypt, and yemen. the spear pro tempore: the

gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and the gentleman will each control 20 minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: iant to thank leader pelosi, leader cantor and others for spearheading this attack. our thoughts and prayers are with the families of chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods, and glen doherty, and all those injured in the attacks. on the 11th anniversary of the attacks of september 11, 2001, radical islamist attacked the united states embassy in benghazi and our ambassador and three other state department

personnel were murdered. concurrently in cairo, our u.s. embassy there was assaulted by a mob of extremists who breached its walls and desecrated our american flag. since that fateful day, mr. speaker, we have witnessed a dramatic escalation of anti-american protests and actions throughout the region from assaulting the embassy in tunis to the attack on peacemakers, peace keepers in the sinai. the premise that the violence and protests are solely based on that obscure hateful video is patently false. rather, it is symptomatic of a broader effort by our enemies in the region to foment hatred of the united states. yet theres. haitian hesitation on the part of this administration and the schizophrenia in response to this latest crisis is a cause for concern. the u.s. has nothing for which to apogize, including the exercise of freedom of

expression. surrendering our principles before an unruly mob will only embolden the likes of al qaeda and reinforce the notion that more aacks against the united states will change core american policies and american principles. the perpetrators of the attacks must be held accountable by our allies in the region and the administration must take the lead. there is no excuse whatsoever for attacking diplomatic missions and murdering diplomats. the administration must place the government on notice that their conduct during this crisis will determinthe nature of our relations moving forward. the libyan and yes, ma'amny government have both apologized for and strongly condemned the attacks on u.s. diplomatic posts in their host countries. they have been fully cooperating with us. by contrast, the egyptian government took over a day to

ise a weak statement discouraging violence against foreign embassies, but it was, alas, too little, too late. this cannot happen again and congress will be closely monitoring the ongoing protests and reassessing our assistance packages and our approaches based on the responses of these governments to assaults on our embassies and our institutions. the lack of a firm response will undermine our u.s. interests in the region. we must clearly articulate and implement a policy that rewards our allies, encourages moderate forces within the region, and punishes our enemies. at this critical moment, mr. speaker, the united states must affirm support to our friends and allies and clearly differentiate them from our enemies. the united states must continue to stand up for american values and stand with the voices of

moderation. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i rise in support of this resolution, honoring ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glen doherty, four patriotic americans who lost their lives in a horrible attack in benghazi, libya. the men and women of the state department assume great risks in dangerous locations around the world. they promote democracy, build civil society, educate, mediate, negotiate, an defend u.s. interests worldwide. they are the face of america abroad and our country is safer, freer, and more prosperous because of what they do. ambassador stevens was one of our best and brightest and most courageous. . he served in israel, egypt, saudi arabia, but libya became the sere piece and defining mission of his careerment he

was on the ground in benghazi leading u.s. diplomatic efforts from the earliest days of the revolution. he worked tirelessly on behalf of u.s.-libyan relations and the well-being of u.s. citizens living in libya. i am particularly angry that this sickening attack occurred in a country that the u.s. which is chris stevens believed in did so much to liberate. he will be missed for his knowledge of the middle east, his exemplary commitment to service, warm and welcoming personality, and basic human decentcy. sean was a father and 10-year veteran of the u.s. state department. prior to arriving in benghazi, he served in brussels, baghdad, pretoria, montreal, and the hague. glen doherty was a former navy seal from boston. he was killed while serving on the ambassador's security detail and helping to evacuate the wounded. tyrone woods spent two decades

as a seal, was the father of three, and had worked protecting diplomats in dangerous posts for the past two years. mr. speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all the dedicated public servants whose lives were lost. libya owes the american people a full investigation of this incident in complete cooperation with u.s. authorities. the killers must be found and brought to justice. i stand by ready to assist in any way i can. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time voifed. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i will reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to resee. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: yes. i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: i certainly join with my colleagues in mourning

the passing under tragic circumstances of ambassador stevens, as well as the dths of sean smith and security officers tyrone woods and glen doherty. as well as all those who were injured. i think all of us can agree that what happened to ambassador stevens and the rest of the diplomatic staff should concern everyone, concern all americans. these attacks were wrong. and it's appropriate that we honor ambassador stevens. the resolution as i read it is not complete, though, because this discussion that we are having here on the floor is missing some elements and i'd like to bring them forward right now. we have to ask th question, why was the consulate in

benghazi, libya, slightly defended to begin with? did anyone know that benghazi was still a flash point? i mean we overthrew the government. did anyone know that when the government fell that al qaeda's flag was flying over benghazi? did anyone know about al qaeda's presence in libya that came after the war that would have been a constant factor to be mindful of with respect to protecting those who serve. why wasn't more care given? to protect u.s. personnel. and the other thing is, there were warnings in diplomatic circle specifically with respect to libya, because of

the ferment that has been going on in the broader muslim world. these are concerns that should be discussed by the congress. doesn't take away anything from the sacrifice that was given. but we have to ask some questions here. we al have to be aware that u.s. policy in libya is murky at best and huge mistake at worst. we have debates on this floor about libya. and we know that congress was not consulted. the current issue of vanity fair is worth the attention of every member of congress because it made it abundantly clear on what is a prime constitutional responsibility of congress, article 1, section

8, the power to declare war was essentially usurped by the administration. this is not a small matter. would we have been in libya if congress had had an up front vote immediately? two days ago wecelebrated constitution day. are we celebrating the constitution every day or just one day? there are consequences for not fog the constitution. there are consequences for our citizens here at home and citizens abroad. and this needs to be brought up in the context of this debate. we cannot pretend that united states policy, which often lacks congressional involvement , with droughns flying over yemen and somalia and pakistan and afghanistan and innocent killed tt there is not going to be a blowback or backlash. it is wrong for any of our people to have their lives on

the line where they lose their life. it's awful. and i stand here today in support of this resolution only because i want to be on record as joining my colleagues on this matter of making sure that we pay tribute to those whose lives were put on the line for this country. but let me tell you. we cannot ig more the deeper questions here -- ignore the deeper questions here. why wasn't that consulate well defended? we cannot ignore the question, why wasn't congress consulted? on the decision to did to -- go to war against libya? there are consequences for these things. the whole country should mourn ambassador stevens' death and the death of all those who proudly serve this country who were taken in this fit of outrage that swept across

libya, but we need to remember a few other things, too, about how we got there and why those people who put their lives on the line to serve, why their lis were put in jeopardy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. miss ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield one minute to our esteemed majority leader, mr. cantor, the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and thank the gentlelady for her leadership in bringing this resolution forward. mr. eaker, i rise today in support of this resolution to condemn the violence against our diplomatic missions in libya, egypt, yemen, and elsewhere. we acknowledge and honor the personal sacrifice of the brave americans who gave their lives in service to our nation. u.s. ambassador chris stevens, foreign service information management officer sean smith, and security officers tyrone

woods and glen doherty tragically lost their lives far from home in benghazi, libya, where they were promoting american interests and helping the libyan people secure the hard fought gains of their revolution. these heroes died upholding th liberty, democracy, and moderation we value as a nation. in the wake of their jobs and ongoing protests and violence, americans want to know wh our strategy is for protecting our diplomats, our interests, and our values in a region that is undergoing a profound and unfortunately sometimes violent litical transformation. americans are rightly worried about the anti-americanism and islamic extremism that has reared its head. i share the concern that americans have about the situation in the middle east. and i believe the president

should explain his strategy for navigating the uncertain waters before us. but i know that one policy we must not pursue is to turn our back on this troubled region. withdrawing from the region would embolden the extremists and justify osama bin laden's strategy leaving the moderates who share ouralues and who desire democracy to combat the forces of violence alone. we are not alone in this fight. from morocco to indonesia there are brave muslims who oppose violence, who desire good relations with the united states, who respect religious freedom, and who risk their lives by preaching tolerance and moderation. we should redouble our efforts to stand with these muslims who seek to protect a great religion from being subverted by extremists.

we should not abandon libya because terrorists seek to undermine a government that is making progress towards establishing a democracy and that is joining the fight against terrorism. egyps democratic revolution is unfinished and much work remains to ensure that its first election is not its last. we should work with egypt's leaderto help build a democracy that respects individual rhts, women, and religious freedom, while being clear that we will not tolerate policies that give any ground to terrorists or undermine our security or that of our ally, israel. american assistance is not anonymity and congress expects egypt's new leaders to respect the parameters and conditions of our generous aid. america must not abandon its partners just as we should not

apologize for our perceived sins. we must demonstrate leadership. we should lead a coalition against the rad cal mullahs in iran who foment instability and extremism throughout the region. america should combat iran's support for terrorism and thwart its aspirations for nuclear weapons. america should be leading an international effort to bring overwhelming pressure on the assad regime in syria to end once and for all its state sponsorship of terrorism and bring about a new government in syria before that society fractures beyond repair. mr. speaker, america has long been a force for good and stability in the middle east. when we have retreated in the past from playing this role, we have paid dearly. withdrawing from lebanon in the 1980's ceded our country to syria and hezbollah. failing to respond to al

qaeda's attack in the 1990's led osama bin laden to believe he could attack the american homeland. the extremists in the region believe today as bin laden believed then, that we do not have e stomach to defend our friends and our interest. that we will abandon the middle east. we must prove them wrong by responding to this challenge with purpose and strength. we musstand with our friends and hold our enemies to account. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i have no further speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speakepro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, in closing i would like to reinforce a few points. first our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the american diplomats murdered in libya as we stand with them in this difficult time.

secondly, there is no excuse whatsoever for attacking diplomatic missions and murdering diplomats. third, the u.s. has nothing for which to apologize. let us not apologize for the exercise of freedom of expression. the perpetrators of these attacks must be held accountable. finally, the united states congress will be reassessing our assistance packages based on the responses of the various affected governments to assault on our embassies and our institutions. nothing can justify the terrorist attacks carried out against our fellow americans and our diplomatic posts and our u.s. interests around the world. the americans killed were committed to helping the libyan people, committed to help them secure a better, more stable, more peaceful future. yet radicals, the radicals who seek thydrogen -- hijack such

freedom, security, and prosperity from the people of the middle east and in north africa, those who deny their own people basic human rights and univerl fedom, answer our dedication and our commitment of these courageous americans by burning our mission and killing our diplomats. . let us be clear. no apol gays are needed. to people throughout the mideast, north africa and the world, the united states and our personnel overseas stand with you. we stand for freedom, despite the threat from extremi elements and with that,

>> in just two weeks, the first of the presidential debates. watch and engage. coming up,, and security threats. -- coming up, homeland security threats. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, tom cole will take your questions about the so-called fiscal cliff. representative rick larsen.

wednesday, the attorny general steps down following a report. the house oversight and government reform committee hearing is why thursday starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> my experience was as a prosecutor. we would occasionally run into law and for an arms. they would be our agents. i was doing mortgage fraud in cases. i started up a unit. i did not know it the big picture.

when i got the job, one of the first things i did was meet the different ig's. starting with those meetings and over next couple of years, i found the inspection generals, unfortunately, while they ever supposed to be fierce watchdogs, they really had become or were often just like any governmental agency. their number one concern seem to be things about their budget, how to preserve their budget, and they were very word -- worried about clashing with management and to much interactions with congress. it was a go along, get along attitude. i kept hearing over and over again there were three different types of ig's. a lapdog, which was discouraged, a watchdog, which was in between, and a junkyard dog. when i was going to the confirmation process, i was told

by a senator, who was the head of the finance committee and oversaw one of my confirmation hearings, that i needed to be like a junkyard dog. >> neil barofsky's book ."ailout" on c-span's "q&a >> it is said the attack in libya was an opportunistic terror attack and not substantially planned in advance. the comments came during the senate homeland's security and governmental affairs committee governmental hearing. homeland security secretary and fbi associate director also testified. this is an hour and 50 minutes.

>> the hearing will come to order. good morning to all. this is our annual, our committee's annual home lapd threat assessment hearing -- homeland threat assessment hearing. i want to welcome back janet napolitano, secretary of department of homeland security, and matt olsen, and the associate deputy director, kevin perkins, who is standing in for director bob mueller today. the director had to undergo unexpected surgery resulting from complications associated with recent dental treatment. he's unable to join us today. but we welcome mr. perkins in his stead. we with confidence we extend best regards to the director for a speedy recovery.

this will be the final time that i have the privilege of chairing this annual hearing, so i want to use this opportunity to thank each of you for your leadership in our nation's homeland security and counterterrorism efforts through you to thank those who work with you in each of your departments or agencies. and more narrowly to thank you for the productive relationship that each of you and your predecessors have had with this committee. the obvious fact is, as i look at the three of you and look back, is that on september 11, 2001, two of the three

organizations testifying today did not exist. and the third, the f.b.i., was a very different organization than it is today. focused on domestic crime as it had been for quite a while. obviously in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on america of 9/11, 2001, congress and the executive branch created the department of homeland security and then pursuant to the 9/11 commission recommendation created the national counterterrorism center. the f.b.i. essentially recreated itself into a first rate domestic counterterrorism intelligence agency. in addition to carrying out all its other responsibilities. in his absence we should thank

director mueller for what i think is an extraordinary job he's done in overseeing this historic transformation and to thank the two of you, secretary napolitano, and director olsen, for what you have done together these changes represent the most significant reforms of america's national security organizations since the 1940's, at the beginning of the cold war. it's not coincidental since after 9/11 we understood we were facing a very different threat to our national security and with an intensity that we hadn't experienced through most of american history, a very real threat to our homeland security. as i look back, i really want to again thank you, your predecessors in each of these roles, f.b.i., bob mueller, has pretty much been there the whole time, and the thousands of federal employees who work under you, because i think without question, because of all that the three organizations

represented here before us have done, the american people have been much safer here at home than we otherwise would have been. we the american people, would have been if you had not existed. with a lot of gratitude, i thank you for that remarkable transformation. we made a lot of progress. we have kept the enemy away for most of the last 11 years. the most significant -- put it a different way, the most lethal threats or attacks on our homeland have been carried out by homegrown terrorists, hassan at fort hood, and bledsoe

at the army recruiting station in little rock. but the battle goes on and it's hard to reach a conclusion other than it will go on for a long time. obviously we hold this hearing today still mourning the deaths of the american ambassador to libya, chris stevens, and three other state department personnel. still speaking personally

infuriated by those attacks that resulted from a movement against, which i believe to be a terrorist act, against our consulate in benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the attacks of september 11. these attacks do many things, but they remind us i think first of the bravery and commitment of government officials who serve in countries around the world, supporting the struggles of people in those countries, to live free. and by doing so work to improve our own national security. the attack in libya also reminds us that even though the core of al qaeda has been seriously weakened, we still face threats from an evolving and fractious set of terrorist groups and individuals united by a common ideology which is that of haven't -- violent islamist extremism. i'll have some questions to ask the three of you about the

nature of the terrorist threat today and specifically with regard to the reaction to this film whether you think it has raised the threat level against any places or institutions or individuals here in the united states. reporting to us on the terrorist threat to the homeland today, i also hope you'll address other concerns such as the effort to counter homegrown violent islamist groups and the threat to our homeland and people in a different way over the last couple of years posed by the islamic republic of iran, its iranian guard corps and the qods force and proxy group such as hezbollah which certainly seem to be reaching outside of their normal areas of operation

in the middle east in conducting attacks elsewhere, including an attempted assassination, which was thwarted on the saudi ambassador here in washington, and apparently the attack on a tourist bus in bulgaria just a short while ago. i'd like to just say a few words about cybersecurity, which has been a significant focus of this committee this year. we know how serious the problem is. enormous amount of cyber espionage and cybertheft going on and increasing changer of cyberattack. as you know the cybersecurity act of 2012, which was the compromise bipartisan legislation that made it to the senate floor, has had problems in getting enough votes to get taken up on the senate floor. we worked for years with partners on both sides of the aisle. we had extensive consultations with private industry, and of course we went to substantial lengths to find common ground including making the standards voluntary and not mandatory for the private sector on cyber infrastructure.

but despite the magnitude of the threat as recognized by national security leaders and experts from the last two administrations regardless of party, and the many compromises that were made, the bill was filibustered on the senate floor last month and couldn't come up. all of you have said, director mueller perhaps most -- memorably that in his opinion the threat of cyberattack will soon replace the threat of terrorist attack as a danger for our homeland security. i believe that -- it's obvious we are not going to pass the cybersecurity legislation before the election, and because we are probably leaving here in

the next couple of days to return after the election, but i think it's still possible, and i'd add critical, for the congress to pass a cyberbill this session and i certainly will continue to try to do everything in my power to do so, but i must say if the gridlock continues as i fear it will, then the president and others in the executive branch should really do everything within their powers, i know they are considering actively now to raise our defenses against cyberattack and cyberthreat -- cybertheft. the fact is that because of the inadequate defenses of america's privately owned

critical cyberinfrastructure, we are very vulnerable to a major cyberattack. perhaps a catastrophic cyberattack. well beyond in its impact what we suffered on 9/11. i understand that executive action cannot do everything legislation can to protect us from cyberattack, but it can do a lot. and if -- as this session of congress concludes at the end of this year, we have still failed to fix this problem and close some of our vulnerabilities to cyberattack, then i certainly hope the president will step in along with the -- you, secretary napolitano, and act as strongly as you can to protect our country. some'll be asking questions of you when we get to that point in the testimony. i thank you again for being here. i look forward to this hearing every year. but sometimes unsettling, it's really important as a report to both congress and the american people about the status of the current threat to

our homeland. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last week we have -- we observed the 11th anniversary of the horrific attacks of september 11, 2001. we again remembered the victims and the heroes of that day. and we acknowledge the dedicated military intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security professionals who have worked together to bring terrorists to justice and to prevent another large-scale attack within the united states. and i want to join the chairman in thanking each of you for your hard work in that endeavor. tragically, however, we have

also witnessed violent attacks on the u.s. consulates in benghazi, libya, that resulted in the killing of our ambassador and three other brave americans. while these attacks remain under investigation, it is difficult not to see shades of the 1998 attacks on our embassies in kenya and tanzania, which were among the many precursors to the attacks of 9/11. this tragedy once again underscores the ongoing threat we face both abroad and at home from violent islamists extremists. in the aftermath of 9/11, we took significant actions to address this threat. when senator lieberman and i authored the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004, our aim was to improve coordination within the intelligence community and among the key stakeholders at all levels of government.

achieving the goals of this landmark law remains a work in progress. we know we face a determined enemy. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has tried repeatedly to exploit holes in our security. the failed 2009 christmas day bomber used the device specifically designed to avoid detection. the 2010 plots to circumvent improvements in passenger screening by targeting cargo. in may of this year al qaeda tried again, the bomb maker apparently sought to avoid the failures of the earlier christmas day attack.

through the aggressive efforts of our intelligence community, fortunately this plot was disrupted before it could threaten american lives. nevertheless that operation was also plagued by leaks, apparently from within the executive branch, that may have undermined future efforts and compromised sources. not every threat that we face has been met with sufficient resolve and action. perhaps the best example which the chairman has mentioned is the ever increasing cyberthreat. experts have repeatedly warned that the computer systems that run our electric grids, our water plants, transportation systems, financial networks are vulnerable to a cyberattack

that could harm millions of americans. in fact, rarely has there been such a bipartisan consensus among experts that this threat must be addressed. just last week former deputy secretary of defense, john hamry, said the threats in cyberspace, quote, took a darker turn, end quote, this summer as three very large corporations experienced cyberattacks designed to damage operations. citing government sources he said that at least two of the attacks may have come from iran. china and russia we know have also launched cyberattacks. to respond to this escalating threat, the chairman and i have worked during the past two years to craft a bipartisan bill that relies on the expertise of government and the innovation of the private sector.

despite our hard work to find common ground, the senate has failed to pass cybersecurity legislation. given the significant damage already done to our economy and our security, as well as our clear vulnerability to even worse attacks, this failure to act is inexcusable. former d.h.s. secretary, michael chertoff, and former n.s.a. and c.i.a. chief michael haden described the urgency this way. we carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. we do not want to be in the same position again when a cyber9/11 hits.

it is not a question of whether this will happen, it is the question of when. this time all the dots have been connected. this time the warnings are loud and clear. and this time we must heed them. in contrast to the known threat of cyberattacks, another persistent challenge we face comes from those threats we failed to even anticipate what the 9/11 commission memorably referred to as a failure of imagination. the so-called black swan events that cast our assumptions. these are our most vexing problem because we cannot simply build walls around every potential target. nevertheless, if we strengthen information sharing and the analytic capabilities our law enforcement and intelligence

officers can disrupt even more plots whether they are ones that we know well are coming or those that we have never before seen. in my judgment, which is informed by numerous briefings and discussions with experts, the attack in benghazi was not a black swan, but rather an attack that should have been anticipated based on the previous attacks against western targets, the proliferation of dangerous weapons in libya, the presence of al qaeda in that country, and the overall threat environment. whether the plots -- whatever the plots hatched by our enemies, i am also concerned about vulnerabilities that stem from our own government as

actions or failure to act. i have already noted what i believe to be the inexplicable lack of security in benghazi. the great self-inflicted wounds from intelligence leaks, and the failure to enact a cybersecurity bill. there is also a genuine danger posed by the automatic, mindless cuts known as sequestration. absent a commitment by the president and congress to avoid this disastrous policy, the budget of every federal agency represented here today, the department of homeland security, the national counterterrorism center, the f.b.i., the very agencies charged with protecting our nation from terrorism and other disasters, will be slashed in an indiscriminate way by 8% or more, potentially harming such vital programs as border security, intelligence analysis, and the f.b.i.'s work. at a time when budget constraints require everyone to sacrifice and priorities to be set, and waste to be

eliminated, we should ask where resources can be spent more effectively and what tradeoffs should be made to balance the risk we face with the security we can afford. what we cannot afford, however, is to weaken a homeland security structure that is helping to protect the citizens of this country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator collins. secretary napolitano, thank you for being here. we would welcome your testimony at this time. >> thank you, chairman lieberman, ranking member collins, members of the committee. deputyo like to thank director perkins and director olsen for their partnership.

mr. chairman, this is my 17th appearance before you. it is my 44th hearing overall since becoming secretary of the department. i am grateful, personally, for this committee's tireless advocacy on behalf of d.h.s. not only during its initial creation, but in the time since. senator, you have been one of our strongest supporters and our nation's security has benefited as a direct result. thank you for all you have done to make the country more security. 11 years after the 9/11 attacks, america is stronger and more security thank to the work of the men and women of d.h.s., local, state, tribal, international partners, and members of this committee. while the united states has made significant progress since the 9/11 attacks, we know that threats from terrorists persist and continually evolve.

we face direct threats from al qaeda. we face growing threats from other foreign-based terrorist groups which are inspired by al qaeda ideology. and we must address threats that are homegrown as well as those that originate abroad. these threats are not limited to any one individual, group, or ideology. as we have seen, the tactics employed by terrorists can be as simple as a homemade bomb or as sophisticated as a biologic threat or coordinated cyberattack. while we deal with a number of threats and threat actors at any given time, three areas merit special sustained attention. the first is aviation. the christmas day 2009 plot, the october, 2010 air cargo threat, and the aqap plot earlier this year that would have targeted a u.s.-bound airliner with explosives make clear that commercial aviation remains a target.

terrorists, especially aqap, continue to seek ways to circumvent existing security measures. their methods and tactics are sometimes ingenious and increasingly sophisticated. a second threat area is cyber as both of you have mentioned. cyberthreats and incidents have increased significantly over the past decade. our nation confronts a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities in cyberspace. strong and rapidly expanding adversary capabilities and limited threat and vulnerability analysis and awareness. we are committed to working with the congress to make sure the department and our nation have the schools and authorities we need to effectively confront threats to cyberspace. and that includes minimum standards for our nation's critical infrastructure. we remain hopeful that the congress can pass strong cybersecurity legislation. and i thank you, chairman lieberman, and ranking member collins, for your leadership in

this area. the third area of growing concern is homegrown violent extremism. within the context of u.s.- based violent extremism, we know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al qaeda and individual extremists are actively seeking to recruit or inspire westerners to carry out attacks against western and united states targets. importantly, however, as recent events have demonstrated, we also know that violent extremism can be inspired by various religious, political, or other ideological beliefs. moreover the attack last week against the u.s. consulate in libya that took the life of ambassador stevens and three other americans, the terrorist attack in bulgaria in july, as well as this summer's shootings in aurora, colorado, and oak creek, wisconsin, demonstrate that we must remain vigilant and prepared. and certainly our thoughts are with those impacted by these

senseless attacks. how do we mitigate the threat? we mitigate these threats in several ways? first and foremost we have worked to build a homeland security enterprise that allows d.h.s. and our many partners to detect threats earlier, to share information, to minimize risks, and to maximize our ability to respond and recover from attacks and disasters of all kinds. with respect to the aviation sector, we have implemented a layered detection system, focusing on risk-based screening, enhanced target, and information sharing. why while simultaneously facilitating travel for nearly two million domestic air travelers every day. following the december, 2009, threat we launched the historic global initiative to strengthen international aviation, which has improved cooperation on passenger and air cargo

screening, technology development, and deployment, and information collection and sharing. as well as the development of internationally accepted security standards. as part of this effort, last week in montreal 132 member states of the international civil aviation organization, met to reaffirm our commitment to these principles and to continue our progress. including through the development of global air cargo security standards. we have strengthened information sharing with our international partners. for example, our new and historic p.n.r. agreement with the e.u. allows us to continue sharing passenger information so that we can better identify travelers who merit our attention before they depart for the united states. in addition to our targeting program, immigration advisory program, and enhanced inbound targeting operations, all of

these allow us to more effectively identify high-risk travelers who are likely to be inadmissible to the u.s. and make recommendations to commercial air carriers to deny boarding before a plane departs. and at home we have continued the deployment of advanced technology at airports, including a.i.t. machines while implementing new programs to make the screening process more efficient for trusted travelers through programs such as t.s.a. precheck and global entry. around the cyberdomain we have partnered with sector specific agencies and the private sector to help security space. such as the financial sector, power grid, water systems, and transportation networks. we have taken significant

action to protect federal civilian government systems through the deployment of intrusion detection systems like einstein, greater diagnostics, and sharing of threat information, national exercises and incident response planning, public awareness and outreach programs, and a cyberwork force initiative to recruit the next generation of cyberprofessionals. and internationally we are working with our partners to share expertise, combat cybercrime, and strengthen shared systems and networks. finally, we have improved our domestic capabilities to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against our citizens, our communities, and our critical infrastructure. we have increased our ability to analyze and distribute threat information at all levels. specifically we have worked to build greater analytic capability through 77 designated fusion centers resulting in unprecedented levels of information sharing and analysis at the state and local level. we have invested in training for local law enforcement and first responders of all times

to increase expertise and capacity at the local level. in partnership with d.o.j. we transformed how we train frontline officers regarding suspicious activities through a nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative, and as part of that initiative we have helped to train over 234,000 law enforcement officials. we are in the final stages of implementing a countering violent extremism curriculum for federal, state, local, and correctional law enforcement officers that is focused on community oriented policing which will help frontline personnel identify activities that are potential indicators of terrorist activity and violence. we have also expanded training with respect to active shooter threats, providing a range of information, tools, case studies, and resources to federal, state, and local partners to help them prepare for and if necessary respond to attacks involving active shooters. and through the nationwide expansion of the if you see something say something campaign, we continue to encourage all americans to alert local law enforcement if they see something that is

potentially dangerous. in conclusion, d.h.s. has come a loping way in the 11 years since 9/11 to enhance protection of the united states and engage our partners in this shared responsibility. together we have made significant progress to strengthen the homeland security enterprise, but significant challenges remain. threats against our nation, whether by terrorism or otherwise, continue to exist and to evolve. and we must continue to evolve as well. we continue to be ever vigilant to protect against threats while promoting travel and trade and safeguarding our essential rights and liberties. i thank the committee for your support in these endeavors and for your attention as we work together to keep the country safe. >> thanks very much, secretary napolitano, for that opening statement which was a good beginning for us. probably most americans,

certainly a large number, most probably know about the federal bureau of investigation and the department of homeland security. probably very few know about the national counterterrorism center which was created by what i call the 9/11 commission legislation. but it's really one of the most significant steps forward we have taken in our government. it's the place at which to go back to language we all used after 9/11, we make sure that the dots are on the same board and can be connected. as we have discussed, we have now figured out how to put so many dots on that same board, the challenge now is to see them all and see the patterns and connections. i think the folks have really taken us a long way working with the department of homeland security and the f.b.i. and, matt, i thank you for your leadership and look forward to your testimony now. >> thank you very much,

chairman lieberman and mr. collins, member of the committee. i really do appreciate this opportunity to be here this morning. i also want to express my appreciation to your committee towards leadership on national security matters and certainly your support of nctc from its inception. i thank you for your comments this morning about our work and accept those on behalf of the men and women at nctc. i'm also very pleased to be here secretary napolitano, and associate deputy director perkins, we are close partners in the fight against terrorism. in my brief remarks this morning i will focus on recent events and highlight a few areas of real key concerns for us and then i'll take a moment to highlight our efforts at nctc to analyze and share critical threat information. certainly the attack on our diplomatic post in benghazi last week took the lives of four americans, including ambassador stevens, is proof that acts of terror and violence continue to threaten our

citizens and our interests around the world. as the president said, these americans just this past friday, they didn't simply embrace the american ideal, they lived it. it's now our responsibility to honor them by fulfilling our mission to combat terrorism and combat violent extremism. the intelligence community i can tell you is working as one to determine what exactly happened in benghazi, to uncover new threats in the region, and then to identify and bring to justice those who are responsible for this attack. last week the attack -- last week's attacks should be he viewed in the context of the evolving threat landscape we face as well as the ongoing unrest and political transition in the region. more than a decade after the september 11 attacks, we face a dynamic threat from al qaeda, from its affiliates, as well as those who follow al qaeda's ideology. there is no doubt that over the past few years our government working with our allies has placed relentless pressure on al qaeda's core leadership. we have denied the group safe haven. we denied the group resources and ability to plan and train. in short, the intelligence picture showed that al qaeda's core impact is a shadow of its former self. even as the leadership in

pakistan struggles to remain relevant, the terrorist threats we face have become diverse. al qaeda has turned to other groups to carry out attacks and advance its ideology. they are grouped in an array of countries including yemen, somalia, and iraq. in particular al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is the group most likely we think to attempt attacks against the united states. we saw this in may with the disruption of an plot to take down an airliner. other groups such as the al qaeda in iraq, as well as militants based in pakistan all pose threats to our citizens and interests in those regions of the formed. -- world. we are also focused on threats poses by iran and hezbollah. iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism over the world. over the past year the threat from iranian sponsored terrorism has increased. inside the united states we

remain vigilant to prevent violent extremists from carrying out attacks in the name of al qaeda. this past week the f.b.i. arrest add chicago man after he tried to blow up a crowded bar in the city. a federal judge sentence add virginia man to 0 years in prison for plotting to bomb the u.s. capitol. these plots highlight the danger that al qaeda-inspired extremists pose to our country. beyond these threats we face a period of unrest and a period of transition in the middle east and north africa. the arab spring or awakening now in progress for well over a year have led to fundamental reforms in the region. al qaeda was not part of this change, but the group is seeking to take advantage of the unrest in some areas. seeking to establish safe havens and recruit extremists where security is diminished. now, if i may, turning to the

role of the national counterterrorism center. congress and this committee created nctc to help lead this effort to combat these threats. our founding principle is the imperative to integrate all terrorism information and share that knowledge with those on the frontlines of this fight. will i take a few moments to describe the ways in which we are seeking to achieve this goal every day at nctc. first intelligence information and state-of-the-art analysis. nctc serves as the prior marry -- primary organization in the government for assessing all intelligence relating to international terrorism. we have a unique responsibility to exam all terrorism issues, spanning geographical boundaries, to identify and analyze threat information, regardless whether that information is selected inside or outside the united states. our culture is defined by collaboration. nearly every nctc analytic product is coordinated throughout the intelligence community. it therefore reflects multiple perspectives for policymakers and operators alike. secondly, access to data and technological innovation. we are promoting information integration and sharing with the development of a

counterterrorism data layer. this approach to data allows our analysts to access terrorism that we have collected from across the government in a single place and allows us to do that without having to manually search multiple networks. here if i may i would like to make a point about the fisa amendments act, a lou set to expire at the end of this year. as this committee knows this law authorizes the government to collect valuable intelligence involving international terrorists and other enemies by targeting non- americans who are overseas. these provisions were carefully crafted and carefully implemented to protect the privacy and civil liberties of americans and should remain law. thirdly nctc has enhanced its focus on tactical intelligence and developing leads involving threats to the united states. we established a pursuit group, analysts from across the counterterrorism community, who have unparalleled data access and expertise. their mission is to focus on

information that could lead to the discovery of threats, to connect those dots, to identify actionable leads for agencies such as the f.b.i., the department of homeland security, and the c.i.a. finally, nctc provides situational awareness and intelligence support to the broad counterterrorism community. our operation center which is co-located with the f.b.i. watch provides around the clock support to counterterrorism agencies. we also maintain the government's central repository for terrorist identities. this enables us to provide near real time watch listing data to support screening and law enforcement activities across the government. in addition, the interagency

threat assessment and coordination group, which is located at nctc and is led by senior d.h.s. and f.b.i. officers, brings federal and state and local officers together in one place at nctc. this group is dedicated to providing relevant intelligence on terrorism issues to state and local, tribal, and private sector partners helping to ensure that information is shared with public safety officials, including police officers and firefighters. faced with the possible loss of funding, we are working closely with d.h.s. and f.b.i. to retain this capability. mr. chairman, you have been a strong supporter of it and have noted its successes and i am personally committed to working with d.h.s. and f.b.i. to sustaining this initiative, to finding ways to do so in a cost-effective way, and we are working closely together to charter a way ahead. i just want to close by identifying our most important aspect and that's our people. nctc is working to meet the many challenges ahead, but that

effort is really dependent on our diverse and dedicated work force. maintaining this work force through the continued commitment and support of agencies like d.h.s., the f.b.i., and other organizations is a priority for me at the center. mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. thank you for your continued support of nctc. i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you, director olsen. director perkins, thanks again for being here and we welcome your testimony now. >> gloom, chairman lieberman,

ranking member collins, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today and for your continued support of the men and women of the f.b.i. i also want to thank secretary napolitano and director olsen and the men and women they lead in our joint fight against those seeking to do harm against u.s. citizens here and around the world. as you know, the bureau has undergone unprecedented transformation in recent years. since the attacks of september 11, we have refocused our efforts to address and prevent emerging terrorist threats. a terrorist threat is more diverse than it was 11 years ago, but today we in the f.b.i. are in a better place to meet that threat. we also face increasingly complex threats to our nation's cybersecurity. nation state actors, sophisticated organized crime groups, and hackers for hire are steaming trade secrets and valuable research from

america's companies, universities, and government agencies. cyberthreats also pose a significant risk to our nation's critical infrastructure. as these threats continue to evolve, the f.b.i. must continue to adapt to counter those threats. we must continue to build partnerships with our law

. . .

>> to defer its entry. the question is, at what point and to what extent are agreements like the subject to antitrust scrutiny or not? the theory being that the very notion of a patent is to be able to exclude competition. there is nothing unlawful about that. the other story is that you are going beyond the patent rights because the patent is being challenged and you are preventing competition. and so, kannon and others have

said there's a circuit conflict around that question. and they may step in and decided that this year. three other cases -- rjr has asur position about patent law. you have to explain what it is a of a patent for. the reason is that i will know what it is that i cannot do. and i know what invention has been created. and rjr says the federal circuit which has exclusive jurisdiction of these cases, to be definite it must be comprehensible. if we had a big trial, then we could figure it out. rjr says that is not good enough.

the statute says if you are going to get funding, in the to of a policy that opposes sex trafficking. one would think that would be not that controversial. i do not know a lot of organizations that are like go sex trafficking. but whether the government can say to you -- you have to express a personal point of view, or whether that is okay because it is part of a governmental funding program. in the last case i will mention is the amount holly case, the successor to a case i had done last year. it was resolved when the other side gave up. it had nothing to do with me. under the fair housing act, a major civil rights legislation that deals with how it is that you sell housing in the country, but it has invoked that wonders are only offering rates to a

particular neighborhood and people of certain races, whether you can bring an impact claim under the federal housing act. the difference between these claims is that the impact is discrimination and that is unintentional. you have some policy that has an adverse affect on a protected class, say a minority. even if you did not intend to discriminate against them, nothing you did is illegal. -- perhaps five of them, it turns out that is all you need. but the supreme court has not considered the question whether such a time is available under this act. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. it is good to be here. i have offered to form rossell tom earlier over -- i had

offered to arm wrestle tom earlier. cases involving race and the gay-rights. thank you guys. there's a big college affirmative action case in october. a very old question -- can the government, this case is state university, give an advantage to restored because of his or her race to give an edge to black or hispanic students in the interest of diversity? changing the university. or does it violate the rights of a white student who says i was denied equal protection of the laws? interesting twist in this case. and what you should watch is the question of the so-called race

neutral alternatives. about 15 years ago, 1997, a federal appeals court in texas have said, you may not use race for affirmative action at the university of texas. the state legislature, a mexican american woman sponsored a bill, passed and signed into law by then gov. george bush that said the state is going to grant automatic admission to its public universities, including ut autin for the top 10% a graduate and all i schools across the state. and this really transformed education in texas. now mexican-american kids in the rio grande valley, in houston or dallas, worldwide kids across texas suddenly had an opportunity to go to ut austin. over time, the percentage of

minority students coming into the school steadily rose. the classic race neutral -- those kids were getting in because they did very well in high-school. but in two dozen for, after the supreme court had narrowly upheld race-based affirmative action in degeneres to michigan's case, texas announced there were going to go back to using race, but for a very limited part of the class. only about one-quarter of the freshman class. three-quarters of the kids come in under the race neutral plan, the top 8% plan, they scaled back a bit. one corridor come in under this holistic review or the university says, we are going to consider a lot of things about students. we want to deal with drug some discretion to pick our students. and university says, with a kid interested in architecture or music or plays the oboe, we want to be able to pick that kid.

they are now defending the use of a race for a limited part of the class. this is how the case arises. after that happened, a young woman was turned down in 2008, she is a white student, sugar land, texas. she had good grades, but not excellent grades. she was not in the top 10% of our class. she could have gotten in, but as i said was turned down. so she sued and said, i was discriminated against. i would not think she would have a very strong claim. but she is able to say, texas has a process where race plays a role, and therefore, i was discriminated against. the fifth circuit, the panel courts in texas upheld the texas policy because they said, the supreme court has already said you can consider race in a very

limited way, texas is doing that. but the supreme court then granted that. this is an interesting case because the middle of vote now is justice kennedy. justice kennedy has dissented in every affirmative action case, every race case, but he said in 2003 -- upholding the program. he has always opposed any use of race. in 2003, he wroote that he could -- he wrote that he could accept the notion that the university could consider race as one modest factor. but then he said before we approve a race-based admission scheme, we should seriously force universities to consider race-based alternatives.

-- race neutral alternatives. so that is essentially is where we are now. here is the situation where there is a race neutral alternative that has brought a significant number of minority students in. university is saying we should be able to go further and consider race. one thing that surprised me -- i was down in texas and talk to people about the case. overwhelmingly, the university -- the minority students come in under automatic admission. it is than nine of 10 in some years. in 2011, 36% of the kids who came under the automatic admission or hispanic or black. under the laws degree do, about 17% or 18%.

-- under the automatic rediavie about 17% or 18%. they say something like, you at the university cannot have a race-based affirmative action plan if a race neutral policy could work. and that would beat -- could have an interesting impact. you could write an opinion as a texas only case. some would say texas is the only one that has had as much success. but it is interesting to watch a dent in that case. the other big race issue is the voting rights act, section 5. you know what this is about. since 1965, the south has been under a special scrutiny. you cannot change your election laws, you cannot change your

voting rights laws until you get a pre clarence from washington, from the federal court of the justice department. the question is, it is that policy is so outdated and so on fair to the seven states that it should be easily struck down? and it strikes me that the five justices are going to be inclined to think, as they have hinted before, wait a minute, indiana, pa., wiscons can pass a voter id laws, and those laws can go into effect even though they may have a real impact on foreign minority voters. but south carolina and texas have been blocked from having identical walls. at the it will be hard for the defenders of the coverage formula, that is the formula that says, only the southern states are under this rubric, to defend that when it seems that

ohio and pennsylvania have the same sort of voting problems that texas or south carolina does. the court has a couple pending forces coming their way on that. in the journal du, they will hear one of those cases and i would think -- i think the general view, there will hear one of those cases, and i would think that -- the other big case we are confident there will take as the gay rights and defensive marriage act. this is not a question of whether gays can marry in states. the question is coming in states where gay marriage is legal, do those married gay couples have a right to equal benefits under federal law? the first circuit court up in new england acting on a suit by

several gay couples in massachusetts, there were legally married in mass., but cannot file a joint federal tax return. or if one woman works the political service and her spouse is at home, can she be on the health care plan? this is a question of equal treatment group legally married gay couples. i think the will take this case and i think it is likely that justice kennedy, and more liberal justices are going to roll that this denies these legally married gay couples the equal protection of the laws. nothing about that opinion not necessarily says whether gays have a right to marry in mississippi or nebraska. it is only the states where gay marriage is legal. but that should be one of the very interesting important cases. because, another thing to watch is that the supreme court has never said what is the standard

of review when there is discrimination against gays. in this case, they may be called upon to decide -- to say something about, is discrimination against gays generally unconstitutional, or generally ok? they have never really said. that is another thing to watch for in this case. the defensive marriage act will be decided later on in this term. i think i will stop right there. thank you. [applause] >> to you have anything else to add? >> i think it is worth mentioning that dakota -- the petition pending on the constitutionality of proposition 8. the challenge in which -- they represent a same-sex couple who which wanted to be married in

california. is there a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? this is on the same timetable as these cases including the federal defense of marriage act. the question is, which of all of these cases the supreme court takes. and whether the supreme court might for instance take one or more of the cases involving the defense of marriage act, and the whole proposition 8 case -- or whether the supreme court will let 1000 flowers bloom and take all of the cases together. we will know the answer to that reasonably soon. >> our personal opinion is at the problems in a case is less likely to be taken, because the ninth circuit judges wrote the opinion -- he wrote it in a manner that is california and proposition 8 specific, so it is

easier for them. >> questions? i should announce before that immediately following this, when this moves straight to lecture. so stay in your seat at that time. >> thank you. i have a question concerning the fisher case for any of the panelists. what impact you think would be played by the shelling that has been made, i know -- i believe one of the party breeks about the work of richard sanders, ucla, showing the impact of allowing students who are affirmative action, whether because they are legacy

affirmative actions, racial or , with j.p. day ore test scores lower than others in the class, the odds are that many will drop out. empirical showing that affirmative action admittiees may be paying a huge price because of the statute that lets them come and about the qualifications -- it seems is counterproductive and they do less well than if they go to a second-tier school. >> anyone want to comment on me mis-match theory? >> in a set of studies -- it would make some people who are a

little bit skeptical of affirmative action think, this is not even helping the kids it is supposed to help. but the reason i do not think -- i think there are five skeptics of affirmative action already on the supreme court, several defenders. i think it is an interesting research. i do not necessarily think it will change much of the supreme court. >> i read the book called a mismatch on the plane. i would tend to agree with that. you can see an opinion that already goes against texas, and this does not even help people. it probably will not turn on that. >> the only other thing i would say about fischer more generally, not quite to your question, but i do think it is

interesting in looking at the merits brief dust are clearly that are targeted at justice kennedy, given the fact that did noted that justice kennedy has not in recent times ever noted -- voted to sustain an affirmative action program. some told me there are 50 name checks to justice kennedy alone. clearly people are picking up on the language from his opinion on race-neutral alternatives and trying to turn not to their advantage. for what it is worth, unusually hesitant to make predictions about outcomes in supreme court cases. i do think this is an area in which the -- have the potential to make it out, but has a positive difference. there's a sense in which the recent replacements -- on the issue of race i do not think

that is true. i really do think the writing is probably on the wall and get to this case. >> i agree. the handwriting is on the wall. there been a number of things -- and justice o'connor was on the court, they are revisiting a lot sent justice alito was appointed. as as the auditor of the principal point in having graduated from -- there's an overlay on this case. the court took the case fully aware of that fact after long consideration. but one possible outcome is that it turns into a nothing burger because they decide it is an inappropriate way to decide this. other important questions like .eligion that the court

>> more questions? >> very correctly, on the defensive marriage cases coming up, will the clause be impacted at all? or will this be a matter of federal benefit? >> remember, there are two parts of the act. when it was originally passed a dent in 1996, all of the talks then was this question of, the fear that if one state has gay marriage, all of the other laws will fall like dominoes. two guys will get married in boston and moved to baton rouge and say, enough to honor our marriage. they passed this initially to say, states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. but that issue is not being

challenged in this case. that part of the loss stands. this is the only -- this is the only federal benefits part of the law. >> about why herald, the legal adviser resigned the first brief, on the argument of the supplemental briefing. his name does not appear. the thinking is paving his way back to academia? for just disagrees minute plea? >> this is one of those baseball, washington d.c. kind of things. it will be signed by the solicitor general. and those heavily involved will frequently signed the brief as well. and as mentioned, when this case first came around, the state

department signed the brief, an indication of the state department a the living met the foreign interests were heavily complicated, and they agreed with the brief filed. the inference from the fact that the state department pose a legal adviser did not sign on to the brief. that is just an inference. no matter how powerful. >> let us know when you get to the lake? leak? >> i have a question about the voting rights act. i have a question about, a

gentleman was talking about evidence. and shelby county, i thought they laid out some powerful empirical evidence as to the formula that was used in the criteria used dating back to 1973, another is no fit there anymore. that was not convincing to the d.c. circuit. i was wondering if it would be more convincing to the supreme court? >> yes. it will be more convincing. about the misfit evidence when it comes to affirmative action. justice kennedy has written a lot about it. they have very strong views. i agree, it would be more persuasive. but it will mostly be confirmatory for many of the

justices that this list of the jurisdictions subject to section 5, it was created in another era. oddly, the list seems an awful lot like the old list. there may be a misfit as well there. for those justices, and there are likely at least four who believe in the section 5 procedures, i do not think this will change their minds. but it may confirm the views of the rest of the board. >> the voting rights act, section 5 -- it has such an important impact. i think that is the main reason congress has never quibbled with the formula. they stop short of striking it down. three years ago. that is one of the most successful, most effective laws in the 20th century. it changed a situation where

blacks were essentially barred from voting throughout the south. and for so many years, the southern states and municipalities have so many tricky schemes to prevent blacks from voting, it seemed like the only way to do it was to put them under the federal scrutiny. all of the years down the road, is much harder to say that the southern states are totally different than ohio and pennsylvania. i had to write about this a lot. it is hard to explain -- a couple weeks ago there was a situation involving florida. florida, there are five counties in florida that are governed by section 5. and 62 counties, the rest of the state are not. so, there was a situation about cutting back on early voting in florida, the legislature cut back on early voting. you could argue, and this court has agreed, this would have an

impact on minority voters who voted heavily in the weekend before. but the court has handled the case, they basically had to say in riding, and i had to explain it, this only affects a couple counties, and would be hard pressed even if it will do what they were to say what is the common theme. some small counties, one big county, in today's world, it seemed like it may either be all of the states and made the whole country should be under the special scrutiny if you are going to come up with these laws that seem intended to disenfranchise the poor people or minorities. you should lift it and none of them are. but it is hard to explain how this current formula can stay for another 25 years. >> is a bizarre list of jurisdictions.

six of the states of the old confederacy -- 3 counties in new york state, all boroughs in new york city, i roetz brief, there - eif n cato's - >> i think this gives them a more palpable way of declaring the case. they could declared invalid without directly invalidating section 5 itself. and members of the court who are concerned about the institutional reputation of the

court. an opinion that basically says, you are throwing the spec to congress for you to come up with a new coverage formula. maybe more probable than saying, gettings no way of thi section 5 -- the much easier way for it to resolve the case. but one that may actually having the same practical effect. goodness knows, it is so hard to get any legislation through the current congress. so try to get the current congress to agree on exactly which state and subdivisions of states are covered, strikes me as potentially a very difficult political task. >> thank you. walter webber. you mentioned the treaty power.

could you enlighten the audience on what the case is and why it is important. >> this is potentially, it is still on a sup petition stage. -- a sur position a case. he of course argues half of the supreme court docket every year. this case, two years ago, just like tom listed the cases that affect all of us, this is your garden variety case involving federalism, adultery and chemical weapons. this woman learned that her best friend was pregnant by her husband. and instead of divorcing him or or during what some of

you might want to do, getting some chemicals, nothing too exotic or illegal to possess, but used spuchemicals and put tm on the best friend's mailbox, the door handles to her car, she does get hurt, little chemical burns. and this woman gets charged with attempted murder, assault, something like this? no. she gets charged with violating the federal statute that implements the international treaty on chemical weapon proliferation. but the first question that comes to mind, the first issue that the supreme court has to deal with is, can she even defend herself by attacking her

prosecution? are they abusing their power by using this type of statute to go after her? the federal government eventually changed its mind as well. ok, we will better defend herself. the court issued an opinion with strong my garage from justice kennedy, not just about that, -- with strong language from justice kennedy. it goes back down to the third circuit. and the third circuit's makes the argument that they are expanding their powers. the treaty would not be able to prosecute her. the senate ratified this. that sounds odd. the federal government is trying to have what the constitution gives it and that is it. she made an argument.

unfortunately, there is the opinion from the 1920's called missouri versus holland. justice holmes writes, it is not clear, but it does been interpreted over the years to mean just that from the treaty cannot extend power. but they are reluctant to do so. and one judge rights separately, he asks the court to take this up and other clarify it, overall it or do something. and that -- plus cato filing a brief, hopefully it will get up there. and our brief based on a work written by a professor at georgetown and now senior fellow at cato. who has a brilliant article. it really diving into the technical details about what the

treaty power is all about. hopefully this will go up and the court will -- and roberts' minimalist fashion, we will just say, we do not need to overall, it only applies to the arbitrary treaties a dent in the '20s. [laughter] there was a hand way back there. >> a little like to ask those with expertise a dented the craftsmanship of judicial opinion and expertise on the text of the voting rights act, if there's any such person here, whether the voting rights act is written in such a way

that the supreme court could conceivably strike down the coverage formula and leave a the rest of section 5 standing, such that until congress acted, the prevailing law would be that pre clarence is nationwide -- that pre clearance is nationwide. >> i am no expert on the craftsmanship of judicial -- section 5. i will take a shot at this. it seems to me that what congress could do, what the supreme court could do is essentially to say, look, section 5 cannot really operate without a coverage formula. so, while the ball is back in court, section 5 cannot operate without a

coverage formula. i do not have that dovetails with out the language of the statute. i suspect there is enough flexibility and then to the statue to permit the court to do that. and looking at the way the case has been litigated, at least today, there is a have the suggestion, even in the suppeti tion that that is option 1. we have to figure out a way to craft the and drum remedy, while congress -- the interim remedy, while congress is coming up with something. it is an interesting question. it will be interesting. to see how the litigators try to position that as a possible alternative. court's for those who want to look of the text, in this

section 4b. -- >> for those who want to look up the text, it is it4b. >> live beginning attorney in washington, d.c. this is a matter that has not been addressed yet. we have had a housing crisis. there are state and county and municipal governments that are beginning to tinker with mortgages and underlying contracts. has anyone seen any cases coming up that involve articled 1, section 10 which prohibits state impairment of contracts laws? >> i was just going to say, there are not anything pending.

there are a couple of cases are winding their way through the courts, challenging dodd frank, completely unrelated to your question. it is more a separation of powers and a couple other things. i think there are still at the motion practice court right now. this will be the last question. >> richard with the washington legal foundation. my question is generally about the national security cases in the supreme court until about 2008, we had a lot of challenges that reached the court, since then there have not been any. it looks like the only case they took our the clapper case.

i was wondering if anyone wants to comment on why the court seems much more reluctant to take cases than they did previously. and if perhaps it has something to do with liberals on the court having greater faith in the obama administration than the bush administration? >> clearly we saw all of the problems. ved all of the problems. the supreme court has shownn no willingness to wade back into that thicket. as you say, the only case on the docket right now is the case involving a somewhat parochial question about a particular individual to have standing

challenge some of the procedures mandated by the five amendments. i think that this kind of an interesting case, but not a big ticket case. i suppose one could infer from the fact that the court has not waded into the detainee cases isthat the supreme court comfortable with the way the d.c. circuit has handled those issues. we do not really have any indication of whether the supreme court is comfortable with that jurisdiction. [applause] >> please stay in your seats for the simon lecture. >> republican rep tom cole of oklahoma. and number of the budget committee will take your questions about the so-called fiscal cliff and other budget issues.

representative rick larsen from washington talks about his bill to help voters. not have proper i.d. on election day. and we will look at irs data on who pays and does not pay federal taxes. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. once a deputy assistant attorney general and the former head of the staffatf to down following the release of the inspector general's report on operation fast and furious. he testifies on his findings after investigating the operation that allowed guns to be smuggled across the united states-mexico border. that hearing is alive today starting at 9:30 eastern on c- span 3. >> we have got to crack down on china when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. [applause]

they still patton's and designs. of counterfeit goods. and i know they want to be a responsible partner in a row of trade and commerce and have to understand they cannot take away jobs. >> he made money investing in companies that operated from here and went to china. pioneers. you cannot stand up to china. when all you have done is give them our jobs. >> watch and engage with c-span. as the campaign moves towards november. the first debate on domestic issues will take place october 3. audience members will get their chance to ask questions in a town hall debate on tuesday october 16. any final debate on the 22nd. wash the single vice- presidential debate on october

11. but our coverage on c-span, and online at c-span.org. the nominee to be u.s. ambassador to iraq -- as anti- american protests continue in the arab world. stephen beecroft has been serving since july 2011. this is one hour 15 minutes. >> thank you all. i apologize to everyone that we are running a little late. even though it appears there is

a lot going on. i am sorry for the competing process. i want to thank everyone for coming. i am very, very pleased to welcome stephen beecroft, who is a career foreign service officer and nominated by president obama to be our ambassador to iraq. i think all of us on the committee are pleased that the president has nominated somebody of high caliber, great experience, who was already been serving as the deputy chief in baghdad for last year, previously served and jordan. and was an assistant to:paul and condoleezza rice. while the war has ended and the rock, the struggle for iraq's future, has not ended. the violence is down, but al-

qaida in barack remains a deadly foe. -- but al-qaeda in iraq remains a deadly foe. this administration has worked tirelessly to ensure that it does not become the forgotten front. through the strategic framework initiative or agreement we have put in place a road map to expand our relations with irawq on the broad spectrum of issues. our bilateral partnership has the potential to contribute, we believe, to the stability in the middle east. but, iraqi leaders have to decide for themselves, what kind of country they hope to create. and as they do, we need to devote the diplomatic energy and

civilian resources necessary to help them succeed. stephen beecroft, all of your considerable skills are going to be called on in iraq, and among the many challenges you will face, there are four that i would personally at particularly like to call to your attention. as we mourn the tragic death last week of ambassador chris stevens and his three colleagues in benigno zazi, we are reminded that our diplomats around the world serve on the front lines of some of the world's most dangerous places. and they do so at great risk to themselves and their families. our embassy in baghdad, and other offices supporting the embassy still number about 14,000 people. that makes it our largest mission in the world. we are going to need someone with demonstrated management

skills to ensure that all of the appropriate security measures or in place to keep our stuff safe and secure. have a rarers opportunity to build a strong durable institution or set of institutions that can hold the country together. but more will be required from the iraqi government. questions remain about whether iraqi leaders including prime minister aspire to represent a unified iraq in all of its diversity, or whether they seek to govern nearly according to ethnic constituencies. to ensure that parliamentary elections and into 2014 are free and fair, iraq's electoral commission must be transparent and impartial. iraqi leaders across the political spectrum must also be willing to make tough

compromises and put national priorities over personal ambitions. it is no secret that we are at the moment of heightened sectarian missions in the middle east. iraqi leader should understand that the best way to insulate themselves from the horrific violence in syria is through meaningful, political compromise in iaq. as their leaders worked to establish a more stable political order, they need to work on a disputed boundaries, oil. if progress is not made in diffusing tensions, the window for a peaceful resolution and other disputed territories may well close. baghdad must resolve differences to enter into oil exploration and production contracts. and to their credit, the iraqis have made -- but the country

still lacks an overarching framework for the oil industry. without this agreement, iraq will be unable to unleash the full potential of its sector. for years, they have focused on their politics. but it now must begin to look out words. it is not surprising that basic neighborly relations with iran. just this week the commander of the revolutionary guard court acknowledged that iran is providing assistance to those inside syria. begging the question of how else iranian material might get into syria. this is a problem. and it will only grow worse if not addressed. to thethree response

situation and syria will be important. the government should play a constructive role in supported initiatives that bring about a peaceful transition in syria. at a minimum, it should avoid spanning violence. it will also be in a comment and other countries a debt to the -region to recognize iraq as something else and normalize relations. i continue to believe that iraq has an opportunity to chart its own course as an alternative to the iranian model. and have a multi ethnic democracy. let me just close by reiterating that our embassy in baghdad is one of our most important today. and what happens there is critical to our bilateral relationship, but also all of our work and then to the middle east. this is not a time for the life.

there is no substitute for having a confirmed ambassador in place and ready to hit the ground running, especially at this critical moment in the region. it is my hope to move this nomination as rapidly as we can adapt to the next 48 hours. we must confirm the ambassador. it would be the congress's responsibility. i strongly support the nomination. and intend to work for that swift confirmation. stephen beecroft, we welcome you today. we appreciate it. we appreciate to hearing your thoughts. >> thank you very much. today's hearing is our first since the attack that to libya that claimed the lives of four americans, including chris stevens. the events in benghazi remind us

of the dangers and difficulties of performing diplomatic missions. it is almost impossible to be an effective american diplomat without exposing myself to risk. in some countries, the risk can be intense, yet exceptional americans continue to volunteer. to these assignments. we are grateful that you continue to volunteer, sir. he worked with our committee, not only because was a talented diplomat, but also because he was one of us. on many occasions, he sat directly behind where i am sitting now. his staff hearings on lebanon and iraq -- in fact, six years ago today he held a hearing on iran.

after departing the committee, he stayed in close touch with friends here, as he did at every stage in his career. we will miss our friend dearly. our thoughts go out to his family. for the death of ambassador stevens -- is a blow to the state department and our country. it also underscores the importance of our and the difference ambassador can make. all of us think his service -- he was personally instrumental in advancing the united states interest to libya. i appreciate ambassador stephen beecroft's courage and commitment in taking on an extremely difficult assignment. it is then complicated further by violence and then to the middle east. he has been functioning as chief admissions for several months.

and i believe we should move to dispatch to confirm him as our ambassador to iraq. his experience managing large embassies is especially critical given the united states mission and iraq is the biggest in the world. baghdad about 10 security operation police training sites. and consulates. employees -- over 1600 direct hires. thousands of contractors. politically, iraq remains fractured. those divisions appear to of deepened in the last year. their stability depends on them

being integrated with the world community. their long-term future depends on the willingness to stand on the side of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. their political fragmentation and corruption also present fundamental challenges to the economy. an annual world bank report that analyzes the ease of doing business and the protection of property rights across 183 economies ranked iraq 164th in 2012. down five slots from its 2011 election. despite the crimes that iraq is open for business, many trade partners are challenged to get a visa. our definitive answer from the government about processes. according to the world bank, lester they implemented a policy that made it more difficult for iraqis themselves to do business. i look forward to hearing

insights, and his views on the prospects for economic improvement. and political stability. the administration needs to eliminate the united states's intentions and iraq for the long term. though some significant downsizing have occurred, the iraq operations continue to be enormously expensive. how does the administration define united states goals in iraq? whether the prospects for achieving these goals? and what resources will be required over the long term? i look forward to your testimony and i think the chairman for this hearing. >> thank you very much. and thank you for your personal recollections of stevens. we appreciate it. as you can tell, we look forward .o your comments an

>> thank you. it is an honor to appear before you as the president's nominee to serve as the u.s. ambassador to iraq. i am deeply grateful to the president and secretary clinton for this opportunity cured with your permission i would like to submit by a full statement for the record. >> yes. >> i would like to begin with taking a moment to acknowledge those who perished in benghazi last week. my thoughts and prayers remain with their family and friends. i spent most of my career working on the middle east, including my time as the ambassador to jordan. i have been immersed in iraqi issues from serving on the iraq desk in d.c., to serving as deputy chief of in michigan. i have had the honor to work card an extraordinarly

working team. today the united states is working to evolve iraq. we have a strong relationship with the democratically elected. his relationship is codified f- through this agreement, we support the rockies and building a united, democratic -- we support the iraqis and building a united democratic nation. sectarian fortunes remain strong and threatened to derail institutional progress. the oila law on seoul's export sector. tensions with turkey and

conflict within syria and iraq's relationship ir fifthan complicate our relationship with iraq, nevertheless, development i have seen it gives me reason for optimism. it is a large majority remain committed to resolving their differences politically instead of through violence. there are a protection recently passed 3 million barrels per day. a level not achieved for more than three decades. united states commercial interests are returning to iraq and iraqi students are studying that the states and increasing numbers. this shows a positive change. if confirmed, and pledged to continue working with our allies across the iraqi system to strengthen their democratic institutions. i pledged to continue working with the iraqi government on a wide range of inti