mr. brooks: what problems? [laughter] mr. roarty: i'm curious, do you still consider her a formidable opponent to whoever would be the republican nominee? mr. brooks: oh yeah. totally formidable. she has all the money in the world, a lot of endorsements. they're basically three things that will predict who will be the candidate. one is polls, the other is money, and the third is endorsements at the state and local level. when you see someone running away with two of those, you have to say, this is a really strong candidate. any republican but does not take hillary clinton seriously will have a rough road ahead. i think she is a strong candidate, smart, she has her mind around policies, incredibly experience. i think she is beatable, but i don't she will be easy to beat. mr. hohmann: finally, back to actual legislative policymaking, one of the other things you hear from the right these days is more outcry about corporate welfare. we are having this debate now on the export-import bank, which has temporarily expired here. is it

mrs. brooks. mrs. brooks: good morning, skip. thank you for being here today. in drawing what you just said very few, no requests for benghazi came to your attention, i'd like to show you something. this pile represents the emails that you sent or received about libya in 2011. from february through december of 2011. this pile represents the emails you sent or received from early 2012 until the day of the attack. there are 795 emails in this pile. we have counted them. there are 67 emails in this pile in 2012. d i'm troubled by what i see here. so my questions relate to these piles. did this pile in 2011 i see daily updates. sometimes hourly updates. from your staff about benghazi and chris stevens. when i look at this pile in 2012, i only see a handful of emails to you from your senior staff about benghazi, and i have several questions for you about this disparate because we know from talking to -- disparity because we know from talking to your senior advisors, they knew, many of them are here to

mr. brooks about the comments mr.ord made where he suggested that there were a couple of rogue engineers but suggested there was no corporate responsibility. who goes after the individuals, corporate or otherwise, that might be responsible for this or do you at some point envision even bringing charges, you know, like criminal charges against the corporation itself for this intentional deceit? >> thank you for the question. i can't speculate now as to exactly what course all the enforcement actions will take. i can tell you my office has taken the initial enforcement action and we're working with the department of justice. >> we keep talking about the fines because of what happened. but is this -- does this rise to individual responsibility for those responsible or -- is there such a thing as criminal action against the corporation? i mean, i know i'm speculating, but are those possibilities? >> let me be careful in answering that. first of all, i think the concern that has been expressed here by members is exactly ou

mr. brooks, mr. the comments mr. ford made. suggesting there was no corporate responsibility. is it the epa or the ag who goes after the individual corporate or otherwise who might be responsible for this. do you at some point envision bringing charges like criminal charges against the corporation itself for this intentional deceit? >> thank you for the question. i can't speculate now as to exactly what all the enforcement actions will take. my office has already taken the initial enforcement action. we are working with the department of justice on these matters. >> i guess what i'm asking i won't keep repeating, one more time. we keep talking about the fines because of what happened. is this rise to individual responsibility for those responsible? is there such a thing as criminal action against a corporation? i know i'm speculating, are those possibilities? >> let me be careful in answering that. i think that the concern that has been expressed here by members is exactly our concern -- who, what when, where, how and how. i'm concern that the investigations on going will get

mr. brooks. mr. brooks resigned from congress before they could expel him. he was actually tried in washington, d.c., court and was fined $300. he was not sent to jail. he returned to his home state where he was a national hero. shamelessly. and he was reelected in a special election to his congressional seat. at the end of 1865, same year that he brutally beat this gentleman. well, fortunately preston brooks , does not get into any banknotes, but he did get into a lot of cartoons of the day. and that's mr. brooks beating sumner on the floor of the senate. so if you hear charles sumner, this is what people are referring to normally when his name comes up. let's back up a second. i skipped dewitt clinton. dewitt clinton. he is known for one thing and one thing only, and that is clinton's ditch, the erie canal. he actually proposed this canal and saw its construction as governor of new york. it's known as clinton's ditch. but that is probably what he is most famous for. and many new yorkers, of course, know him, so it is a familiar name. and let's quickly rush

mr. brooks. >> good afternoon again commissioners eric brooks san francisco green party our city of san francisco and san francisco clean power advocates i urge you to move that forward and move all aspects forward as quickly as possible the sooner we get our act together the better we'll beat them to the punch on marketing a side note, of course, this idea that pg&e is going to have a quote/unquote 100 percent green they'll allot the customer to decide how much percentage from their energy from 100 percent is basically having a way of noted having 100 percent and calling that 100 percent they know the customers will choose lower percentages or percentages that leads me to the next point that i want to kind of follow-up and sort of hopefully change the angle where things were last meeting with regards to advocates and when we have criticisms what we're bringing to the table on cleanpowersf many of us for over a decade and all of us for many years have been fighting pg&e and pg&e marketing in some cases our full-time jobs almost those locally and in san francisco and on the state level in 2010 wit

mr. brooks, about the comments that mr. ford made -- mr.horn made where he suggests, you know, there were a couple of rogue engineers that may have done this, but suggested that there was no corporate responsibility. do you -- is it the epa or is it the ag, who goes after the, you know, the individuals corporate or otherwise that might be responsible for this, or do you at some point envision even bringing charges, you know, like criminal charges against the corporation itself for this intentional deceit? >> thank you for the question. i can't speculate now as to exactly what course all of the enforcement actions will take. i can tell you that my office has already taken the initial enforcement action, and i can tell you that we are working with the department of justice on these matters. >> but i guess what i'm asking, and i won't keep repeating, but one more time. we keep talking about the fines because of what happened. but is this, does this rise to individual responsibility for those responsible? or, and is there such a thing as crimin

mr. brooks,s from comments mr. ford made. suggesting there was no corporate responsibility. ag who goesa or the after the individual corporate or otherwise who might be responsible for this. point envision bringing charges like criminal the corporation itself for this intentional deceit? question.ou for the toan't speculate now as exactly what all the enforcement actions will take. already taken the initial enforcement action. we are working with the department of justice on these matters. >> i guess what i'm asking, i won't keep repeating, one more time. we keep talking about the fines because of what happened. is this rise to individual responsibility for those responsible? asthere such a thing criminal action against a corporation? speculating, are those possibilities? >> let me be careful in answering that. the concern that has been expressed here by exactly our concern -- who, what, when, where, how and how. i'm concern that the getstigations on going will into exactly that. i don't think it will be unfair for me to say much more about what the end result might be. a po

mr. brooks has no opening statement. how about mr. weber? mr. weber: no, let's go. [laughter] chairman: he's great. so, i will ask the witnesses to summarize your prepared statements, and then hopefully, we can have a dialogue and have questions and answers. first, i am going to introduce the witnesses. dr. leon aron is a resident scholar and director of russian studies at the american enterprise institute. he joined the organization that oversees operations of international broadcasting, such as voice of america, and he is a widely published author who earned his phd at columbia university. simon saradshyan is the director of the u.s. russian initiative to prevent nuclear terrorism. he worked as a journalist in russia for 15 years, where he covered several major events, including the terror attack in islam. next, we have mark katz, a professor of government at george mason university. he has authored many books and articles. he is the author of books and articles, for example, "leaving without losing," "the war on terror after iraq and afghanistan." outstanding, th

you pointed out to mrs. brooks in her last line of questioning based on the e-mail stacks here that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings. so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings. but then they sent this e-mail asking about this. so how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even knew if we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all your and in libya in 2011, including your trip in october of 2011 and that months later we come to find out you didn't even know we had a presence there? >> well, i can't comment on what has been reported. of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i know we were evaluate issing what that presence should be, how long it should continue. and i know exactly what we were doing in libya. and i think it's important. since you have very legitimate questions about what we were doing. the united states played a role in the first election that the libyan people had in 51 y

now, you pointed out to mrs. brooks in her last line of questioning, based upon the e-mail stacks here, that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings. so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings, but then she sent this e-mail asking about this. so how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even foou that we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all your interest in libya in 2011 including your trip in october of 2011 and that months later we come to find out that you didn't even know if we had a presence there? >> well, i can't comment on what has been reported. of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i knew that we were evaluating what that presence should be, how long it should continue, and i knew exactly what we were doing in libya. and i think it's important since you have some very legitimate questions about what we were doing. you know, the united states played a major role in the first electi

now, you pointed out to mrs. brooks in her last line of questioning based upon the e-mail stacks here that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings, so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings, but then she sent this e-mail asking about the this. so how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even knew that we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all your interest in libya in 2011 including your trip in october of 2011 and that months later we come to find out that you didn't even know if we had a presence there? >> well, i can't comment on what has been reported. of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i knew that we were evaluating what that presence should be, how long it should continue, and i knew exactly what we were doing in libya. and i think it's important since you have some very legitimate questions about what we were doing, you know, the united states played a major role in the first elec

and i think the emails that mrs. brooks put forth, you had an answer, and it was look, i got a lot of information from a lot of different places, but i think you basically gave a victory lap, sort of a mission accomplished quote on october 30th, 2011, in the washington post. this is what you said. and this is very declarative. we set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region. it has all of the feel of a victory lap. but there was a problem, and the problem, madam secretary, was there were storm clouds there were gathering, and the storm clouds gathering was a deteriorating security situation in benghazi. and you had a lot to lose if benghazi unraveled. if libya unraveled, you had a lot to lose. based on the victory lap, based on the sunday shows, and based on the favorable accolades that were coming, if it went the wrong direction, it would be on you, and if it was stable and it was the right direction, you were the

mr. brooks. you are aware the committee is holding an investigative hearing and when doing so has the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objections to testifying under oath? both witnesses say no. the chair then advises you that under the rules of the house and committee you are entitled to be advise bid counsel. do either of you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? both witnesses indicate no. in that case would you please rise, raise your right hand and i'll swear you in? do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. for the record, both witnesses have indicated yes, you are now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in title 18, section 1001 of the united states code. we'll now allow you each to give a five minute summary of your opening statement, mr. grun dle you may begin. >> we appreciate the opportunity to testify on the matter of the environmental protection agenc

mr. carson: thank you, h.r. 623 was introduced by my good friend and colleague from indiana, congresswoman susan brooks. the bill, mr. speaker, was referred to the committee on transportation and infrastructure and to the committee on homeland security. this bill codifies the department of homeland security's social media working group to enhance the use of social media during disasters and other events and to provide guidance and best practices in emergency preparedness and response. social media, especially twitter, facebook and youtube, can play a critical role in preparedness, response and recovery operations during emergencies. emergency managers at all levels use social media to warn those in harm's way of impending natural hazards. social media is also used to inform survivors on how to access disaster assistance and tips for speedier recoveries. equally important, mr. speaker, social media has been used to coordinate and manage assistance from nonprofits and volunteers who want to help in recovery efforts. more and more we are seeing individuals take to social media during emergencies. individu

. >> mrs. brooks. >> no. >> mr. cummings. >> yes. >> mr. smith. >> aye. >> mr. votes aye. >> mr. shift. >> aye. >> ms. sanchez. >> aye. >> miss duckworth. >> aye. >> miss duckworth votes aye. >> clerk will report.9 yay is five. no is eight. >> the motion is not agreed to. madame secretary. >> my apology, sir. it was seven. >> motion still not agreed to. >> even south carolina math can figure that out. >> madame secretary, before we broke there was a question asked that i thought was fair question which is why was i talking about mr. bloomingthal's e-mails. i think it's fair question. i think it's equally fair to ask why you were reading mr. bloomingthal's e-mails? i think both are fair. i want to go to june of 2012 which is an interesting time period to look at. charlene lamb was an employee of the state department. it's tab 56. i'm not going to read it. it's tab 56 where she described benghazi as a soft target. attacked on americans not staffed adequately. it's a very haunting e-mail to ee months to the day when our four fellow citizens were killed. that's on j

mr. brooks has no opening statement. how about mr. weber? weber: no, let's go. [laughter] chairman: he's great. witnesses tok the summarize your prepared hopefully, and then we can have a dialogue and have s.estions and answer first, i am going to introduce the witnesses. dr. leon aron is a resident scholar and director of russian studies at the american .nterprise institute he joined the organization that oversees operations of international broadcasting, such as voice of america, and he is a widely published author who earned his phd at columbia university. saradshyan is the director of the u.s. russian initiative to prevent nuclear terrorism. he worked as a journalist in russia for 15 years, where he covered several major events, including the terror attack in islam. katz, a have mark professor of government at george mason university. he has authored many books and articles. he is the author of books and , for example, "leaving without losing," "the war on terror after iraq and afghanistan." outstanding, thank you. he earned his phd from the massachusetts in

mr. brooks about the comments mr. ford made where he suggested that there were a couple of rogue engineers but suggested there was no corporate responsibility. who goes after the individuals, corporate or otherwise, that might be responsible for this or to you at some point envision even bringing charges, you know, like criminal charges against the corporation itself for this intentional deceit? >> thank you for the question. i can't speculate now as to exactly what course all the enforcement, as wiactions will take. i can tell you my office has taken the initial enforcement action and we're working with the department of justice. >> we keep talking about the fines because of what happened. but is this -- does this rise to individual responsibility for those responsible or -- is there such a thing as criminal action against the cooperation? i mean, i know i'm speculating, but are those possibilities? >> let me be careful in answering that. first of all, i think the concern that has been expressed here by members is ex

mr. tay-brook zerihoun. you have the floor, serve. >> thank you, mr. president,il members of the security council, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for this opportunity t to brief the security council on the current situation in the middle east, which unfortunately remains concerning. today, we witnessed yet anotherr example of the escalatingthe esi violence when a large group ofn palestinians set fire to the set compound containing the holy site of saint joseph's tomb in the west bank city. fortunately, there were no reported injuries, but the site sustained major damage. as with the many deadlywith thed incidents lyover the past weeksh the secretary-general strongly condemns this are hints of all act, and calls on all of those responsible to be swiftlyible t brought to justice. the united nation's welcomes the presence condemnation and his announcement at the committee has been established to combat n full investigation into then ine crime.. this incident represents a particularly troubling development in light of this dementia. we call on all sides t

mr. chairman, so i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. we recognize ms. brooks for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize, i was at another hearing. mr. allen and mr. kissell, i guess i have a question for both of you. do you know whether cms posteripermits transitional cost dollars? and if you could tell me what transitional cost dollars are. >> i don't know the answer to that. we would have to get that directly to the commissioner. >> i have a check on it status, i believe it has been approved. these are for the enrollment of

. >> madam secretary, they called votes but we're going to try -- i'll recognize mr. brookn seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just to clarify for the record i made a statement previously we received none of undersecretary patrick kennedy's i'ms. we received some through production of other individuals' e-mails. we have not received a full production of undersecretary patrick kennedy residents e-mails. so we have some but it is threw other e-mail production, thank you. >> gentleman from illinois. >> secretary clinton, can i direct your attention to the screen? we came, we saw, we died. is that -- >> the millings undertaken by other partners achieved its -- therefore no more american european or arab lives would be at stake in trying to prevent gadhafi from wreaking havoc on libyans or causing more problems to the region and beyond. >> i want to direct your attention and maybe direct the group's attention to something that hasn't been discussed. there's been this criticism of republicans being partisans today. but i want to direct your attention to what is going on disyou

and i think the e-mails that mrs. brooks put forth, you had an answer and that was look i got a lot of information from a lot of different places. but i think you basically gave a victory lap, sort of a mission accomplished quote in october 30th, 2011 in "the washington post." this is what you said, very declarative. we set into motion a policy on the right side of history, on the right side of our values and strategic interests in the region. it has all of the feel of a victory lap. but there was a problem. and the problem, madam secretary was that there were storm clouds gathering. and the storm clouds that were gathering was a deteriorating security situation in benghazi. and you had a lot to lose if benghazi unravelled. if libya unravelled, you had had a lot to lose, based on the victories, the sunday shows, based on the favorable accolades that were coming. if it went the wrong direction it would be on you. and if it was stable and it was the right direction you were the beneficiary of that. so the question is, how is i

mr. brooks. >> good afternoon again commissioners eric brooks san francisco green party our city of san francisco and san francisco clean power advocates i urge you to move that forward and move all aspects forward as quickly as possible the sooner we get our act together the better we'll beat them to the punch on marketing a side note, of course, this idea that pg&e is going to have a quote/unquote 100 percent green they'll allot the customer to decide how much percentage from their energy from 100 percent is basically having a way of noted having 100 percent and calling that 100 percent they know the customers will choose lower percentages or percentages that leads me to the next point that i want to kind of follow-up and sort of hopefully change the angle where things were last meeting with regards to advocates and when we have criticisms what we're bringing to the table on cleanpowersf many of us for over a decade and all of us for many years have been fighting pg&e and pg&e marketing in some cases our full-time jobs almost those locally and in san francisco and on the state level in 2010 wit

i heard what you said to my colleague, mrs. brooks. considering that benghazi belong to you in 2011, it was yours, so to speak, and from your own records that we have, we saw a drop in your interest in lib wra and benghazi in 2012. not only do the records show you were dropping interest, it was even noticed by your own staff. i want to point you to an e-mail in early february 2012 between two staffers at your libya desk that says you didn't know whether we still even had a presence in benghazi. let's not use my words. let's use theirs. this can be found at tab 31. the e-mail says and it stated february 9, 2012, one writes to the other about an encounter that she had with you. "also the secretary asked last if we still have a presence in benghazi." i think she would be upset to hear yes, but we do -- >> i'm struck by the first part. based upon the e-mail stacks here that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings, so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings, but the

i think the e-mails that mrs. brooksput forth you had an answer which is that you had a lot of information from a lot of different places. you basically gave a victory lap sort of mission accomplished quote in october 2011. this is very declarative. we set into motion a policy on the right side of history on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region. it has all of the feel of a victory lap but there was a problem and the problem, madame secretary, was that there were storm clouds gathering. and the storm clouds that were gathering was a deteriorating security situation in benghazi. and you had a lot to lose if benghazi unravelled, if libya unravelled you had a lot to lose based on the victory lap, based on the sunday shows, based on the favorable accolades that were coming. if it went the wrong direction it would be on you. if it was stable and the right direction you were the ben fishiary of that. the question is how is it possible that these urgent requests that came in, h

. >> mrs. brooks? >> no. >> mr. cummings? >> yes. >> mr. smith? >> aye. >> mr. schiff? >> aye. >> ms. sanchez? >> aye. >> ms. duckworth? >> aye. >> ms. duckworth votes aye. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. gowdy? >> no. ayes, 5, noes, 8. the motion is not agreed to. >> madame secretary -- >> my apologies. >> motion still not agree. ed to. even south carolina math can figure that out. >> madame secretary, before we broke, there was a fair question why was i talking about mr. blumenthal's e-mails. that's a fair question. it's a fair question to ask why you were reading mr. blumenthal's e-mails. i think both are fair. i want to go to june of 2012, which is an interesting time period to look at. charlene lam sent an e-mail, which you may be familiar with. it's tab 56. i'm not going to read it. she described benghazi as a soft target, attacks on americans, not staffed adequately. it was a haunting e-mail to read. it was three months to the day when our four fellow citizens were killed. that's on june 7th, 2012. also on june 7th of 2012, your deputy chief of staff is e-mailin

. >> mrs. brooks. >> no. >> mr. cummings. >> yes. >> mr. smith. >> aye. >> mr. schiff. >> aye. >> ms. sanchez. >> aye. >> miss duckworth. >> aye. >> the clerk will report. >> and mr. gowdy. >> no. >> mr. gowdy votes no. yea 5, nos 8. >> and the motion is not agreed to. madame secretary -- >> my apology, sir. it was 7. >> motion still not agreed to. even south carolina math can figure that out. madame secretary, before we broke, there was a question asked that i thought was a fair question, which is why was i talking about mr. blumenthal's e-mails. i do think that's a fair question. i think it's an equally it fair question to ask why you were reading mr. blumenthal's e-mails. i think both are fair. so i want to go to june of 2012 which is an interesting time period to look at. charlene lamb was an employee of the state department ande-mail, read it, but where she describes benghazi as a soft target, attacks on americans not staffed adequate thely, a very haunting e-mail to read. it was actually three months to the day when our four fellow citizens were killed. an

now, you pointed out to mrs. brooksine of questioning based upon the e-mail stacks here that you engage in a lot of conversations and briefings, so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings but then she sent this e-mail asking about this. so how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even knew that we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all of your interest in libya in 2011, including your trip in october of 2011 in that months later we come to find out that you didn't even know if we had a presence there. stuart: i have to ask, that was the longest question and frankly i thought that was rather rambling, monica. >> well, you're correct about that. with all do due respect to the congresswoman, and i understand the republicans are probably trying to build a timeline, and trying to build a case and do it in a way, you've got to go after her with precise prosecutorial questions and a yes or no format. is this true, mrs.

mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a question for both of you. how should nasa pick a human exploration mission and timeline? >> i believe -- and i have been able to briefly read the report that was put out yesterday by nasa. i think there are a lot of good elements in it. i think in laying out a program, one thing that is missing from it and one thing i stated before -- in fact, i testified on it in may of 2013 in this committee. i believe that we need to start with a discussion in the community, whether science or the exploration committee, including our international partners those who are interested in developing resources on the moon. we need to have a conversation to lay out objectives for what we will achieve on these missions. it's not just a matter of we will build this rocket to go to this place. it's important to understand what we want to achieve. and i think that helps guide is the steps involved. personally i believe those steps include going to the moon, going to the moons of mars and the moon itself. >> mr. dumbacher anything to a

you pointed out to mrs. brooks in her last line of questioning based on the e-mail stacks here that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings. so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings. but then they sent this e-mail asking about this. so how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even knew if we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all your and in libya in 2011, including your trip in october of 2011 and that months later we come to find out you didn't even know we had a presence there? >> well, i can't comment on what has been reported. of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i know we were evaluate issing what that presence should be, how long it should continue. and i know exactly what we were doing in libya. and i think it's important. since you have very legitimate questions about what we were doing. the united states played a role in the first election that the libyan people had in 51 y

brooks: mr. halverson. mr. halvorsen: i will check in secret sounds intriguing. rep. brooks: mr.hairman, i yield back . congressman o'rourke of texas. o'rourke: you were talking about the tenets of deterrence. the first two, denial and resilience, i understand pretty well. there are questions about the third one, cost imposition. i'm interested in knowing how we communicate or advertise the consequences of cyberattacks to toential adversaries, and the degree you can talk about it, how does that change their have some of how the consequences we have imposed best far changed their behavior? in other words, however we don't done on that third tenet, cost imposition? mr. work: the first is to have a strong policy statement that we will respond in a time and place and manner of our choosing, and then we have to communicate, primarily with state actors. i think admiral rodgers said yesterday that we are good at stopping 99.5 percent of these attacks, getting rid of the basic hacker. but it is the state adversaries that pose the biggest challenge. i would like to weave in -- i think the

. >> mrs. brooks. >> no. >> mr. cummings. >> yes. >> mr. smith. >> aye. >> mr. schiff. >> aye. >> ms. sanchez. >> aye. >> miss duckworth. >> aye. >> the clerk will report. >> and mr. gowdy. >> no. >> mr. gowdy votes no. yea 5, nos 8. >> and the motion is not agreed to. madame secretary -- >> my apology, sir. it was 7. >> motion still not agreed to. even south carolina math can figure that out. madame secretary, before we broke, there was a question asked that i thought was a fair question, which is why was i talking about mr. blumenthal's e-mails. i do think that's a fair question. i think it's an equally it fair question to ask why you were reading mr. blumenthal's e-mails. i think both are fair. so i want to go to june of 2012 which is an interesting time period to look at. charlene lamb was an employee of the state department ande-mail, read it, but where she describes benghazi as a soft target, attacks on americans not staffed adequate thely, a very haunting e-mail to read. it was actually three months to the day when our four fellow citizens were killed. an

mr. brooks. we will now proceed to congressman o'rourke of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary work, you were talking about the three tenets of deterren deterrence. the first two, denial and resilience i understand pretty well. there have been a number of questions about the third one, which is cost imposition. i'm interested in knowing how we communicate or advertise the consequences of cyber attacks to potential adversaries. and to the degree that you can talk about it, how has that changed their behavior and the consequences we have imposed thus far changed their behavior? in other words, how have we done on the third tenet on cost imposition? >> the first is to have a strong policy statement that we will respond at a time, place, and manner of our choosing. we have to communicate primarily with state actors. i think admiral rogers said yesterday, we're pretty good at stopping 99.5% of the attacks. getting rid of the basic hacker. it is the state adversaries that pose the biggest challenge. and i would just like to weave in -- i think the chairman mentioned the cyb

mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. speaker, benjamin franklin advised, quote, when you run in debt you give to another power over your liberty, end quote. washington is in the middle of an epic battle between elected officials who on the one hand are financially responsible, have the understanding and backbone needed to prevent an american bankruptcy, heed the wisdom of founding father benjamin franklin and fight out-of-control debt that threatens our liberty and those elected officials who, on the other hand, are financially irresponsible and are too weak to resist spending money america does not have, has to borrow to get and can't afford to pay back. this week congress faces yet another last-second debt deal, negotiated in secret, sprung at the last moment that fails the american people by not fixing the cause of the debt ceiling problem, out-of-control deficits. earlier this year, america's comptroller general and the nonpartisan congressional budget office warned congress and president obama that america's current

mr. brooks: we want to be careful when we say it has not helped. it can be useful in hoarding and other negative aspects when it comes to critical resources, sure, but sometimes having an insurance policy in place is reassuring to people who decided they needed twice as much of a case there was not enough. the possibility that all you have done is taken working capital that private companies previously put in to inventories and gave them essentially a subsidy, your guide is to spend it on something that has a higher fire because the federal government will pick it up. that is an uneconomic result. the same energy security for that great at expense, something you want to avoid. >> i'm not sure all the european models are done that way. mr. book: not at all. they rolled into the commercial system and they have a different , so the strategic stocks they have a co-mingled numbers and as part of the ongoing capacity in the european system. >> i think it shows the different option or way of looking at things. i have always been perplexed by our two colle

. >> the chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the gentle lady from indiana, mrs. brooks, five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you all of the witnesses for coming today. i specifically would like to thank dr. halverson for being here. welcome to washington. it's an honor to have you before the panel and always nice to have a fellow hoosier in the nation's capital. and i have to admit, your experience, state health director, cdc, now at iu fairbanks school of public health, we're very fortunate to have you in indiana. and in fact, i want to thank you because dr. halverson convened a roundtable at iupui with prescribers, pharmacists, members of hhs and v.a., and we discussed the challenges indiana was facing then. as unfortunately one of the states leading the country in prescription opioid and heroin drug abuse. and we had quite a discussion that day. and we actually also had someone from the med school who attended, and we appreciated his participation. but one thing that ondcp, they released a report in 2011 that cite

. >> recognizes gentle lady from indiana mrs. brooks five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you all the witnesses for coming today. i would like to thank dr. halvorson to be here. welcome to washington and it's an honor to have you before the panel. and it's nice to have a fellow hoosier in the nation's capital. i have to admit your experience state health director and cdc and the fairbanks school of public health we're fortunate to have you in indiana and, in fact, want to thank you because dr. halvorson convened a roundtable at iupy with prescribers, pharmacists, members of hhs and va and we discussed the challenges indiana was facing then. as unfortunately one of the states leading the country in prescription opioid and heroin drug abuse. we had quite a discussion that day and we actually also had someone from the med school who attended and we appreciated his participation. but one thing that ondcp they released a report in 2011 that cited their intent to encourage medical and health professional schools such as fairbanks to c

then i think your interest waned and i think your attention waned, and i think the e-mails that mrs. brooks put forward you had an answer that was look i got a lot of information from a lot of different places but i think he basically gave a victory lap, sort of a mission accomplished quote in october 30, 2011 "washington post." this is what you said and this is very declarative. we set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history , on the right side of our values, and the right side of our strategic interest in the region. it has all the feel of a victory lap but there was a problem. the problem madam secretary was that there were storm clouds are gathering in the storm clouds were gathering for a deteriorating security situation in benghazi and you have a lot to lose if benghazi unraveled. if libya unraveled you have a lot to lose based on the victory lap, based on the sunday shows and based on the favorable accolades that were coming. if it went the wrong direction it would be on you and if it was stable and the right direction you were the beneficiary of that. so the quest

mr. brooks with his morning must-read. students have to find new things to love, like oboe. great works of art and literature have a lot to say on how to tackle the concrete like hows of living, to escape the chains of public opinion or how to build loving friendships. you have written about this, you cannot just be the narrowness that our education system has become. william: it allows you to draw analogies, to pick ideas from one place and apply them in another. surprising ways you would not have thought. >> we have a tech guru talking about how people should not be getting a liberal arts education, should be focusing on the stem. a liberal arts education makes you more versatile. you went out of queens. when did they get nerdy for you? when i went to wharton. it required you to have a nonbusiness minor. tom: it has been eliminated. stephanie: why? howard: i do not know. my minor was japanese studies. in 1965, japan was a non-entity in the commercial world. of japanesepects philosophy, which have carried over. tom: i was at colorado and aerospace engineering. great bookoug

mr. brooks. >> good afternoon. again commissioners so first of all, a quick critical aside on poop to power i've been working on the global warming gases and issues like that for thirty years a scrutinize the poop to power carefully the way those systems are designed and being destined right now they're actually schneider to increase the production of methane if you look at the climate signs i'll see that is exactly what we don't need recognizing that methane is much more serious than o-2 now to the subject at hand i want to thank commissioner president caen for being under his watch sf clean power has gotten underway we appreciate it in the community for clean power sf having the number one environmental commissioners in the presidency as we launch the program is important and a good sign as well as the vice president being the number one nuts and bolts how to run it and a really good sign we'll be counting on you mrs. president and mr. vice president to make sure there is no further details and their cut as much

and i think the e-mails that mrs. brooks put forth, you had an answer and that was look i got a lot of information from a lot of different places. but i think you basically gave a victory lap, sort of a mission accomplished quote in october 30th, 2011 in "the washington post." this is what you said, very declarative. we set into motion a policy on the right side of history, on the right side of our values and strategic interests in the region. it has all of the feel of a victory lap. but there was a problem. and the problem, madam secretary was that there were storm clouds gathering. and the storm clouds that were gathering was a deteriorating security situation in benghazi. and you had a lot to lose if benghazi unravelled. if libya unravelled, you had had a lot to lose, based on the victories, the sunday shows, based on the favorable accolades that were coming. if it went the wrong direction it would be on you. and if it was stable and it was the right direction you were the beneficiary of that. so the question is, how is i

brooks: mr. harris? mr. harris: we do work with the u.s. attorney's office, it's a relationship that's developed other the years. we've even worked with the postal inspectors on cases as well. so i think it becomes for us, it becomes a relationship building and i think we have established that at least in chicago. ms. brooks: thank you. just, with respect to your respective agencies, i'm curious, how many people work on this specifically? how many f.t.e.'s, going back to my days in justice, how many f.t.e.'s are focused on this? mr. kaufman: at the f.t.c. we don't have attorneys designated as working specifically on enior issues, we have them working on a broad range of issues. it's an area of interest throughout the bureau. ms. canan: our office is small, determined and dedicated but small. under 10 full-time employees but we have the benefit of working with other divisions and offices throughout the bureau. so when we become aware of a particular problem where it appears that it may include violations of the law, we bring in other divisio