, nearly half of all federal inmates were serving time for drugrelated offenses. As many of you have thoroughly reported, the state of affairs not only had serious financial limitations for our country, it also exacted a human and moral toll that is impossible to calculate. Studies show that the policies that impose these costs have not had a Significant Impact in making our communities measurably safer. The persistence of the status quo demanded that National Criminal justice leaders really closely examine our institutions and reorient our practices. So that all that all americans deserve. Under president obamas leadership, we began to push for serious change. In 2010, as a result of our efforts and the Close Partnership of leaders from both parties, both parties, on capitol hill. President was able to find the fair sentencing act sign the fair sentencing act. Over the years we have also worked to strengthen reentry policies, to advance targeted improvements. In early 2013, i took these efforts to a new level by initiating an Unprecedented Justice Department review of the federal criminal Justice System as a whole to identify obstacles and efficiency and inequities and address ineffective policies. Now, this review needed about 18 months ago with the launch of art total smart on crime. It was a catchall term for a range of reforms that we implemented simultaneously in the summer of 2013, each one of which was significant in its own right. We made major changes to the departments policies related to nonviolent drug offenders. We put sensible limits on when it was appropriate to seek for and sentences based on prior criminal records. We took steps to improve reentry process is reduce the chances that incarcerated individuals reoffend after the exit prisons. Taken together, these reforms reflect the departments ageold commitment to the criminal Justice System that is fair, that deters serious criminal conduct and holds people accountable for their crimes and utilizes incarceration wisely, to punish, deter, and rehabilitate. Not merely confine and forget. As my colleagues and i have incremented new Crime Prevention efforts for Effective Community policing and promised diversion and reentry strategies, i spoke extensively about the changes we have made and the vision that has driven us forward. I pointed to the favorable results we have seen on the state level, in places like kentucky, texas, ohio, and pennsylvania, where governors and legislatures of both parties have provided models for others to emulate by directing funding away from prison construction and towards programs designed to reduce i have put emphasis on two vital reforms at the heart of the initiative. The prioritization of cases and the critical change in of the charge and the critical changes in charging processes. The data is culinary but it shows that the smart on Crime Initiative is working exactly as it was intended. It is having a real and measurable impact on the decisions made by federal prosecutors from coast to coast. The changes we have implemented are firmly taking hold. The key reforms appear to be successful by every measure that we have taken and seen so far. The numbers are particularly encouraging in three areas i would like to discuss with you today. First, among the central components is an effort to reduce unnecessary incarceration by asking federal prosecutors to exercise their discretion and to make smart and targeted decisions about which cases warrant federal prosecution. As i said in a speech to the American Bar Association in august of 2013, not every drug case should be brought to federal court. Accordingly, i directed the u. S. Attorneys to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines, consistent with National Priorities for determining when federal charges should be filed and when cases should be handled at the state or local level. Today im pleased to report that our federal prosecutors are heeding the call and are being more selective in bringing certain drug prosecutions. Between 2013 and 2014, the number of defendants charged with Drug Trafficking offenses declined by nearly 1400 individuals are at this is a reduction of more than 6 . Second, i instructed the prosecutors that in the course of weighing which type of drug cases merit federal prosecution they should work on focus on the worst offenders and crimes. Today, prosecutors are focusing their attention and resources on the most serious cases. In 2013, before smart on crime was incremented, the average guideline minimum for federal drug prosecutions, the average prison term suggested was 96 months. It has dropped. It has risen to 98 months. The serious drug offenses are getting the most scrutiny. Third, in august of 2013, i also ordered a modification of the Justice Department so that people accused of lowlevel drug offenses face sentences appropriate to their individual conduct. Rather than excessive individual mandatory sentences. The change was founded on the belief that by preserving mandatory minimum sentences for the cases where they are wanted, we could better make arts managers more productive and better. We are making significant progress towards this goal. In the are before the policy took effect, roughly 64 of federally charged Drug Trafficking offenses carried a mandatory minimum sentence. Last year, the new policy but the number down to approximately 51 , a reduction of 20 relative to the prior year. We have gone from seeking a mandatory minimum penalty in two out of every three Drug Trafficking cases to doing so in one out of two. That is a major reduction. It is historic. These numbers show that federal prosecutors have a lower rate and 2014 than in any other year on record. This figure, perhaps more than any other, chose the Significant Impact policy reforms are having. All other factors may play a role in the drop we are seeing in the overall number of drug cases, as a kind is pronounced in the rate at which are prosecutors pursued mandatory minimum sentences can only be a tribute to the changes announced in 2013. Beatrice it to the changes announced be attributed to the changes announced in 2013. More effectively, by targeting the serious crimes and more fairly by ensuring that those who are convicted of crimes receive sentences that are commence right with their conduct. Now, some have suggested that reducing our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences could impact prosecutors ability to get cooperation. A defendant in a drug case would have substantially less incentive to provide information or testimony about others who might being gauged in criminal enterprise. Some worried that prosecutors would be unable to obtain would be flooded with guilty i never considered these concerns persuasive. Like anyone who is old enough to have served as a prosecutor in the days before the sentencing guidelines existed as mandatory minimums took effect, i knew from experience that defendant cooperation depends on the certainty of swift and fair punishment not on the this portion of length of a mandatory minimum sentence, with or without the threat of a mandatory minimum, it will always be in the interest of defendants to cooperate with the government. Im gratified, but no means surprised, to announce that the smart on crime approach has been vindicated by the data we have gathered. Even the mandatory minimums have been charged significantly less frequently under the new policy, the percentage of cases in which we receive substantial cooperation from defendants has remained exactly the same. It also holds true of the ability of the prosecutors to ensure guilty pleas in these cases. In the years before the euro year later, the percentage stands at 97. 5 . The notion that the smart on Crime Initiative is somehow robbing us of an essential jewel is contradicted not only by our history that by clear and effective empirical facts. We can confront over incarceration at the same time we continue to promote public safety. Already in fiscal year 2014, we saw the first reduction in the federal prison population in 32 years. Meanwhile, since president obama has taken office, we have had is a continued decline in the overall crime rate. This marks the first time that any administration has achieved sidebyside reductions of both crime and incarceration in more than 40 years. All of this progress is remarkable and all of it is notable. These concrete results illustrate the tremendous and real promise of the work that smart on Crime Initiative possible. It signifies a paradigm shift in the way our nation approaches vital questions of fairness and justice. In the preliminary data criminal Justice Reform is an idea whose time has finally come. Now, the years prior to this administration, federal prosecutors were not only encouraged, they were required to always seek the most severe prison sentence possible for all drug cases. No matter the relative risk they pose to public safety. Now, ive made a break from that philosophy. Old habits are hard to break but these numbers show a dramatic shift is underway in the minds of prosecutors handling nonviolent drug offenses. I believe we have taken steps to institutionalize the fair, more practical approach such that it will endure for years to come. I think we can be a proud of these efforts. Thanks to the work of my dedicated colleagues, the valor of our brave men and women in Law Enforcement and leadership of the u. S. Sentencing commission and the partnership of republicans and democrats in congress and so many state governments, the goals and values of the smart on Crime Initiative have been codified and put into place as every stage of the criminal justice process. The work we have done is nothing short of groundbreaking, but this is no time to rest on our laurels. Significant challenges remain before us. A great deal of work remains to be done. Our prisons are still overcrowded across the country. Far too many people remain trapped in cycles of poverty, criminality, and incarceration. Unwanted disparities are far too common. Law enforcement is distrusted in far too many places and cops are not appreciated for the tough job they do. If we hope to build on the record we have established so far and make the smart on Crime Initiative not only successful but permanent, we must Work Together to ensure that all of this is just the beginning. From critical improvements to the juvenile Justice System, we must continue to advance promising, Bipartisan Legislation to make our communities safer and street individuals more justly and allow more efficient use of Law Enforcement. We await a Strong Foundation for a new era of american justice. Congress can help us build on the foundation by passing important i partisan legislation by passing important Bipartisan Legislation. Going forward with measures like this one and the tireless work of our u. S. Attorneys and their colleagues, strong leadership of our Outstanding New attorney general and new Deputy Attorney general and robust engagement of u. S. People, i believe there is a good reason to be confident of where this work leads us. In the coming weeks, my time with the Obama Administration grassroots comes to a close. I know that for me, this effort will continue. Whatever i do next and wherever my own journey will take me, i will keep seeking new ways to contribute and remain engaged in the effort to improve our institutions and build trust and those who serve them. Though i will soon leave the Justice Department i love, i will never leave the work that is become a mission and the single greatest honor of my professional life. I want to thank you all once again for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon and the work that you do every day to strengthen our democracy and inform our national dialogue. I look forward to handling your very easy questions. [laughter] [applause] thank you. We have some questions on the breaking news of the day on the texas judge issuing an injunction to block president obamas executive orders. This questioner wants to know if youll go to the fifth court of appeals to try to stop the injunction and what is the practical effect of this ruling on the president s executive order immigration order . How much of a setback is it . We are so looking at the opinion and trying to decide what steps we might take next. I think that we have to look at this decision for what it is. It is a decision by one Federal District court judge. I expect and have always expected that this is a matter that will be ultimately decided by a higher court. If not the Supreme Court, then a federal court of appeals. I think it has to be seen in that context. I would view this as an interim step in a process that will that has more to play out. You talked about the sentencing guidelines that have been reformed and a few of the things going forward. What would you prioritize as the next biggest thing that is needed in the sentencing reform . As i have said in my prepared remarks, we understand that Congress Needs to Work Together in a way that they have shown an ability to before to make federal law that is consistent with the steps we have done. I would encourage the states as well to look at what their state counterparts have done and the results we have seen in the smart on Crime Initiative. More sensible approaches to dealing with the criminal Justice System. And overreliance on incarceration has proven not to be effect does. Ive. I was an attorney when washington, d. C. Was considered the murder capital of the world. I think in some ways we have earned a peace dividend. We ought to base our policies in the 21st century on the reality we have. There are several questions about marijuana. Under the controlled substances act, the administration has the power to reclassify marijuana with no further congressional action needed. Do you think that is something the president should consider in the next couple of years . Im not sure that question that the underlying premise is necessarily true. I think congress ultimately has to do that. This is a topic that ought to be engaged in by our nation, informed by the experiences that we see in colorado, in washington. There is legitimate debate to be had on both sides of that question, where marijuana ought to be in terms of its scheduling. Taking into account the empirical evidence we can garner to see if it is a series of drug to warrant class one quarter was to see if it is a series of drug warranting class one classification. Lasted, president obama directed the Justice Department review problems with the Death Penaltys application. Teddy founded that review so far . What have you found in that review so far . That review is still underway. We have looked at federal Death Penaltys to think about what we have looked at federal death penalti question that out in equities and equality is about who receives the penalty. That is a process that still underway. I dont think it will be completed during my time as attorney general. Specifically about the oklahoma system, the Supreme Court has agreed to review to the system of legal lethal injection. Should there be a National Moratorium on lethal injection until this case is reviewed . Now, speaking personally, not as a member of the administration, so somehow separate yourself here. I think there are fundamental questions that we need to ask about the Death Penalty. I have not been shy in saying that im a person who is opposed to the use of the Death Penalty. Our system of justice is the best in the world. It is comprised of men and women who do the best they can, get it right more often than not substantially more right than wrong. Theres always the possibility that mistakes will be made. Mistakes and determinations made by juries, mistakes in terms of the kinds of representation that someone facing a capital offense receives. Its for that reason that i am opposed to the Death Penalty. It is one thing to put someone in jail for an extended period of time, have a new test leaving due to determine a person was innocent there is no opportunity to correct a mistake where someone has been executed. That is from my perspective the ultimate nightmare. I disagree with Justice Scalia that that has never happened in our history. I think its inevitable. Its inevitable that we will find an instance that that has occurred. I think fundamental questions about the Death Penalty need to be asked. Among them, the Supreme Courts determination as to whether or not lethal injection is consistent with our constitution is one that ought to occur. From our perspective, i think a moratorium until the Supreme Court made that determination would be appropriate. Last month you barred local and state police from using federal law to seize private assets, such as cash and cars without warrants criminal charges. What impact have you seen since the end of the socalled equitable sharing program, and how the Police Departments who have often depended on the money reacted to this, and what do you hope to achieve by barring this program . Its probably too early to see what the impact has been. I think we need more time together data and see how that has affected both the way in which Police Apartment conduct themselves, and also a look at with the monetary impacts our. The hope would be that we would use that tool in only ways that were appropriate. I was concerned about some of the abuses that i certainly had heard about. I have to say that the Washington Post in its really, i thought very good series brought to the for in addition to the other things that we were looking at, i thought it was an appropriate time given the limited amount of time that we had left to try to make a policy determination about federal adoption. We have also introduced some new rules with regard to how one can consider whether one can consider a task force to be a joint one, a federal one or not. I think all of these steps, plus the ongoing review which sally and loretta will continue to conduct will ultimately put us in a better place when it comes to what is a very powerful tool, but that ultimately can result in justice in injustice. Where there is no finding of guilt, and yet you lose property for some reason. The potential for abuse their is too great for it to not be examined and i think ultimately reformed. This questioner says it has been reported that you hope to announce a decision on the civil rights investigation of Michael Browns death before you leave office. Could you update us on the progress of the ferguson civil rights investigation . It is my intention to announce our determination, the decision we have made both with regard to the individual officers conduct in the shooting of Michael Brown as well as the pattern of practice investigation we have done into the ferguson leased apartment. My hope is we will do this before i leave office, im confident that we will do that. Ultimately its up to congress as to when i actually leave office. [laughter] you would actually think that her process would be speed up given their desire to see me out of office. Be that as it may logic has never been necessarily a guide up there. In any case, my hope would be as i said to make these determinations before i go. The reviews are underway. I was briefed on both of them just last week. Im satisfied with the process the progress we have made, and im comfortable in saying i think im going to be able to make those calls before i leave office. Critics, including some former Law Enforcement people in st. Louis say you have unduly influenced the Justice Department patterns and practices investigation of the Ferguson Police department. In particular within october 29 statement in which you noted the need for wholesale change in the department. Was it proper for you to declare a need for this before the doj actually concluded its probe . I had to think the Washington Post reporter jonathan k hart for that question that elicited that response. I dont think that response was inappropriate. The reality is that i had been briefed all along on this matter. Nothing i say in response to a reporter is going to have an impact on the career people who are looking at whether or not what action we ought to take if any in regards to the Ferguson Police department. I think everybody will see when we announce our results that the process that weve engaged in as as i said, the time i went to ferguson independents, thorough, and based only on the facts and the law. Im confident that people will be satisfied with the results that we announce. You have called for better tracking of police use of force incidents. Why is that, and what do you think the Justice Department and local police to do with that information . This is something i called for a few weeks ago. And that director we also raised in his remarks just a couple of days ago. In what i think was a gutsy important speech. By Law Enforcement official who ive had a great deal of respect for for a number of years. I knew him when he was an assistant u. S. Attorney in the Eastern District of virginia, and have been able to follow his career. I think that our nation should watch lead, and have a conversation around the issues that jim raised in that speech. He talked about the need for gathering data, as i talked about a few weeks ago. We have this sense based on these incidents they get huge amounts of attention, stir the nation, we have a sense that that things are amiss. But we dont have a real good sense of what the nature of the problem is. Both to the force the police are using, and the kinds of violence that is directed at the police. I think the gathering that information, in both ways, how are police using force, what kind of force are police having to deal with, what is being directed against them . That kind of data should began at. Should began at. We encourage state and local counterparts to share that with us. And by grants that we make with the requirements of data be shared with the federal government. We can have a much better sense of what the problem looks like in our country. And then base policy based on the empirical evidence we were able to gather. You have publicly questioned the use of militarized tactics by local Law Enforcement in many situations, including the protests in ferguson. Yet the Philadelphia Police commissioner, head of the Administration Task force defends the practice of giving surplus military hardware to local Law Enforcement. What is your take on this should log a lawenforcement have access to combat military agreement that was originally designated for the battlefield . It depends on the kinds of acquittal you are talking about. Certain military equipment i think can be shared with state and local counterparts. Then the question is, what time of training what type of training to they have, in regard to how it should be deployed . I think getting into the underlying investigation of the deployment of some of that military hardware and ferguson exacerbated what was a pretty difficult situation. On the other hand, if you are in new york city, and you have to deal with the terrorist incident, i think that some of the military equipment that has been made available to state and local authorities in fact can be useful. Again, it depends on the kind of equipment. Abrams tanks i dont think should be shared with our state and local counterparts. Its hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would be useful. But armored carriers and things of that nature, i think can be useful if deployed in appropriate ways. Theyre even fundamental things about how these things get painted, what did it look like . If it looks like the military is in fact occupying american streets during civil disturbances, that i think is not a good thing for the American People or for the world. Necessarily, to see. Theyre a number of questions that have to be worked through. I wouldnt really disagree with chuck ramsey from philadelphia. I think there is the need for it, we just need to use and deploy this equipment in a way better than we have in the past. What concerns you have about isis linked foreign fighters who returned to the United States and the Justice Department possibility to find and prosecute these people . That is the thing as i leave office that ive often said keeps me up at night. The notion of worrying about people who have left the United States to join the fight, and then who tried to come back. I think we do a good job of monitoring those people, stopping them where we can through the use of a variety of techniques, including undercover techniques. To stop them from getting there. And in monitoring them with the use of our allies once they are there and trying to stop them when they come back. The ultimate concern is about those people who remain here in the United States. And through a variety of means become radicalized. Either they are in pritikin prison and become radicalized as weve seen in denmark. Or in their basements and online. Listening, watching. Isil related propaganda is totally inconsistent with the reality that people who go to join the fight face. We have to do a better job of getting that message out, about people who go there and want to leave, because they have been mistreated, they are horrified by the things that, that they have been called upon to do. Its a real serious problem. We have an countering violent extremism summit next week at the white house where we have experts from around the world its held at the ministerial level, where we are discussing these issues. This whole question of self radicalization, radicalization of people who never leave the country is something that we have to focus on. Im confident about the abilities of the fbi dhs working with our joint Terrorism Task forces to do a good job. We also have to understand that the ultimate solution to this is to make sure that the young men who might be attracted to that siren song have to be dealt with. It have to be made to feel a part of our communities, if we do a better job, perhaps other nations in integrating those people might be attracted to the isil call. We have to redouble our efforts given the notoriety in the publicity that these heinous barbaric acts that isil has taken. This questioner notes that the Muslim Community has expressed concern about how they are being characterized as the administration begins at summit on violent extremism. I know that on the other side, the administration has been criticized for not calling it religious extremism in some of these cases. It sort of come on both sides. Could you tell us your thoughts process, and when you talk about this issue of religious extremism, how do you do you try to nail that right down the middle so that you are not going too far, but also you want to call it what it is, i imagine. Whenever youre getting criticized by both sides, it means you are probably getting it right. We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it. I mean really. If fox didnt talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me. Radical islam, islamic extremism, im not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. He doesnt have any impact on our military posture, it doesnt have any impact on what we call it. When the policies that we put in place, what we have to do is define it not by the terms that we use but my the facts on the ground. I dont worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology on to be. I think that people need to actually think about that, inc. About will we be having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions on to be . This is a difficult problem. Its going to be an ongoing issue. This is something that requires us to think as a nation how we are going to deal with the domestic issues that i was describing in my previous response, and how are we going to deal with the Foreign Policy consequences of some very, very Serious Problems that our allies face, that we face particularly in a part of the world. The terminology, it seems to me little to no impact on what ultimately we have to do. The Obama Administration has prosecuted a diligent whistleblowers under the espionage act, more than all previous president ial of ministrations combined. What justifies this more aggressive posture toward leakers president ial administrationans combined. What justified this more aggressive posture toward leakers . I would say that we have not it has been a great concern by members of the press about these prosecutions. I understand that sensitivity. We had a series of meetings at the Justice Department over the course of the summer, we talked about changing the way in which the Justice Department would view these cases. The policies that underlined how we would interact with members of the media. I think we have come up with some new policies, new procedures that i think have been generally well received. What i have said is we have to continue to look at these policies to make sure that they are kept uptodate, and make sure that we are meeting the needs we have in the Justice Department, while being sensitive to the real role come of the Important Role the members of the press play. I think that, we have more than other administrations. But that leaves us with a total of five or six that this administration has brought over the course of six years. I dont think him as you look at those cases individually, but there was anything inappropriate about the cases that were brought. I think if you look at the last case involving mr. Rison, the way in which that case was handled, after the new policies were put in place, as an example of how the Justice Department can proceed. When you have people who are disclosing, for instance, the identities of people who work in our intelligence agencies, thats the kind of case that i think we have to bring. I also think theres a question for you all, for members of the press. Because weve asked ourselves when it comes to national surveillance, sibley because we have the ability to do certain things, should we . Members of the press have to ask that question. Simply because you have a source of information you have the ability to expose that to the public. Should you . Im saying it is for you to decide. Its not for the government to decide. But it is for you to decide. I will use an extreme example, perhaps unfair. In world war ii, is a reporter found out about the existence of the manhattan project, is that something that should have been disclosed . We are not in a time of war, and im saying thats an extreme example. But theres a question the numbers of the press should ask. About whether or not the disclosure of the information has a negative impact on the National Security of the nation. We have tried to be appropriately sensitive in bringing those cases that warranted prosecution. We have turned away, and i turned away substantially greater number of cases that were presented to us, and where prosecution was sought. Is there a realistic chance that president obama will be able to close guantanamo before the end of his term . If so, how can we expect this to play out over the coming months . There is a realistic possibility. It would require the cooperation of congress to lift some of the restrictions that they have placed on the administration. There is no question that the closing of guantanamo would be a good thing. It costs us an excessive amount of money, if you look at the amount of money we spend to house one person in guantanamo for one year, as opposed to what it would take to house that same person in a super max, in the United States, the costs are just dwarfed. We pay a Foreign Policy price it is something that is used as a recruiting tool for those who we are currently engaged with. Theres a whole host of regions reasons why guantanamo should be closed. We made a substantial amount of progress in the last year or so. I think ultimately it will require the car operation cooperation of congress to reduce the population to zero. Has the administration entered into any discussions with any times with legal representatives of Edward Snowden about the possibility of a plea deal in this case . I will say no comments. [applause] [laughter] several questions about the wall street aftermath in prosecuting banks, both large and small. One questioner compared it to the snl and so many more prosecutions came out of that than they are seeing in the wake of the last one. Has the Justice Department done enough to go after both large and small banks . If you look at the institutions that have played a part in the financial debacle of 2008, 2009, you are looking at a relatively small universe as opposed to the snl prices, where you dealing with thousands of banks. I think it terms of scale, there are not quite the same. We have extracted record penalties from banks. Who we found to engaged in inappropriate practices. Ive said, and identify making news now are not, but i asked the u. S. Attorneys who made those cases, and were still involved in these arent bs over the next 90 days to look at their bases and to try and develop cases against individuals and to report back in 90 days with regard to whether or not they think they will be able to successfully bring criminal or civil cases against those individuals. That will ultimately be given to loretta to make determinations about whether further action is appropriate. I think that what weve done has been appropriate. As i say, we have this ongoing examination of whether individual cases ought to be brought. But it is to the extent that individuals have not been prosecuted, people should understand its not for lack of trying. These are the kinds of cases that people come to the Justice Department to make. Young people who want to be assisting u. S. Attorneys in the Southern District of new york and Eastern District of virginia, san francisco, live for these big cases. The inability to make them at least at this point has not been as results of a lack of effort. Before i asked the final question i just wanted to give a couple important reminders. First, i want to remind you about upcoming speakers. We have fda commissioner Margaret Hamburg here on march 27, and vince cerf, chief internet evangelist for google will be here on may 4. Second, i would like to present our guest with the Traditional National press club mug. [laughter] let me say of all of the remembrances you will of had from all of your time as attorney general, i doubt there is a better one than this. [laughter] thank you. [applause] ok. Question. A recent video shows you shooting a perfect jumpshot at the will amaze boys and girls club in san francisco. Now that you are leaving, please evaluate your basketball skills as compared with president obamas. [laughter] well, i would first ask everyone, and certainly all those who are within camera range to go online, go to youtube, and put eric holder basketball, and really examine that sweet jumper. [laughter] viewed in isolation, it is clear that i still have it. [laughter] i mean, i had on a time, i had on the shoes, it was sweet. And with every telling of the jumpshot, he goes back, it was now like 24 feet, by tomorrow it will be a three pointer. [laughter] i was asked that same question during my confirmation hearing. Im not sure but which senator. But i think i will paraphrase that answer. Im from new york city. The home of vascular players like nate archibald, kareem abduljabbar, julius the dr. Irving, connie hawkins, chris mullin. The president is from hawaii. [laughter] now, im just saying thats his background. Hes a good ballplayer. Hes got a real good lefthanded. He has the ability to drive. Hes 10 years younger than i am. Hes in better shape, hes still my boss. When i become a civilian, he will still have access to all things about me that you all are written about, i suppose come i will now be worried about. Im simply going to say hes a great ballplayer. A great friend, and i will leave it at that. [laughter] [applause] thank you, mr. Attorney general for coming here, particularly on a snow day when the federal government to shut down. You are still here at the National Press club, and that is wonderful. Thank you all for coming today and i have a request that you stay in your seats until the attorney general has left the room. Please see in your seats after a bring down the gavel. I would also like to thank the National Press club staff including its Journalism Institute and Broadcast Center for organizing todays event. If you would like a copy of todays program, or to learn more about the National Press club, go to our website press. Org. Thank you, were adjourned. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] if you missed any of the speech, this conversation is available on our website to view any time, go to cspan. Org. Earlier today defense secretary Ashton Carter taking his place as the new defense secretary. He vowed to make decisions about sending troops into harms way with the greatest reflection and care he was sworn in to office this afternoon by Vice President joe biden. While the u. S. House is about to gavel in for pro forma session. No legislative business to be conducted today snow has close much of the federal government today. The house is Still Holding this brief session to meet its constitutional requirements. Live coverage of the u. S. House here on cspan. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. The clerk the speakers room washington, d. C. , february 17, 2015. I hereby appoint the honorable luke messer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. Signed, john a. Boehner, speaker of the house of representatives