vital ground surveillance. the air force chief of staff general wells -- general welch has made it clear the top priorities for the long-range strike bomber, but right behind that is the replacement of the joint stars as a top pirate tee. the budget proposal calls for a 40% reduction. presumably to fund the acquisition of a replacement platform. can we meet requirements for the proposed reduction? what is the proposal to replace this platform? >> the proposal to replace it, that is to say the next generation capability is a question i will have to go back and get with the chief of staff for the air force, but i can

say, you asked the right question. can we meet current demands with the current inventory of that that form? the answer is it is difficult. it is one of our low-density platforms. often we are faced with employing it in the korean peninsula or north africa. those are the trade-offs we make. what we try to do is meet combatant commanders at times when they need them the most.

it's hard to maintain a with a business gap. that platform was old when we got it. it has gotten older over the years. i tell you the folks under you in the army break out into big smiles and their eyes light up when i talk about joint stars in theater. we simply have no replacement weapon system i know about, and the number in the budget is far enough to even begin the gig about replacement. i would urge you to rethink this

and think about what we are going to do long term. does it need to be replaced? i agree with that. i think it's time. the other options are not that concrete and not that positive. as you think about that, i look forward to engaging with you. >> they are so useful, discounting its capabilities and forward air control roles. while there are other assets that can perform the mission, none can do so with the same maneuverability and targeting capability. i think it is wishful thinking to believe pilots of the other platforms will receive training necessary to be proficient in close air support. does it not make sense -- we are going to phase it out. it is an old platform, but it has done such a great job in the recent the editors we have been engaged in -- recent pa terror -- recent theatres we have been engaged in. does it not make sense that is the point we phase out rather than arbitrarily cutting off.

we are going to take those airplanes out at 15 or 16, but we are not scheduled to even think about another f 35 being designated until 22 or 24. >> i am one of the few people who has had an a10 come to my rescue. you don't have to convince me it has been an extruded early valuable tool on the battlefield. what we are seeing is some of the difficult budget decisions we have to make. the logistics trail is more affordable. we are going from seven rotary platforms down to four. it is the decision we have to make with current budget pressure. i support the chief of staff of the air force and the chief of staff of the army on their decisions. >> secretary hegel, an issue that always raises concerns are commissaries. they are a core benefit.

they contribute greatly to recruitment and retention. even though i am one of those who thinks you may get just as good a deal at some other retail outlets from around the country that may not be as accessible, >> before that, nancy cook with the national journey to talk about the economy and how lawmakers planned to dress poverty. -- address poverty. the headlines, your calls, facebook comments, live starting at seven :00 on c-span. we will be live tomorrow from the center of american progress with a look at afghan elections with bob casey. those elections are about a month away. he will be talking about the

drawdown of u.s. forces. at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. a criminalt have investigation role. we have an enforcement role. we enforce the federal securities laws to make sure wall street abides by the rules. we also write the rules, by the way, for wall street. we do not have the criminal authority. we have the power to bring civil action, civil fraud action and negligence actions against those who violate the federal securities laws. we cannot send them right to jail, but we can assess civil penalties. is not asof penalties high as we would like it to be. commitrequire those who wrongdoing stooges scorch their ill-gotten gains.

have the power to bar somebody from the securities industry so they cannot live another day to defraud again. >> mary jo white, tonight at 8:00 on c-span q&a. >> the three elements of the package are a sense of exceptionality. you can get that from a lot of different sources. a feeling that you are special. is theond element ofosite and that is a dash insecurity to offset that exceptionality. the feeling you have not done quite enough yet. the third element is impulse control or self-discipline and the ability to persevere and resist temptation. >> individuals who have these have ans tend to

interesting creative destruction relationship between their culture and american culture. second generation kids in immigrant communities start looking back at their parents and grandparents generation sensei, we do not want to do generations and say, we do not want to do success the way you have done. the same qualities can help them achieve a very different kind of goal. insecurity,ty, it and impulse control, the triple package. c-span 2. 9:00 on -- go toe discussing book tv.org to enter the chat room. >> a look at the san diego union

tribune. lerner hearing when lois -- testified before the oversight committee. congressman issa was criticized for cutting off his colleagues microphone while he was trying to make a statement. he told the union tribune that he apologize to mr. cummings after the house voted down a measure to censure him. we will be taking a look at that hearing with lois lerner, followed by comments from darrell issa.

the purpose of the hearing is to gather facts about how and why the i.r.s. improperly scrutinized certain organizations that applied for tax exempt status. today we have recalled ms. lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the i.r.s. ms. lerner appeared at the may

22, 2013, hearing you should a subpoena and that subpoena remains in effect. before we resume our questioning, i'm going to briefly state for the record a few developments that have occurred since the hearing began nine months ago. these are important for the record and for ms. lerner to know and understand. on may 22, 2013, after being sworn in at the start of the hearing, ms. lerner made a voluntary statement under oath discussing her position at the i.r.s. and professing her innocence. ms. lerner did not provide the committee with any advance notification of her intention to make such a statement during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement -- such a statement.

during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement she spoke in detail about core issues under consideration at the hearing when she stated, i have not done anything wrong, i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations, and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. ms. lerner then stated her intention to invoke the fifth amendment and then in response to a request by ranking member cummings, she confirmed orally the authenticity of a document that was entered into the record. she subsequently reinvoked her fifth amendment rights in response to several questions, she then refused to provide any substantive response to those questions. at that hearing, a member of the committee, mr. gowdy, stated that ms. lerner had waived her right to invoke the fifth

amendment because she had given voluntary statement professing her innocence. i temporarily excused ms. lerner from the hearing and subsequently recessed the hearing to consider whether ms. lerner had in fact waived her fifth amendment rights. meanwhile, the committee's investigation proceeded without ms. lerner's testimony. to date we have conducted 33 bipartisan transcribed interviews of witnesses from the i.r.s. we have heard witnesses' testimony during five committee and subcommittee hearings. because the i.r.s. is not full -- has not fully cooperated with the committee's investigation, i have issued three subpoenas for documents. the i.r.s. continues to withhold some of ms. lerner's emails from the committee. documents and testimony show that ms. lerner is uniquely positioned to provide testimony

that will help the committee better understand how and why the i.r.s. targeted conservative groups. at a business meeting on june 28, 2013, the committee approved a resolution rejecting ms. learner's claim of fifth amendment privilege based on her waiver at the may 22, 2013. after that vote, having made the determination that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights, the committee recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to rules. the committee voted and found that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights by making a statement on may 22, 2013. addition -- and additionally by

affirming documents making fifth amendment rights. if she continues to refuse to answer questions from our members while she's under a subpoena, the committee may proceed to consider whether she should be held in contempt. since it's been 9 1/2 months since we started this hearing, i'm going to ask her to refirm her oath. let the record indicate the witness did answer in the affirmative. ms. lerner, put up slide one, please. on october 10 -- in october, 2010, you told a duke university group, and i quote, the supreme court dealt a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns. ms. learner, what exactly -- ms.

lerner, wanted to fix the problem caused by citizens united, what does that mean. could you please turn the mike on. >> moimy counsel advised me i have notwayed my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment and under his advice i decline to answer any subject matter in this hearing. >> so you're not going to tell us who wanted to fix the problem under citizens united. >> under the advice of counsel i invoke my fifth amendment right and refuse to answer the question. >> in february, 2011, you

emailed your colleagues and the following. tea party matter very dangerous. this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one please. cincy should probably not -- all in caps, have these cases. what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous. >> on the advice of counsel i

respectfully invoke my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully inters my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. he testified, and i quote, she sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through -- i'll say it again, she sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multitier review and they will

eventually have to go to ms. kindell and the chief counsel's office. why did you order tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in june, 2011, you requested that holly pawes obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by crossroads g.p.s. so that your senior technical advisor, judy kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you. ms. lerner, why did you want to personally order that they pull crossroads g.p.s., karl roves' organization's application. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question.

>> ms. lerner in june of 2012, you were part of an email exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on political speech for 501c4 groups and in trent sis your quote, off plan in 2013. ms. lerner, what does off plan mean? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in february of 2014, president obama stated that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting. ms. lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting of conservatives? >> on the advice of my counsel i

respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, on saturday, our committee's general counsel sent an email to your attorney saying, i understand that ms. lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a one week delay in talking to the chairman -- excuse me. in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that was right. your lawyer in response to that question gave a one-word email response. yes. are you still seeking a one-week delay in order to testify? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further.