process of reconciliation. >> exactly. and do you think the comment on u.s./pakistan relations here. they seem to be at loggerheads. we picked up hostility to the united states despite the fact that a substantial amount of aid is given by the united states to pakistan. we've got a role here, at least i believe we've got a role here. do you agree that we could be encouraging afghanistan -- pakistan and the united states to communicate better with each other so they can then work jointly towards a settlement? >> yes. i think the governments of pakistan and the united states do communicate effectively with each other. it is very important for the united states and the united kingdom to explain to the people of pakistan what we are doing. and i strongly welcome the

visits of fellow parliamentarians to pakistan. we have had, as i think was set out in memorandum sent to the committee, a large number of ministerial visits to pakistan under the new government, and on many of those visits we have gone out of our way to spend our time on the media in pakistan. i think i did an exceptional number of interviews on my visit to pakistan to explain to the people of pakistan about the role of the u.k., about the the extent of the assistance we are giving with education in pakistan. since then, of course, britain is one of the countries that has led the way in responding to the disastrous floods in pakistan, and so i think the u.k. and the u.s. and our allies have to communicate that as effectively as possible. and alongside a close relationship with india, to build a long-term strategic partnership with pakistan. those things go indices pence my together. >> president zardari said he

wanted to address this committee, and we will facilitate th >> the group americans for prosperity held a rally outside of the u.s. capitol yesterday. we'll hear from south carolina center jim demint and minnesota representative michele bachmann who chaired the tea party caucus in the house.

>> as congress gathers for lame-duck session this week, i took this held a rally near the newest capital urging members to support a two-year moratorium on air marks and to stop the passage of other legislation. we will hear from republican house members, along with some of the newly elected house members. the group americans for prosperity hosted this event which is just over an hour. >> the people of america spoke >>nfortuber the second, right? unfortunately, and i know he was done to do this, those in. have washington, d.c., had not yet listened to the new reality oru are you shocked by that? that?

>> know! >> nancy pelosi is apparently going to be the minority leader for the next year. is that good? [applause] we welcome her back in her agenda back because we know the american people have utterly rejected that big government, big spending, washington-knows- best approach. is that right? i thought so. and thank all of you for coming. i know some of you draw long distances. where the people from florida? where is georgia? >> pennsylvania. >> pennsylvania is right here. and the north carolinian is are here. i know that the commonwealth of virginia is represented. we even had people from up in new hampshire and new jersey, across this great country. thank you all for coming.

marilyn, i am sorry. i'm in big trouble, new york this year as well. thank you for coming because we set for the last year -- arizona, excuse me. i'm sorry. i know americans for prosperity, we set for the last year this is not about one election, right? >> right. >> it is not about our short- term goal but genuinely taking our nation in a new direction toward freedom and prosperity. we know that is what this is about. and one of the questions that i heard most often on the road, whether in dover, ohio, or pittsburgh, pa. -- it did not matter where -- people woke up and say, tim, do you think the republicans have learned their lesson from nearly 2000's? >> know! >> and my answer would be, whether they have not, we're

going to hold them accountable every single day. [applause] in that spirit, our first guest is here today. tomorrow is a crucial vote. these pork barrel earmarks of the very symbol of arrogance and corruption in washington, they really are. we have seen the people, the spending in the waste in the abuse of our tax dollars. i think tomorrow that the senate republican caucus is going to vote on motion by senator jim demint, our champion in the senate. [applause] i'll tell you something, tomorrow, the republicans in the senate are going to start answering that question, have we learned our lesson? are we going to go a different way? please welcome our free market champion jim demint!

>> thank you. wow. thank you, thank you. as long as you are here, the people in these buildings, the buildings behind me, all over capitol hill, know that this is a government of the people and for the people and by the people. that is something that had been forgotten here for years. last year we saw the power wrestled out of the hands of politicians and back into the hands of the american people, and it is because of you and what you have done, all over the country, if people have stood up, they have taken to the streets, they have spoken out, they have said enough is enough. we have politicians quaking in their bids going into the last election. [applause] and there was a reason for them to be afraid. everything has changed here in washington. i think people are listening.

people like mike pence in the house. and michele bachmann, who i think will be here. the house is going to lead the way and pass good legislation, bold legislation, the bold colors that reagan talked about that would inspire a letter -- if americans, that would demonstrate that we have gotten the message in that we believe in freedom in this country. if that was in that legislation to the senate. this time and set of saying no, we can say yes. we can challenge the democrats and the president to do what is right. as tim said, if this is just the beginning. 2012 is going to make what happens look small if we continue what we started here today. [applause] opt-in is right. if we cannot decide as a federal government that it is not our job to pay local -- paid local mall parking lots and build local museums, then we do not understand what constitutional

limited government is. if the senate republicans failed to pass the ban on earmarks tomorrow, obviously they have not gotten the message. i am optimistic that they have. there is a lot of pressure on some of them to cave in. but i think that you're going to see a bold new group of republicans. i was with a lot of them last night, and you helped send them. if people like pat toomey, marco rubio, rand paul randmike lee, and ron johnson, we have got people, young people, two of them 39 years old lowering the age in the senate by 10 years. [laughter] this is because of you, not of party organization. it is because one american at a time as realize that our future, our very freedom, everything we hope for is in the hands of individual americans, if not the

people who vote in this day. if we remember that, if we expand what you started, if every day over the next few years, getting an average people engaged in what is going on here, it will keep these people accountable. they will keep listening. we will have more voices speaking for you, and we will bring this country away from the edge of the financial klatt it is on, and restore a lot of the freedoms that we all believe in. the only reason i'm here today, and a lot of you thanked me on the way in, i'm here to thank you because what you have done has given us, my pants, michelle, others the power to change things. the only power we hit here in washington is the power of ideas and the millions of people standing behind them. thank you today. thank you for all you ever done. i'm here for you. >> are you guys with jim demint

on earmarks bill? by the way, i knew jim demint had a direct line, but did you notice that the sun came out? that is pretty impressive. i do not normally think of the term, congress and lehmann. i do, but i was a novice line. but starting today, nancy pelosi and harry reid are bringing back in the old, failed congress. they're going to try one last time, one last gasp to cram their agenda that has been repudiated by the american people. we're going to say no, aren't we? we're delighted to have with us one of the longtime leaders -- and i say long time in the sense of the last four for six years -- who has time and again cast

the right road, whether it was his own party or the democrat party, he did so with the confidence in our free market principles and in our nations, our founding fathers. and he is someone that we can -- that we can count on now. that is my pants. -- mike pence. >> i am from indiana. it is my high honor to welcome you back to your nation's capital. americans for prosperity, americans who attended tea parties and town halls prove that once again on november the second. this is still today the advent of the 21st century, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[applause] we are gathered today to do two things. let me echo the eloquence of jim demint and rise to pay a debt of gratitude to you. and the tens of millions of americans that each one of you represent. they said that we could have a government as good as our people again, and you rose up and you demanded change. and it happened and we are grateful. [applause] but i also rise today to tell you that at this very moment, our liberties themselves are once again at risk. this lame duck congress is limping back into washington, d.c. hungry for more spending, more taxes, more deficits, and more debt, and we are here to

say no more lame duck. it is not duck hunting session in indiana for couple of weeks. but the battle starts today. let me say to each of you gathered here today -- it is absolutely imperative that we role our sleeves up and focus on insisting that the change that america embraced on november 2 began today. and began in this congress. [applause] now the president and nancy pelosi argued that november the sec it was all about a bad economy. -- that november 2nd was all about a bad economy, and about

as failure to communicate. [laughter] let me be clear on this point. i believe with all my heart that this year's election was a historic rejection of american liberalism and the obama-policy agenda. -- obama-pelosi agenda. the american people voted to change direction. and that new direction starts now. let us put our democratic colleagues on notice -- if you use this lame duck session to advance your big government agenda, you will be ignoring the will of the american people. >> that is right. >> if you use the lame duck agenda as a last ditch effort to promote your big government policies, deficits, debts, and liberal social agenda, and you'll be proving that you just

do not get it and still are not listening to the american people. [applause] and for my fellow republicans, let me say as we gather in this lame duck session in the coming weeks, there must be no compromise on ending the era of runaway spending. [applause] there must be no compromise on preventing a tax increase on any american. [applause] and there must be no compromise on our commitment to rooting it -- repeal obamacare lock, stock, and barrel. if we are gathered here today because the fight goes on. as the fight for freedom always does. we are gathered here today to demand that this congress in this hour practice the

principles of democracy and hear the voice of the american people. we also say with one voice, to those returning democrats and some republicans who do not heed the voice of the american people in this november, but we will remember in the next november. [applause] thank you and god bless you. >> thank you, mike pence. american prosperity is a grass- roots organization with chapters across this country. for this next introduction, i want to introduce you to a gentleman that many of you virginians know, the state director for virginia, then marty -- ben markey.

>> we told them for the last 12 months that november was coming. we've got a message today, don't way? november is here! november is here. that message of responsible spending and not wasting our children's inheritance -- i have a son being born next month. he already owes the federal government $40,000. that should never be the case. one of those messages we were able to send, we have a lot of new conservative face is joining the britannia delegation in this new congress. one of them is no stranger to actually cutting the size of government. last year in the virginia general assembly, as majority leader, morgan creek that cut $400 billion of state spending. something that these guys across the road here ought to learn

real quick. he also sent a message that if you vote against your district and you vote for job-killing cap and trade legislation and kill those natural resources that we depend on in this country, that you are going to be replaced. ladies and gentleman, please griffith.organ breat [applause] >> thank you. it is great to be here carrying your message to the capital. and that message is one of accountability when the district representative does not listen to the people. the people will replace him. >> that is right. >> sending your message that november was coming out there and we talked about the obama- pelosi policies, and we talked

about jobs, and you sent the message that you are accountable. i have to tell you, we're going through orientation now. it is very interesting and all inspiring to be here and know that i soon will take a seat in that building over there. it has been a long time since i was in high school. but when i was in high school, in salem, va., there was a poster on the wall my senior year -- if the picture of that building. it had a quote from alexander hamilton -- hear, sir, the people govern. >> amen. >> we sent a message to the congress that they should remember that the people govern. i pull well understand and know that if i did not heed that message, november is always coming. and i pledge to you today and

henceforth that i will remember that it is here, sir, the people govern, and it is a government by, for, and of the people. i am glad that you helped to make sure that people knew had that -- they had the right and the accountability to hold their government accountable. and i wait and hope that i will be a person that you will all find approval of, and when the accountability time comes in november new years from now, usa, morgan lived up to his word, his commitment to cut spending and to make sure that this government is doing what the people want, and do not ever forget, here, sir, the people govern. thank you. >> i do not know about you, but i still more confident with people like him voting then these lame ducks right now. what you say?

remember when they said conservatism and free markets, it did not work any more in new england? our message is only a southern message. i am a southerner and that is not bad. but this year that was proven to be untrue. you people ran across this country on an unabashed free market, freedom, lower taxes, less spending message and one across the country. another member-elect he did that is from new hampshire, the congressman. >> thank you, sam. i have to say i have been here since sunday. i feel like this is a bit of a family reunion. [laughter] it is great to see so many americans, so many people believe in liberty and freedom, so many people who believe that is your right and responsibility to come to our nation's capital and fight for the freedom that

our grandfathers fought for. that our kids and our grandkids desert, and that we all with light -- we would say in new hampshire, live free and die for. the last quarter years of my life, i spent as the mayor of manchester, new hampshire. i am very proud of what i did. i took one vote and turned it into cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting ball rolling, cutting debt, cutting deficits, and actually got reelected. [laughter] [applause] that message was the will of the people. it was the will of the people. and the will of the people has spoken again. this infamous freshman class will not let you them. we would join with you. [applause]

week feel you with us and among us. we will not let you down. we will make sure that we cut borrowing, that we cut spending, that we cut taxes, that we make sure we get rid of obamacare. [applause] that we make sure your voices are always heard, now and forever, because this is our country, this is our capital, and it deserves a better governance. [applause] and i hope this is only the beginning. the beginning of a new america, and america that historians will say marked the change in time when every american rose up, became part of the government, it change the government, to restore individual freedom, to respect the constitution, and to restore the 10th amendment. [applause]

i want to thank you hansard for giving me the opportunity to represent -- new hampshire for giving me the opportunity to represent them and that is what i'm here to do. i hope the weekend gathering again and after this congress has concluded, we can mark of very special day where we honored the responsibilities and obligations that we offered each and every one of you. thank you all very much. do not stop believing in our country. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have two of the members- elect a we wanted to hear from, who we think will be leaders in this class. the next is from the 18th district of ohio. i was there a number of times and there are great working folks in that district. there representative-elect is with us. please welcome bob gibbs.

>> thanks. i have to tell you, i love the sign. that is what it is all about, democracy in action. it is an honor to represent ohio's 18th in the people's house. when i ran in this great fight, i made a commitment of ohio's 18th that i would do three things -- cut deficit spending, cut the borrowing, roll back the tax increases, and reform. we have an absolutely to do that to bring confidence back to the private sector, so our employers will start hiring people and get back to work. that is what it is about. if we do not do that, it is a national security issue and it is an erosion of our god-given constitutional freedom. number one priority, we're going to fix that. there is a quote here, nancy pelosi did not get the memo. she is trying to put forth the

linda -- the liberal agenda in the lame duck. you know what i think they ought to do? make sure that taxes do not go of january 1. number one. everyone, everyone -- taxes do not go up for anyone, ok? otherwise will have the largest tax increase in american history. i don't want you to think about what will happen if they do that. second, i don't think this lame duck congress will do it, but at the very minimum, in the next weaker so, they ought to repeal the burdensome regulations on businesses in the 1099 forms. that ought to go away. obviously they did not pass things like card check, inventing on local workers' rights, they do not pass the national energy tax. major taxes do not go up january

1 and take care of the 1099s so that we do not put more burdensome regulations on our employers, and then go home. [applause] that is all they need to do. we will come back here in january where the real work starts and we will get this economy going and enhance our god given constitutional rights. if people are not economically secure, that is an erosion of our rights. we will make this country the greatest country in the world again. we will be a beacon for hope and freedom and opportunity. thank you for being here. >> the congressman-elect's commons remind me of a rock-and- roll song. the song said, do not galway mad, just go away. [laughter]

one state that did not quite get the message on november 2, i know we're struck by this, as california. however -- however the people of california did send a couple of folks that are thinking the right way. on economic issues and every other way. one of them is with us. i have known him for several years. it was a leader in the legislature there, which is tough in california. i know he will be a leader here. >> thank you, thank you. the fight continues on. the election is over but the fight continues on. make no mistake -- this is a fight. there are those that want to raise taxes. there are those that want to continue to increase spending, and the fight continues on.

as a congressman-elect, when i am sworn in in january, you have my word that i will continue this fight. in the meantime, i am still a farmer, i am still a small business owner, i am still a veteran. and this is a fight that we have to win. when they believe that no one is paying attention, the holidays are coming, we can sneak in a spending increase, we can sneak in a tax increase -- now was when we have to fight harder than ever and make sure that they hear us. when those that do not believe that a tax increase will continue to kill our jobs, we have to make sure they hear us. i like everyone else want to thank you, but more than anything else, but fight continues on. we need to be ever so vigilant in this fight over the next two months. this lame duck session is unacceptable. if the think our tax are going

to be raised or spending will increase -- enough is enough. thank you. [applause] >> there are a lot partners in this conservative movement across this country. so many tea party birds, someone did you acted in your local tea parties, local 912, a local american for prosperity chapters -- thank you for what you're doing. we have several of our partners to this morning. this next lady is with the concerned women for america. she has been leading spending revolt bus tours across the country. how many of you saw one? they traveled the country. they are great allies. please welcome penny. >> good morning and thank you for coming out.

there was a quiet murmur that started about 18 months ago. let me tell you, that murmur culminated on november 2 in a mighty roar. >> you bet it did. >> the concern was americans across the country, let their voices be heard. thank you for what you did. you went to the polls and make your voice is heard. we're going have to continue in that room. the other side toes you that what women really wants -- they want federal tax subsidies to pay for abortion. >> know! >> they tell you that women want handouts. what we really want is a responsible constitutional government. >> yes! >> one that allows private entrepreneur ship, one that allows the private sector to create jobs. we do not want a handout.

we won a job. >> that is right. that is right. >> with and care about the health care bill. women make 80% of the health care decisions in a family. we are responsible for the help of our families. this health care bill was extremely, extremely repulsive to us. we know it to be the failure that it is. we're going to continue on until we see it repealed. [applause] >> that is right. >> we have had at other times in history where we have seen this kind of government spending and as high taxation the levels that it is that today. i would tell the president, look to jfk. he understands that you have to roll back a 91% tax rate, that it was choking the ability of the country to create jobs.

i would use that as an example for our president. i will close by quoting -- he quoted blondie, i am one of " ronald reagan. [laughter] ronald reagan said it so well. this is where someone from america is coming from. this is an issue about our children and our grandchildren. this issue is about our future and protecting our family. the ronald reagan said, freedom is never what -- never but one generation away from extinction. it must be fought for, protected, and handed down for them to do the same. or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what was once like in the united states when men were free. thank you and god bless america. >> thank you, pending.

i agree, ronald reagan was a better quote- blondie. you've got me there. at americans for prosperity, where grass roots, but we have one of the best minds in the conservative movement on our side. you to hear from the cahill leads us on the policy front, and that is our vice-president, bill curtis. >> thanks, tim. thanks everyone for coming today. i think we have to -- rights that a huge enormous consequences for the direction of our country that will be decided right now, between now and the end of the year in this lame duck session. the first when you heard about from senator demint, the earmarks of a. to mark the senate republicans will be voted on whether japan pork-barrel earmarked request, like the bridge to nowhere, and museums. all these outrageous examples of pork.

they have to ban earmarks. any republican who does not vote to ban air marks will have a primary challenge. they will not get a free pass. we have to keep all the heat on them for this year martin vote tomorrow. the house will also vote this week. it is critical ever republican member of the house needs to know that we wanted in earmarks as well. john boehner is leading the fight there and i think we will lead -- and win on the house side. that year marked by it is inside the republican conference in the house and in the senate. we have two huge consequential fights that the democrats can still control because they have because zombie congressman up their casting votes. the spending side and the tax bite. let me tell you -- if they get their way on spending, we're going to have eight trillion dollar omnibus spending bill that funds obamacare, the epa,

funds everything that we once thought. it will stop -- it will find everything that they wanted to fund but they could not get away with before the election, that will be in the omnibus spending bill. here is the thing. they only have 59 democratic senators right now. it will drop to 58 as soon as they stop stalling and actually kirk who won his special election. they will need to republicans to do that omnibus bill. no republican better help them, no matter what pork they promise, no matter what spending, special-interest giveaways, and no compromise on spending. if we lose, they will have all the funding they need to move everything forward on obamacare , their whole regulatory agenda. even if we did funded, they will have all the money in this bill. we have to stop the omnibus

spending bill. no compromise, no on the bus spending bill. -- on the bus spending bill. the third crucial fight that i need is on taxes. we need to stop the largest tax hike in american history from taking place in january 1. the democrats were derelict in their duty when they went home to campaign without doing anything to prevent this tax hike. the american people clearly spoke on this. we need to stop every single tax hike that is coming. when it -- that means extend the current tax rate for everyone. no tax increases on investors and retirees and small businesses and the rich. none of that. no alternative minimum tax to slam the middle class with higher taxes. and no death tax. [applause] and i am going to need all of you guys -- when we finish, you need to tell your members of

congress all three of these things. no earmarks, no on the bus -- omnibus spending bill, no tax hikes. we have to keep this debt. my next friend, dick pattern. -- patton. >> welcome to date 319 note that taxes. this is the first time in 96 years of america has had no death taxes, but the government has not reached into in confiscated family property from one generation to another, disrupting family farms and family businesses. that is the good news. the bad news is that congress does nothing in 46 days, that death tax goes from 0% to 55%, the highest death tax on planet earth.

ooing] with that lower and lower and now we have no debt taxes. now that we're in the lame duck session and that that tax is before us, it is on the verge of skyrocketing in the future. in the very near future. we need to let congress know that 55% debt taxes are not acceptable. 45% is not acceptable. 35% is not acceptable. we are heroes to kill the death tax. -- we are here to kill the death tax. we have got all of these questions. that that tax kills 1.5 million jobs and americans. harms family businesses, it distorts the late between parents and their children. you can boil it down to this one question -- do we actually have

property rights or are we merely tax paying surface that somehow after a lifetime of hard work, after a lifetime of paying taxes, when this thing stops beating, the government confiscates our property as if they somehow funded to begin with? this is a huge setback. it occurred to me last week that the original american revolution was preceded by a tea party. [applause] alsoweek's revelation was presorted by tea party -- preceded by tea party. in the spirit of this, let me leave you with this -- no taxation without respiration. [laughter] >> a lot it came down from new jersey and pennsylvania this morning. thank you for joining us.

i do not think -- we're not close to finishing up without steve lott and. >> thanks, tim. thank you everyone. thank you so much for getting up early this morning, or late last night, and getting in your cars to come here for the defense of liberty once again. it has been one year ago this week, one year ago today that many of you here and many others gathered for a code red health care rally to san nancy pelosi, harry reid, and barack obama a message. they did not listen to that message. they did not compromise or at least a consensus on their liberal agenda. they did whatever they had to do

to jam it through. and they paid the price. >> they sure did. >> thanks to you in your efforts, no one here has compromised on their commitments to liberty. we do not expect that from the new leadership in washington. we expect the democrat party, now still under nancy pelosi and harry reid, that the democrat party live up to their name and live up to the democratic will of the american people. they have spoken. and not violate that will in this lame duck session. but most of all, we expect the new leadership in washington, the republican leadership not to compromise their principles, not to advocate their police to consensus, but stand solid for the values for which we have

fought. if they do not do so, we will be back. we will be back. thank you. >> thank you, steve. god bless you, brother. thank you. thanks, steve. one of our best allies around the country in this fight is andrew langer. you maryland folks know him especially well. he is at the institute for justice. please give him a warm welcome. >> i'm the president of the institute for liberty. not to take anything away from your organization. i want to begin on a humble nut. this is my second event of the date. had they began -- that began in maryland with people who are protesting the westboro baptist church. they showed up a solid the memory of a veteran of afpak last week.

5000 mark in showed up at in memory -- 5000 americans showed up in memory at that protest. and the drive home for me, what this movement is all about, each and every one of you stepping up and doing your part. history is not without this ironic moment. we reached one of those today here and now in washington, d.c. we have a system in america where we had tw of major parties, a republican party built on principles of the democratic republic that we have, republicanism, separation of powers, federalism, limited government. and we have a party, the democrat party, that is supposed to be based on the will of the people, right? that is what democracy is, all about the will of the people. and one would expect that democratic party to listen, when you?

and yet here we are, because of that irony. we're here because despite the fact that americans overwhelmingly came out -- and do not let them tell you otherwise. the narrative that they wanted to spread was that this was nothing -- you would think nothing was going on in washington. none of us ever came out to a tea party have been. but people were punishing the party in power for the economy. but we were, and why? because they did absolutely nothing to fix it and everything to exacerbate the problems at hand. and yet here we are, because they will not listen. and it does not matter if it is because they do not understand. what was that? we can come back again and they should understand that. because we have time and time again. and i will. [laughter]

i said with tim that our work did not end on election day and you know that. in his messages to everyone out there in the republic. our work began on election day. the hard work of turning back every bad thing that the pelosi-obama agenda has done to america. we have started. thank you all for coming out. [applause] >> we have two members before we ask you to go and knock on doors across the capitol. the first is from the great state of texas. my wife's home state. he is from the first district of texas. he has been one of the fighters in congress for. louis gohmert.

come up here. >> thank you. i would say thank you so much. i was originally asked by a reporter who did not know my heart about these t party groups. all of these groups, americans for prosperity, freedom works, that all these groups? and i responded, they are an answer to many years of prayer. [applause] after this administration was brought into washington to join speaker pelosi and majority leader harry reid and the people and april 2009 realized this is more runaway spending, this is more of government

taking away our rights, the people responded in april and said, we still want no deficit spending and we are going to get it. and as president and the speaker said, no, you cannot. and this group and these people said, yes, we can. and when this administration responded to the people who said, we want you to protect this country, if you took an oath to protect debt -- to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, and do not put up signs -- you get us and protect our own land. and this administration said, no, you cannot. but you said, yes, we can. and when this group said, we

want the government to be what it was intended in the constitution, serve us. this administration and the speaker said, no, you cannot. but you said, yes, we can. and when you responded by saying, you either give us responsible spending, non- deficit spending, and you live within the means that we provided, and you protect this country, you do not turn on our friends like israel, and you said if you do, we will turn you out, they said, no you cannot. and you said -- >> yes, we can! >> and that is what happened. and people who are not even bomb rubble, two months ago as her that they would be back here, said

you could not turn them out, and you did. but me tell you briefly because i love a look things that have been said. as a judge, it was breaking my heart to see women, single women with children being brought more and more to my card charge with the felony of welfare fraud. what about -- to my court but the charge of welfare fraud. and some would say, just drop out, the government will send you a check. back in the 1960's, i think it was with the best of intentions, congress thought that the deadbeat dads were not helping. we will send you a check for every child you and have out of wedlock. and they said they were lured into this with no way to get out. >> they thought that eventually they would get an up checks to get out of the hole and they did

not. they would get a job and not tell the wealthier people and they will hopefully -- the welfare people and they will hopefully get away with it. that is a felony because they did not tell the welfare people about the job. i believe in keeping people accountable. what broke my heart is that this city, this congress, the president of the united states has continued to lure young women into a hole with no hope of getting out. the wonderful reform of welfare under obamacare, when in adjusted for inflation, income for women went up for the first time. you may not be aware that the repeal was in obamacare. it has to be repealed for the sake of all of these people across america. [cheers and applause] let's stop

incentivizing bad conduct and incentivize good conduct. when they say you cannot do it, you said -- >> yes weekend. >> back to work, but you very much. -- thank you very much. >> there has been a lot of talk about leadership positions within the republican caucus. there has been a lot of talk about leader positions -- leadership positions within the republican caucus this past week. at americans for prosperity, we know who our leader is in the house. don't we? >> [cheers and applause]

>> when we won a message in a legislative battle or a political battle, we know who the leader is, don't we? >> [cheers and applause] we can think of no one more appropriate than our leader in the house, michelle bauman. -- michelle bachman. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. do you know that you are the people who change the world? you did that the first tuesday in november. [cheers and applause] interestingly, the sun is shining down on us today because you did it. you came at. he rallied.

. phone, you kept it running. you were so persistent. you recruited for office and he donated to people running for office. he persuaded. you brought your friends. you brought your enemies. he brought anyone you could bring out to the polls and you have turned this country upside down. there is a chapter in american history books were written just with your name on it. and every year, about this time, there is always the story about who is the man of the year, who is the one of the year. i want to give my nomination.

it the tea party are the people of the year for 2010. [cheers and applause] because the tea party is nothing more than recreating the spirit of 1776 and it is a lot of and it is walking across -- is alive and it is walking across the united states and is here in the capital today. we have so much to be faith bausch thankful for. americans for prosperity have been a faithful friend to all of us. the reason this movement is so extraordinary and has compounded so many people in the mainstream media is because this is reality. this was not astroturf. this was not a group of toothless total is --

hillbillies who had no idea what they were talking about, these were angry, hateful people. these are the nicest people you would ever want to meet. every time you see a rally or a meeting, it resembles a family reunion more than it did the hatfields and mccoys, didn't it? [applause] after one of the rallies this summer, you could not find a piece of litter on the national mall. not only are you great people, your needs. -- you are neat. your givers. your not takers. -- you are givers, you are not takers. one thing that you so a fully understood -- so thankfully understood is that it was not

compassion to steal from our own children. you understood that very well. you understood that it more represents a gangster government when government takes over one private industry after another. week, we ran -- to read a headline that the chinese government is looking to buying into government motors going forward. you have one government buying a private corporation and another government coming in. does that mean that the american taxpayer will now have to prop up shares? this is insanity economics. this is not representative of who we are.

we are better than that. [applause] and we are better as a country because we have sent in a new batch of recruits, over 80 strong, who may actually read these bills once they get here. i think they really will. there will be a new sheriff in town and this share of will listen to the american people. if we do not, then you had better turn us out, too. because it is all about fidelity. fidelity for the declaration of independence. the glorious mission statement that tells us who we are and who to. we were put here on this earth by a creator.

we know that if was not the people in the capital that gave us our rights, it was a creative that give us our lives -- our rights. even if they think they can, they cannot. these are in alienable rights that only a creator gives. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. we are all created equal before that heavenly magistrate. to that end, we are here to remind those that often think that they are better than us, but they are not. they are servants of the people. we are here to remind them in the waning hours, as the shadow falls on speaker policy -- speaker nancy pelosi's [applause] >> we are here to remind them as

we did at the ballot box not so subtly on the first tuesday of november that we are the kings and queens of this nation. we are the sovereigns and you serve us and you listen to us. how egregious it would be after the people spoke that they would take it upon themselves to pass more legislation that would bankrupt the nation, that would increase taxes. that in the sixth congressional district of minnesota would mean yet $1.2 billion taken away out of the pockets of real people in my district and sent here to the people in washington, d.c., who spend more than that before they have their morning coffee. i would prefer to see that $1.2 billion left in the hands of the people in st. cloud and woodbury and stillwater and the people in

your districts all across the country. [applause] >> leave it where it will do some good. [applause] >> if they will change the largest tax increases in american history, it will mean in my district 2,000 jobs lost. we were told, remember, that trillion dollar stimulus and we'll create jobs and create 2 million, no 3 million, no 4 million. [laughter] >> how many jobs did they lose? millions and millions of jobs. and so what are we debating today? extending unemployment. i would prefer to be here today to talk about where do we find more people to fill the jobs? and wages are going up so high because prosperity is so high. this is americans for prosperity

that are hosting this rally today because we are americans for prosperity. [applause] >> and we can have that again. [applause] >> i am an unashamed disciple and promoter of free market enterprise in this country. that's what this nation was founded upon. upon free enterprise. not about a grand ever-growing bureaucracy. that's what we've seen with obama-care. just this weekend it was reported that such an abject failure is this government takeover of health care that fully 111 waivers have been issued. what does this mean? this is an admission of failure by the white house. they may not be admitting it but their actions are admitting it. why? because we see universities and

unions and favored companies are getting favors. what's a favor? it's an exemption. why do they need the exemption? obama-care is a cost-driving hiker. it's a failure. we were told we had to pass obama-care. we couldn't wait. we couldn't even read the bill. we couldn't take the time to even debate it. because why? president obama promised us -- he promised that it would drive down the cost of health care. he promised -- he promised. i stood there on the floor of the chamber -- many of you were outside here demonstrating against this bill. on sunday, march 21st when this bill was passed, i stood on the floor. the final speech had the speaker of the house and other democrat members, former colleagues, say to the -- say to the american people -- say to the american

people that we would save $1.3 trillion if we passed obama-care. okay. let's see. let's see where are we at now? they said that we would -- we would increase jobs, not lose jobs if we passed the stimulus. did that work? >> no. >> strike one. they said that we would save money not lose money. not say our premiums would increase if we passed obama-care, did i work? -- did that work? >> no. >> strike two. then they said after all of that that the economy would go on a certain footing if we had quantative easing, if the federal reserve was printing money and now they're telling us with quantative easing 2 that we will print an additional $600 billion, flood the money supply and that's going to lower inflation. and that's going to lower interest rates.

okay. can i sell anybody a bridge in brooklyn? [laughter] >> strike 3, they're out. that's what we're going to tell them. i want to thank you for what you've done. but also i want to inspire you. inspire you that america's days aren't over. we've already seen the first step on taking our country back. >> that's right. that's right. >> we're going to keep the pedal to the metal so to speak, not only in this lame duck session because we cannot afford to have any more out of control spending. we cannot afford to have the out of control tax increases. but this is the first step on the down payment of taking our country back in 2012. i fully agree with the democratic pundits and pollsters that are out there that are calling on president obama to not run for a second term. [applause]

>> because i believe we've just witnessed a referendum even though president obama denied it in his 60 minutes interview as he said oh, this election had nothing to do with my policies. i think the american people felt quite differently. let's not have this any longer be about politics. let's not have this be about personalities. let this be now about the people of this country getting back to work because the final p that we need to focus on is prosperity. prosperity. because if we can get our country turned and focused, not on washington. take the mirrors off of washington and instead turn around and look out at the greatest country that has ever been constituted in 5,000 years of recorded human history. look at our people. look at our greatness.

for the very fact of revering those who have gone before us. who sacrificed and bled and died and secured this liberty for us. for them, for their memory so that we don't desecrate their memory. let's go back on a sound financial footing and do what we know in our hearts is true. in putting our country back in order. and yet for those who are in generations yet unborn, for them. let's put this nation's house on a financial footing. let's do this right today. [applause] >> i want to thank all of you who are here today. i want to thank americans for prosperity. this really is a new and glorious day. the sun is rising. the sun is not setting. and to a rising sun, we will continue to aspire moving forward. thank you today. [applause]

>> usa, usa, usa. >> all right! okay. listen. you're here. let's make sure of a couple of things. number one, let's go on knock on some doors today, okay? republican leader mcconnell need to hear from you. let's go support jim demint in these efforts and let's make sure the lame duck does not lame us backwards. thank you all very much. thank you all. >> thank you. [applause]

>> god bless you. god bless you. >> god bless you, too. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a live look here outside the house administration committee offices. the house office building on capitol hill. yesterday, members began their inquiry into possible ethics violations by congressman charlie rangel. that committee currently in deliberations as they consider the evidence. we will keep our cameras right here and we attempt to bring you any updates as they become available.

also today on capitol hill, senate leadership elections, republican mitch mcconnell and democrat harry reid are both expected to retain their leadership positions. >> today in texas it's the ground breaking ceremony for the george w. bush presidential center. former president expected to be joined by dick cheney, condoleezza rice, and a number of others. you can watch that live at 11:30 am eastern right here on c-span2 and then it's back here to washington for president obama. later today he'll be presenting the medal of honor to a serviceman what served in afghanistan. that will be live at 2:00 pm eastern also here on c-span2. and still later more live programming with a congressional hearing looking at the safety of air cargo. that homeland security committee event will get underway at 3:15 eastern. again, we'll have it live here on c-span2.

>> see what people are watching on the c-span video library. with the most recent videos, most watched videos and most shared. it's right on our home page. you can also click our special 2010 election analysis tab to view our continuing coverage of the midterm elections. watch what you want, when you want. >> the bipartisan policy center's national security preparedness group sponsored a conference last month on domestic intelligence and u.s. terrorism threat. that discussion focused on the challenge of integrating domestic intelligence services into the fbi and other services. key points were raised about finding a balance between american civil liberties and domestic intelligence gathering. this next portion will show michael chertoff. it's under 90 minutes. >> john gannon is part of the intelligence services. i should also note that bae is a generous sponsor of the

conference today, something we very much appreciate from bae and john gannon. john has a long and distinguished career in the intelligence committee. he was deputy director of intelligence at cia and also chairman of the national intelligence council in addition to numerous other intelligence community positions. and most importantly, he's a member of congressman hamilton and tom kean's national security preparedness group. without further ado, i would like to introduce john gannon. >> thanks very much. i appreciate it, michael. our panel in comparison with the last one which by the way i thought was very well done. a terrific panel but very substantive and i think a natural segue to ours. and we look at your panel as really focused on operational issues and ours is more on reform which it pushed us a little bit further ahead for matter what problems we face but what we should do about it. we couldn't have a more

distinguished panel and i like to look at bios to learn things about people i didn't know. michael is a ea6 prowler navy pilot. and also then moving on to assistant u.s. attorney in virginia. is a graduate by the way of columbia university and then harvard law school. he became very well known in town for the great job he did as deputy general counsel and assistant director of the wmd. the rob silbermann commission. he was a deputy staff director which gave him very broad experience across the agency and the intelligence committee and then went to the nctc and ultimately in 2008 was appointed director where i think we all recognize he put tremendous injury intellectual and leadership to that organization. next to him mike chertoff, also very well known to all of us. he began his career as a federal prosecutor in new york and new

jersey. he was assistant attorney general for the criminal division and actually oversaw the investigation of 9/11. he was a federal judge in the court of appeals for the third district, 2003 to 2005. and he became the -- we went to cabinet as director of the department of homeland security. he is also from harvard both undergrad b.a. and his j.d. degree. next is phil mudd, and phil came from villanova at the university of virginia to cia back in 1985. and he became very well known as a very successful analyst of near east and is out asia particularly middle east expert. he ultimately became -- he took charge of the iraq analytic group at cia.

he also worked in the national intelligence council and became a deputy national intelligence office for is out asia. -- south asia. he worked on the national security council on middle east issues. he served in the counterterrorism center at cia where he also rose to the number two position deputy there. and then went on to fbi where he assisted the fbi to develop an analytic capability and became the deputy of the national security division there. pat neary, a west point graduate. about 30 years in the intelligence business, first in the army and then a long distinguished career at dia where he was known really for his forceful advocacy of collaboration across the intelligence community. he became the principal deputy director and chief strategist for the odni and he held that

job back this year when he became the associate deputy homeland security for the information and analysis director there. what we've heard from of the other speakers this morning, beginning with the dni and moving to the last panel is the real challenge that is represented in domestic intelligence. while our governance is universally perceived to have no greater responsibility than to protect its people at home, we also are deeply committed as a people in a democracy to civil liberties to privacy and to limited government. and in addition to that, we have a really unified national effort impeded really by the fiercely defended federal versus state constitutional prerogatives and legal authorities. but this is all against the background of challenges that are further complicated by the shrinking fast-moving world of globalization that blurs any

enduring distinction between foreign and domestic intelligence. it makes everything move faster across our borders including people, operations-related information, destructive know how, finance in both cultural and ideological information to facilitate radicalization and recruitment of terrorists. our adversaries at our borders and not as great a challenge as what was once the case include weapons proliferators, international terrorists, organized criminals, narcotics traffickerses cyberwarriors, human traffickers and countries working alone or in combination against the u.s. interests. so needless to say we need a powerful collaborative network of intelligence and security agencies counter this global threat to our homeland. so in this context, how do we define domestic intelligence? how do we clarify that mission? how do we assign rules and

responsibilities to the multiple agencies that have responsibility in this arena? and how do we deal with the foreign and domestic requirements for integration of effort? so i'm going to turn right to the panel with the question of kind of a 30,000-quick question from your personal experience, what do you see as the challenges that we face today in establishing an effective domestic intelligence capability? and this is probably to look forward and we'll look more in the details of how we proceed. mike, you want to kick off? >> sure, thank you, john. thank you for the kind introduction. and thank you to congressman hamilton and governor kaine and the entire nspg for running this event. i would offer a quick observation first as you noted, i think we have not yet fully defined what we mean by domestic intelligence. and i think that continues to

some extent to hamper reform in advancement. what do i mean we haven't defined it. we understand what we're trying to prevent, terrorist attacks or weapons of mass destruction or the like from entering the country or being in the country and used against us. but i think there remains a significant in some cases healthy skepticism of domestic intelligence and i'll use the more pejorative term domestic spying. and i think until we fully tackle kind of as a whole of government, the congress, the american people, the executive branch, fully defined the steps which we think are acceptable to take in providing security within the homeland with those that are not. and have some clear boundaries. i think it will remain very difficult and we will have an unhealthy tension between the people frankly like me and like shaun joyce from the fbi who was

up here before who are trying to stop things from happening. and those who very legitimately are also trying to ensure the liberties are properly protected. the second observation i would make is that this is a moving target. the threat -- i thinkim clapper spoke of this. the challenges have changed significantly. on 9/11, we largely faced an enemy that was overseas. but coming into the united states. and today we still face that enemy but simultaneously we face an enemy that is here within our shores. and those are u.s. persons who are here who are aligning themselves with al-qaeda's ideology and pursuing terrorist attacks. and those two challenges be the overseas threat coming to the united states and the threat that is coming from within the united states require a very different set of tools and again, i think highlight the need to have an intelligent conversation and discourse about the types of human intelligence,

electronic surveillance, information-sharing analysis that needs to be used to combat that threat. finally, i would just say we have to continue having -- we have to get past step 1 in the information-sharing debate. i would say step 1 was we have to get away from need to know and move to need to share. i think a phrase that the 9/11 commission appropriately noted at the time of its report but we really have to get past that now because the challenges of information-sharing are again different than they were on 9/11. largely more complicated and imp indicates civil liberties and existing statutory framework in a way that the immediate information-sharing challenges of 9/11 did not. >> well, again, i want to thank the governor and the congressman for having us. i think it's a very conference to have. i agree with what mike said so i

don't want to repeat the same ground that he covered. but i would add two additional points. we've always had a bit of an issue with home grown terrorism. even going back to 2001 and 2002, we were disrupting people that were training here or plotting here. but i think it's probably become a little bit more of a threat now that it was four or five years ago and that's part of the evolution of the threat over the last, you know, seven or eight years. we've been quite successful in making it difficult for non-u.s. citizens to get to the united states because of the way we collect information, whether we do it using sophisticated means or collecting commercial data as we do with our incoming airline passengers and then analyzing that data for purposes of identifying people who are potential threats. and i should add as a footnote it's important to keep that capability up.

i know that right now the european parliament would like to revisit some of the agreements we've made on collecting this information and i think that would be a terrible mistake to water that down. but the problem that we have domestically is that the ability to collect overseas and the kinds of techniques we use are not really going to work here at home because we've got a very distributed threat. and as you deal with people who are not communitying necessarily overseas or maybe they're getting on the internet but they are not dealing directly with people in other parts of the world, and as you have small groups or even lone wolves like nidal hasan at fort hood, the ability to capture what i would call a low signature type of threat becomes very, very difficult using traditional means. and that means we have to enlist literally state and local and community people to be part of the eyes and ears about what is brewing. it's going to be in this kind of

an environment the beat policemen whose something funny or unusual that is likely to be able to detect one of the threads of a plot. and we've seen repeatedly in the u.s. that sometimes it's -- like it's a photograph development clerk who picks up a fort dix scheme and reports to the fbi and that results in unraveling a potential plot. so it's going to put a premium on two things. educating people about what to look for and finding a way to aggravate the information that they collect so that it's useable and can be used by other people. in a domestic legal context that people make a big deal about the distinction between collecting information on, you know, advocacy or ideas on the one hand, which is protected and collecting against people who have actually gotten to the point where there's a predicate for saying they are about to commit a criminal act or an act of violence. here's what the problem is.

a lot of people believed that the process of radicalization between the time you become radicalized and the time you put a bomb on, you know, weeks, months and years go by and you have a lot of time to spot the radicals who are going to become bombers. i don't think that's true. i think what we've seen is that the distance between radicalization and putting a bomb on is sometimes days and weeks. some of the people that have been picked up in london, you know, one minute they were apparently regular ordinary citizens of great britain and within a short period of time they have become enamored of extremists or amom or some other radical website and then within a few weeks later they were ready to start mixing chemicals to set a bomb off. so what that means we don't have the luxury of drawing that line between incitement and advocacy on the one hand and pred indication in terms of a specific criminal or terrorist act on the other and we need to think about how we collect and

need to move a little bit to the left in terms of our ability to collect. >> just a couple points there's no such thing as domestic intelligence and i don't think there ever will be in this country nor should there be. i worked with the cia and the fbi -- a cia chief of station is a foreign intelligence officer responsible in a country like pakistan for collecting strategic information about al-qaeda. he is not responsible when a bomb goes off in karachi. he is not a security officer and is not responsible for geographic security. that is securing space in a foreign country. he owns tactics to collect intelligence. he does not own turf. pakistanis do. the special agent charged in los angeles is responsible when a bomb goes off. but that officer, that domestic security officer is not truly an intelligence officer. that individual doesn't own the tactics. you can't throw up a problem and

say i'll put up interception capability, i'll put a human source next to this person and i'll listen to their phone calls and steal their girlfriend. the director in los angeles owns the turf not the tactics and my first point and i'll stop in a moment we have to drive to what an understanding of domestic security officers who are not foreign intelligence officers and tired of hearing arguments why don't we do it domestic intelligence better and we can't in a country of civil liberties. we do domestic security. second quick point and that is how do we look forward -- you know, when i trained as an analyst we trained how to break down a problem. how do you think about what you know, what you don't know, what you think? one of the things i see about how we improve and how we go down the road is the digital exhaust that a human being leaves around the world when they get on the email, when they travel across the ocean is increasingly broad. the amount of data we had in 1985 when i started -- i was reading mail by paper when i

started in '85 versus the amount of data today. you can't believe if you've never served in a counterterrorism position how much information is coming in. so training people who specialize in tracking and understanding human beings. counterterrorism in newspapers is about plots. counterterrorism in practice is about people. so increasing our sophistication and training about how we understand tracking of people and to close, how we understand the distinction of tracking that person overseas and tracking that person domestically. and to close on that thought and again, to drive home the point on the distinction between domestic security and foreign intelligence, if our expectation of that security officer in los angeles is that they stop stuff hatched by three kids in a basement get over it. it ain't going to happen and i'm astonished about the amount of ink that's splashed on pages about kids who are plotting pipe bombs in basements. ...

>> first of all i'd like to also extend my thanks to the bipartisan policy center and the nspg for this topic, specifically. i think it's long overdue. i used to mention when i was at the odni working on the strategy that domestic intelligence was afraid we dare not speak about. in fact, both the first and

second national intelligence strategies to help you include the phrase domestic intelligence. we went to great lengths to get to that point without saying it. so i think it's important that we had this discussion here i think we can go further down that route. back to the original opening discussion point. a key challenge i would say for terms of domestic intelligence is the maturation of the approach we have taken. and that may sound fairly pedestrian, but it is not. we consciously chose a certain approach to the task of domestic intelligence, a network approach as opposed to a centralized mi5 approach. and we are now nine years into it but we are just nine years into it. and something dramatically for an interesting from what we've done in the past that will require the old foreign intelligence community to adapt fairly quickly. it required our law enforcement agencies to adapt fairly quickly. and it required new

organizations like muddy bottom, dhs, to stand up and develop capability fairly quickly. and so that maturation has occurred and all this occurred during active operations. it's not like we stopped and said okay let's take some time off here, they got how we do this. we were in environment training the hallway. from day one our successes were simply a good day and our special catastrophic and the results were for further investigation. we are still in the very. we will not be out of there for sometime. so maturation of our capabilities in that network are incredibly important, and avoiding over reacting to any particular thread or any particular incident is critical. it shows that network to approach, some describe it as a discussion between a debate on centralization and decentralization in terms to what we're doing in intelligence for domestic side. i think that's actually not the best wiki characterize it because when you talk about decentralized utah to the

absence of something. decentralized approach, what is that? in this case we're chosen to do is build a network. there's a number of things associated with that. i think with a very wise choice what happened organically or cautiously i think we can debate, historians will probably end on that, but if you think we face that is changing. what better system to have two basic costly changing threats in the network. networks are know to be adaptable. as phil pointed out, is critical to understand that our domestic sense we have certain privacy and civil liberties issues that are paramount, simply won't allow us to build a large federal structure that is simply a target, and perhaps a problem in future issues with civil liberties and privacy. so a network was every wise choice. it's a very difficult one to stay the course with, and to mature.

because it goes beyond just the federal structure, and we have now chosen to partner for the first time in our history with our state and local counterparts, and national security, and bring the full into the intelligence community as partners. so there's an enormous amount of capability out there that we have to harness and bring to bear. there's also the enormous number of challenges associate with that. i can i can, can turn to build the professionalism, the network and the partnership without overreacting to any individualism. that's an enormous challenge. >> we have three agencies here that have direct responsibility for analysis on domestic side. fbi, dhs with fairly significant responsibilities for integrating information and intelligence for analysis of the domestic threat. yet the public years almost nothing about assessments of the domestic threat. we have regular either lease or

declassified information religion national intelligence estimates with regard to performance threat. but they are regular and almost predictable, what do we actually have an ability to do a comprehensive sustained assessment of the domestic threat? and why don't we come if there is, why don't we know about it? >> because we don't leak as badly on this topic. i take your question as a complement. i have to say that the amount of analysis national assessment on the domestic threat, both by nctc, fbi, dhs, also some by the national intelligence council, another part of the odni are quite extensive on domestic radicalization, different aspects of that, use of the internet, taxes, techniques and procedures. there's a constant flow and the senior policymakers senior

intelligence that is on these very topics. frankly, and i think jim clapper mentioned this this morning, the fact that this is not in the public realm is because it's supposed to be classified. and i think it's actually quite good that it is not. to the extent that it does leak into the public realm, frankly, it makes my job in most cases much, much more difficult. >> will we did, we did a fair amount of this at dhs during the four years i was secretary. and i think mike is right that it was not chosen for publication, but was circulated within the community. there were a couple of occasions where things we cannot come and i got into a rather acrimonious situation with some members of congress because they objected to the idea that we would analyze domestic radicalization, because they viewed that as domestic spying. it another other members of congress, and i happen to think this was a good idea, that he

wanted hearings on domestic radicalization. but it was real pushback on the part of some people who believe that even to talk about domestic radicalization, particularly because we did with matters that touch on religion, was just totally radioactive and hands off. the problems, if you don't ask questions, and look at the problem you have no idea what the dimension of the problem is that you don't want to find out about a prominent bomb goes off and you're looking retrospectively to see what you didn't catch it. so i think we have to be candid about the fact that we will look at domestic terrorism, which is largely motivated in this case by an ideology, and the ideology does purport to reflect religious view, as long as that may be, you will wind up getting some very sensitive areas in terms of what you look at that even if you rely totally on open source and public events.

just opened, human, public meetings. you will still have people who object to be looking at the issue. >> so analysis is constrained by the same -- >> you can analyze what you don't collect. >> just a couple thoughts on this. i was a bit surprised by the question that i thought there was a lot of analysis going on about potentially violent domestic groups, as audit done by nctc which is i think is one of the biggest, maybe the biggest success story of challenges reforms. so inside government i saw a lot of it. but to pick up on what the secretary said, let's be clear. radicalization is not a crime. again, the distinction between intelligence and security, we could look at radicalization and say where my to european did find his way into the stream up to the tribal areas. we have at the logical radicalization in this country that leads people, potentially, to go blow up a fire station or

in suv facility. you can be a radical in this country. so we don't do the same kind of analysis, nor should we, because you're free to think what you want in this country. so the distinctions between what you might see in terms of a foreign intelligence service, namely cia, looking at an activity overseas and what fbi or dhs or nctc might do domestically is pretty distinct. we look at people who have or are considering committing a crime. we have to think about those who are further back in the stream, how do you look at people who might become involved in clustered in new york city. but we have to be extra cautious about that because we are security entity. we're not an intelligence into the. >> -- intelligence entity specters early april for some type of larger strategic context for public consumption in terms of the threat, both foreign and domestic. but i agree with both the dni's comments earlier and mike's that is good that the amount of

analysis we do stays within the committee, intelligence is best in foreign policy and drives operations. that cannot be done publicly in many cases. we go to great lengths within dhs to drive the production of intelligence down to a level that can be presented at the state and local level, and we partner with the fbi, with nctc to do that type of dissemination. it's a very difficult problem to do. but if it simply flows willy-nilly out of the public with large, what you do is just cause alert fatigue. because the average person out there industry, how are they supposed to react to a constant stream of intelligence leaks about domestic threats quite what it is supposed to do with that? that's why we have governments and policy officials who are supposed to put forward what is where going to respond to and how we're going to respond to it. so there is a larger role for context perhaps, in terms of strategic documents that a don't

think we are under serving the public by making the intelligence in the classified venues. >> i guess there is an issue that phil raise which is an important issue here. and that is the question of that what point it is appropriate to collect intelligence and to analyze intelligence before someone is at the point of thinking of committing a crime. it is true that the traditional model is, you don't have a base to give in, forget wiretapping that requires corporate mission, you don't have a basis at home to even collect open information about people unless you have a reason to believe they will commit a crime. the problem is that doesn't work any world in which the distance between someone who starts to entertain radical ideas and mixing the bomb form in the basement can be a matter of a few weeks. you have the luxury of waiting until things ripen. i'm not sure that's necessary. if you go back and you -- eyecup

even government highly risk-averse in terms of their interpretation of the law, and what the law permits in the most cautious way possible. and, in fact, the pfizer would've if you criticize the department of justice several years ago for not even challenging a very restrictive interpretation of the pfizer law which the court of review said was wrong, it was two pension. so i would say there's three separate question. when can you take action against somebody? and their domesticadomestically is a high standard. we don't just pick people up willy-nilly because they have a radical thought. people are allowed to be radicals. the second equation is when can you use interest of techniques against people, searches, wiretaps? we have a very detailed and well set of legal rules about when you can do that. the third area, which is still unsettled, is when can you take publicly available information, stuff that occurs out industry,

the blind sheikh, 20 years ago preaching extremism and hate in a mock -- mosque. or people are inciting violence. and when can you start to correct that without using intrusive techniques and start to analyze whether that is ripening into a threat? i think that is what is presenting a real challenge now to people in this field. >> can i add -- i could not agree with mike more on this topic. this highlights to me the lack of consensus on what we, the national security, domestic security and they should or should not begin. i will give you two quick anecdote to illustrate that for the. in the months before fort hood, i was testifying on behalf of of the intelligence community. abdicating for the extension of certain aspects of the patriot act. and i think a very people have

some concerns. and i got a lot of why should we allow you to continue to spy on americans. several weeks later in the wake of fort hood i was back up on the hill. and i will tell you that a whole lot fewer people were complaining about these spying on americans and a whole lot more people were complaining i was buying enough. and that's a tough line to walk. similarly, in the four years i've been in this job, i have received many, many letters from many, many people about how we watch too many people. the day after 1225, believing, the letters were saying something a little bit different about watchlisting. so these are the sorts of tensions that we have. and i will try to afford people the best i can as to what i think the best balances to strike, and then we will follow those rules. being whipsawed between these two extremes can be extra be problematic and very difficult

to maintain and either secured or protections of civil liberties. >> if i could just pick up on mike's point for just a moment. the distinction between sitting at the table at the bureau and sitting at an operational table at the agency come if we collect against a couple of wrong numbers and human, nobody cares. if we collected as we did, what was called over collection against numbers of the united states of the. no, that is front-page news for some time. the important thing to note there, the fear of investigation was astounded in 1908, so you have to -- 102 rules of the rules that every time a mistake is made there's a new set of rules established so the architecture that you're operating in to collect informatiinformation and deny states is not just what type of attitude are now. is what mistake was made 10 years ago and what 16 rules have been added since then. so the collection of information goes through this final best difficult but it also creates a mindset that says we have to because because every time we make a mistake, there are six

more rules to follow. we did not have that at the agency. >> if i take what mike chertoff and mike leiter has said, and domestic analysis is constrained our ability to collect information. and that i think the extension of that argument would be in turn, it inhibit your ability to do collection that would be driven by better analysis. so we are inhibited all around to doing any kind of net assessment domestic that you can do on the foreign area. that's what i've heard here. backend the early 2000, the responders at the first line of defense against terrorism and we're going to develop a capability given the intelligence support that they need to do their job for the country to protect, to protect the homeland. the homeland secure to act of 2002, as i recall, the department, the new department

of homeland security was given responsibility of collecting information from all the agencies that had been integrated into it, about 22, but certainly customs, border patrol, ice, tsa, all with vital information to contribute to a domestic analysis. and fbi would do the classic intelligence work. why has it taken so long to develop a model that does collect that information within dhs and away to be integrated with intelligence? my assumption is that we are not there yet at all. so why are we not their? and what do we have to do to get their? and a guest, pat, you would be the one in the hot seat there. >> john, i agree we are not there yet, but remember my comment about the a network that it is a network of networks, all different elements. win is a network ever completed? it's not.

networks are optimized for a given set of circumstances. are we optimized? no. we are sorely provide more information to the state and locals than we ever have in the past. and based on the outreach we have to do, i've spoken to groups like the major city cheese, talk to directors. they have witnessed a major increase in the amount of information they're receiving useful intelligence information. we regularly sampled and to see whether these techies, whether what we're giving them is scratching the edge of what they need. the results are encouraging but we still have a ways to go. part of that is that maturation i talk about which is working with a customer set in partnership to ask the same what do you need. if utah -- you talked, we have the classic warning states, the chances of the tuscany, domestic or foreign, if you want use

those distinctive, stumbling across information are slim and rare. occasionally it happens. what we will have is information types and techniques and different indicators we can pass along. it's a matter of our encouraging them, here's what we can provide insurance or preparing them to be the eyes and ears. remember always as i think mike leiter pointed out -- phil pointed out, they are doing it, learning a new role. they have always done something like this as part of the job and now we're asking them to do more and differently. so we're trying to increase that amount of information flow back from them and, of course, think about it. as we reach out across these centers to the 18,000 law-enforcement organizations, we are reaching out to a nonhierarchical system where we have to encourage them, but we can set standards. it's impossible to reach down and enforce it in a uniform fashion. so you have places where they have come a long way, places

like new york city where the threat was so obvious. and in areas where it's far less well-developed. and state and local fusion centers, one muslim as opposed to the one led by fbi, state and local fusion centers i fundamentally local organizations. they receive grant money from the federal government to dhs but they are local organizations. we don't recommend what to do or tell them how they're going to do with. we interact with them as a partnership. so we're trying to beef up their capabilities so that they can not only collect that local information and improve the quality of that suspicious activity reporting, for example, from law-enforcement representations, but also they can pass that back up to us. we spent a lot of time with nctc talk by the dh operational components. to be able to provide information and access to nctc so they cannot reach into it. mike is leading the effort to be able to access that kind of data as different changes and becomes more important have access. it's come along way, have a long

way to go. none of that is too surprising. even setting aside the obvious physical difficulties of the electronic infrastructure we're talking about which i think, it's been well reported and well understood that it is in the difficult. >> can i add, pat, and maybe phil, since you work this really down in the trenches. looking ahead, what do we want to define as a real constructor role for dhs and fbi? >> one of the things i think to be specific on this, we could and should do better in both organizations, when i went to the bureau in 2005, career for an intelligence officer, i look at the people involved in intelligence reform in washington and virtually all of them were many, most, probably 80% or more, were specialize in

overseas foreign intelligence. and then i look at the domestic network and u.s. 17,000, 18,000 police department. and i saw expectation that we develop and intelligence architecture in the united states. you collect according to a plan, you analyze. it would never work. it can't work in this country. so to be specific what i was just we think about, and what i think the bureau and dhs could do better, you have 50 plus major city cheese in this country. starting about how you deploy and lists and reports off of doing that reporting to the field. we have a problem like somalia. republic out six, eight, 10 major cities in this country that had a somalia problem, going back to '06, '07, only that maybe we should've said let's deploy teams after it. those might be drug squads. you look at minneapolis. that's a sort of an industry and private. it's tough. instead of expecting that everybody conform to a classic

intelligence standard, go out and start teaching people hey, what are you hearing about people talking about the my. can you ask all your drug source. deployed that to the fewest accountable and interesting of foreign intelligence backing of be absorbed across 70,000 police departments. >> i agree with phil on the. i do that is readable to try to standardize across the law-enforcement community like that. of course, the major difference being differences of admission between the two organizations, the bureau and dhs. obviously, our purview goes well beyond the ct function in terms of this particular area, and transitions into other areas of homeland security intelligence as we refer to it with our ability to protect borders. natural disaster, cyber activities. we have to reach out and use the fusion centers which are primary venue for the two-way information flow to really provoke the sort of come others at the sort of response we want in terms of reporting. and also provide intelligence down and translated.

we've had an effort leslie to beef up that capability, and discussed which image which is the best practice, get the analysts doubt our own analysts down to an out of the state and local fusion centers that it will not work there and become in effect a distributive production model which has been used in the past, to be able to have people on the ground closer to the action come closer to the operational activities and use that as a means to improve the intelligence. >> can i ask you and then ask michael chertoff to comment on regional organizations for dhs. >> do you just work for the fusion center or to suggest those are state, dhs at that have a rich organization, does it need want to achieve the goals that we're talking about here? >> i'm not sure i follow you, john, in terms of some organization within dhs? >> a regional organization as well as a national organization. >> i don't see a need for that. the network structure with dhs

operating with the operational components, and in the fusion centers which in effect really when you look at them, 72 of them, there is a breakdown there again so we don't control, it may not be the most rational breakdown. but certainly you could do a bake off in competition of time to see which ones work best and which ones don't. so i don't see a need. >> that he asked michael. this been going passionate and ongoing question. >> the last thing i would like to see is another layer in the organization. i think that is right. is a network approach. the one thing i would add is, and we talked about this, i guess three of four years ago. los angeles begin suspicious activity reporting when bill bradley was at the department. the idea we had was, i don't know if it's been executed on, but we start talking up in was service available on which all of these fusion centers could be

popular with information. they do have to have some standards so that your stuff is formatted in a way that could be worked with. but the idea was not to have dhs or the federal government being the gatekeeper. nor did not have all the information come up to the feds and the feds decided who takes action. but rather to have it open to anybody. so anybody from effort is being agency could look at the material, analyze it, what they're seeing, in their own community. the fed would have to visibility so you could analyze it and get the benefit of it. but you don't want to tell, if boston sees something coming out of l.a. and matches something that occur in boston, you don't want to say stop, and you can't do anything or pursue it until the federal government makes a decision about whether this is worth pursuing. you want to let them go and do it. this goes back to civil liberties point. there are a lot of people who don't like that. because that does put more information in the hands of

people at the local level. and that creates a lot of nervousness. so that's the issue as mike leiter point that. we have to resolve. do you want to keep -- europeans are -- it's all tightly health department, they love stovepipe. they want to keep stovepipes. i guess they've made a decision, or the leaders have made a decision that that means they miss some things, bombs go off, so be it. i thought the decision in this country after 9/11, certain has ratified by the 9/11 commission was we want to go the other way. we want to bring together. that's the debate we have to take another look at. >> if i could add author. that is the way it's been in the mid. as you mentioned, this reminded me, i wanted to for stop on and you mentioned the challenge with the trade off between private liberties, or about once be

protected, it's complicated by the speed of radicalization. it's become an issue of late. i think the other complicated fact that there is the increasing capability of by like a boat of individuals which as a committee has forecast correctly going back, john, to work you did on the 2010 estimate, forecast same individuals increasing have destructive capability and statesmen on reserve. we had to build a summit to become radicalized quickly, and to do something dramatic and announcing a pipe bomb in a local police officer mailbox. i'm talking about releasing chemical or biological weapons or radiological device. now it does raise the national security levels. you can't wait until the moment, drop the ban often of times square is good and national security issue. >> before i turn the q&a let me throw this one last question out

and brief answers if questions. the mi5 model, centralized domestic intelligence, it's been proposed, selected to some degree. what's your view of the proposal? >> i think and our traditions result is a nonstarter. second of all, practically is not a good idea. again i think if you look at other countries and even in the u.k. one of the challenges they constantly face is the effective sharing of information between their domestic intelligence services and the domestic law enforcement services. some countries are better at it than others, but we do have an advantage right now in some ways that within the fbi you have both sets of authorities combined. it doesn't mean it still is noted you will have an easy transition to become a better intelligence organization, in some ways you never will be, like the cia. i personally think the mi5 model

is undoable and not a good idea. >> thank you very much. >> i think it's like déjà vu all over again. i remember having these discussions eight years ago. i thought it was a bad idea to change of what we do then, and i think it's a bad idea now do. one thing i would like to do, take issue with which is embedded in that argument, and that is the fbi cannot do a good job in terms of analysis of intelligence. . .

have to back it up is a great lesson in how to kick the tires on your sources. because you can't kid yourself when you're in a courtroom about whether people -- what people tell you is true or not true because you're going to find out pretty quickly. and i actually think it's been helpful that the bureau has that range of activities. >> okay. thank you. phil? >> it's a horrible idea except that i'd like to run it. so i just want to make that for the record. [laughter] >> one quick thought since it's already been a lot of what i would say on the operational side. let's say that you're looking at the target in a u.s. city. if you're establish a mi5 you're developing a problem and meanwhile there's an antideveloping intelligence. both those entities, 17,000 here

both those entities presumably are coordinating with state and locals. both those entities have to have a formal requirement right now we can do this at one table in the bureau. we could. a requirement to say when are you going to pull your intel source out of the case so we can get a law enforcement source who can testify in court. i mean, i could gee on and on about the operational complexities in a country that has so much decentralized law enforcement about two simultaneous operations going on in major cities, with cities with globalization and police departments and finally in washington, d.c., and i'm not saying this just from speculation. i've talked to friends in foreign services who will tell you the same thing. that's at least a 10-year bureaucratic tale before a modest amount of fighting stops. guaranteed. 10 years before people start running across the street saying look what those guys did. they just blew the case. guaranteed 10 years. >> i'm afraid i'm not going to give you much diversity of

opinion on this one as i mentioned earlier i think the mi5 model is great for the united kingdom for the panelists have said. i would just add one additional view and that is just on the nature of the centralized route as opposed to a decentralized network approach. when you move on the centralized route it's incredibly to backtrack on that approach. you're set on a course that's hard to change from. our approach which is far more while it does create headaches on who does what in terms of of a strategic analysis on the domestic side and our work between fbi and dhs, it's still capable to change things fairly easily and fairly smoothly because it is a network. and that's a good reason to keep it. >> great, thank you. over to you folks. questions? >> thank you. john in your opening remarks you

mentioned organized crime and secretary, you talked about the mafia. at the time of the 9/11 commission, organized crime wasn't even on the intelligence community threat board. it is now big time. it's one of the fastest growing economies in the world. how does that fact affect intelligence reform and specifically domestic intelligence reform? money is fungible. you got the money, you can set up groups wherever you want. how do we deal with that? and especially in a world without borders? >> i think that's a very astute point. you know, the line between -- we just -- we live in these legal boxes where everything is a category. it's crime and foreign intelligence and the bad guys do not observe those louisiana so, you know, going back to the factor which morphed from a revolutionary terrorist organization into also being a drug-dealing organization, you know, the national security

threat from transnational organized criminal groups is becoming -- it's not quite what terrorism is but it's becoming a very, very serious priority. and these are global organizations now. so you look at hezbollah, which using illegal activities in this country to fund its activities overseas, you know, what's going on in the northern part of mexico where you have transnational organized criminal groups. i think we've got to use all the tools in these cases where we can't do is say well, this -- i mean, it's preposterous to say we can't use foreign intelligence tools against a transnational criminal organization until one day a leader of the organization get up and says i'm a political leader and now we can switch on the foreign intelligence. so we've got to really redo the architecture of the way we handle our foreign intelligence collection, our domestic collection. a couple points on this.

it's not only organized crime it's human trafficking from southeast asia. the globalization of law enforcement is so dramatic. it's child pornography from eastern europe. i think these have a few implications we haven't fully understood but i saw every day at the table at the bureau the first you have to have a law enforcement capability that's global. you know, my cia friends in the past say, you know, the bureau is moving on our turf. they are not moving in on the intel turf but they are moving in a place like indonesia because you have to be able to work with the locals picking up information to put somebody behind bars. in 1908 the bureau is established because somebody got a car and could run into the next state after a bank robbery and a sheriff couldn't deal with it. now you've got virtual pornography in eastern europe. you got human trafficking in southeast asia. you've got narcotics out of latin america being directed out of a prison in california. every single problem we face is globalized. the first is global capability to chase these folks down. the second is network analysis and training network analysis for analysts, i think, is the wave of the future.

every one of these organizations of commonalities that you can map electronically. that's phone, communications, travel. i mentioned human beings in digital trails before. our ability to understand a network of people so that we can take them out more rapidly. and the third and final one has to do with how we apply traditional intelligence methods. as the secretary said in environments where people will see blurred lines in countries. i mean, to me identity is becoming globalized. we can't say that because an electron passes in new jersey and the communications are between poland and romania that we have to go through a legal process to collect in my opinion. i ain't no lawyer but that makes no sense to me. . in a world of speed and globalization we need to have intelligence collection methods against amorphous international networks that match the way the world is moving. >> if the point hadn't been brought home earlier certainly 9/11 and our problems -- and our

difficulties with terrorism has made it absolutely clear that these problems aren't globalized and transnational criminal organizations are a direct threat to the national security of the united states. you recognize. we recognized that. we're working those issues. and that's really all. >> next question? >> yes, i'm sorry. >> kimberly dozer with the a.p. now, every panelist on this panel and previously today has mentioned the tension between intelligence collection and analysis and civil liberties. what would be your first priority -- if you go to capitol hill and say fix this now. would be an all source network to analyze this data trail that was mentioned.

the same kind of analysis that right now is leading to successful targeting in afghanistan, pakistan, and yemen? do you need that here? >> mike, you want to take that? >> first -- pardon me, that was the good part of my answer. [laughter] >> i actually reject the basic premise that there's an automatic tension between collection and civil liberties. i think actually much of what we do with new technology can improve our collection and at the same time provide an auditing review capability that increases people's trust in the intelligence community and the domestic security apparatus to properly use information. the second point i would make is although it makes a good talking point there is no one thing. it turns out that these are very complicated issues that touch on many different aspects that we face. a few quick examples. recently in the intelligence

authorization bill, there was the congress modified foia protection that will in fact help the national counterterrorism center to some extent have access to data that otherwise it might not have access to. very helpful. at the same time, as the secretary has noted, european restrictions on pnr deaths enormous issues. foia is a complicated statute with a changing technological landscape. i mean, the list goes on and on and on. and that is caused by the fact that there isn't -- as the secretary also noted it's not as though information is identified as terrorism information. it is looking at lots and lots of information from different sources and figuring out whether or not it is terrorism information. and because you're going to a lot of different departments and agencies who have this information, a lot of different sources, a lot of different types of information, you have a plethora of protections, legal and policy that you have to address.

piece by piece by piece. so it is not -- there's not one answer here. there are a series of very complicated issues. >> any others want to comment? >> i'd just extend to say the shorthand will talk about a tension between collection. it's a shorthand and not an appropriate way to phrase it. i agree with mike the privacy and civil liberties issues are paramount. it's not be a intention.

it's a matter of learning how we can do it and what circumstances phil learned 100 years of experience in the bureau of trying to figure out and each time you new rules. that's actually the way that we figure this out. it's not -- the cases are always far more difficult when you look at the details than they are even in the public discussions thereof. and so if we use the shorthand phrases of tradeoffs or attention between privacy civil liberties and collection i think we're probably doing a disservice there. it's a very, very difficult issue and it requires a great de

>> that would be a situation where i would call it a preponderance of concern for islamic sensitivity. do you think we're weighing islamic sensitivities over islamic matters in such a case? >> i can tell you that in the work we do, there's no pcness. if somebody looks like they are being radicalized through islamic ideology and actually let me rephrase that throughout al-qaeda's ideology and not islamic ideology or any other

ideology, we have no problem, whatsoever trying to collect information about them, analyze them and make sure they're disrupted. now, speaking directly to the fort hood example i think it's quite clear that the review the department of defense did and the fbi did that information was not shared as effectively as it should be. i think it is worthwhile, frankly, that we do remember the sensitives that are important to appreciate that the legitimate sensitivities will drive this radicalization process. so this is not at all an argument that in a case like fort hood people shouldn't have reported that or discussed it or analyzed it or opened an investigation. i think again that's been covered quite well in the public record but i do think we have to remember that this whole conversation from the national counterterrorism center and the fbi and the dhs -- part of the goal has to be not to create more people who want to blow

themselves up in this country. and we do that by effective engagement with communities so the communities don't feel there's an adversarial relationship between their government and those communities at risk. >> i would add one thing. i think increasingly if we're worried about home grown terrorism and we want to get an early warning we're going to have to actually engage the communities where the recruiting takes place to counteract groups where there is a threat because we're not going to have enough police and fbi agents to be in every single community. so, you know, when we have places, for example, where we had an issue of somalian -- young somalian men to go fight overseas and that creates a risk back home, you need to get the community to raise its hand and say there's a problem here. and that means they need to understand that the first victims of this kind of

recruitment are the children of parents in that community itself. so it's not just a question of sensitivity. it's a question of actually working with the communities on this issue. now -- you know, this is a controversial issue because i know in great britain there's a feeling sometimes that there's a mixed message. on the one hand you want to engage and make people feel welcome and on the other hand you're asking people to inform in a sense when someone is becoming an extremist. but i think at the end of the day, from the community standpoint, both of those actions make sense. the community should be engaged with a wider society but at the same time they got to recognize that when a young person from a community blows himself up that community has lost someone as well as of the innocent people who have been killed. it's not something that we can do only as a government function. it's got to be a community-based function. >> a quick prey comment.

-- operational comment. if you're going down a path of violence what i saw at the table, i don't care where you're from. you're going to get hunted. to me one of the real questions here is if you look at the amount of violence in this country, i think sometimes when people look at a point target like fort hood and see something happen, they blow up fort hood and say why can't you find people like this? if you look at the amount of people who are contemplating or might contemplate -- and and i want to use that word carefully and gangs, islamic radicals, amount of work to sort there and the volume we had to deal with operationally is huge so some of it that when you're dealing with the amount of people in the tens of hundreds people and you add on to that pile people who are looking and are engaged in ideology that might lead them to take that step you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people.

hundreds of thousands. and so operationally, it's not only a civil liberties question of whether you want to look at them. it's a resources question of when you're triaging somebody doing fundraising in detroit and somebody looking at a jihadist went in texas, that would probably say how much of a federal guy and i can't afford going at hundreds of thousands of people looking at websites. i'm making it a little too simple but you have to understand the volume business and the triaging that goes on. >> i won't speak to the specifics of the fort hood case but i want to get to your larger premise and be very clear in doing our analysis in the department, we follow where the intelligence leads. and that is the nature of our mission and that's how we conduct it. and in doing so, we're looking to develop real indicators for future incidents and how to prevent them and to debunk apparent indicators. that's absolutely critical because after the fact anyone can look at a individual incidents clearly here are the

indicators from this particular incident and here's why you need to look at this group or look at this activity or look at this thought process and it may apply only to that one case; whereas, with good intelligence tradecraft we look through a number of cases, a number of classified sources and say, is this a real indicator or not? and then use that to pass a law for operational purposes. we have built civil rights and civil liberties a very robust capability into our analytic process and they work with the analysts early on in the process. this is not done at the end as sort of let's scrub the document and see whether it meets some pc requirements. it is built in where the analysts are working with the counterparts and who are asking the hard questions. is that a real indicator? why do you think so? how did you get there? and during all throughout the process as we develop our analysis and, in fact, that's the same civil rights and civil liberties part of dhs that has our outreach efforts to some of the communities you mentioned. i feel comfortable we've got a good mix there. >> thank you. anyone, last question from the audience?

and could we in response -- i promised to panel members a final statement if you wish to make it so last question and final statements. >> for the secretary in principle, when i saw the state of domestic intelligence reform, i was sort of begging the question that i didn't know we had something to reform from an intelligence perspective. could you give us some insight on the difference between threat information and intelligence for the audience's sake so that they understand the difference between the two? and why some things are easier to conduct than others? >> all right. i don't want to dominate this. but i have a different view. what is the difference between threat information and intelligence. you know, intelligence is a broad category. and if used to support a lot of operational and policy decision-making both strategic and tactical.

so intelligence can lead to changing the way we do things at the border and we see things that are working well or not working well they could raise policy issues in terms of the way we do things here at home or overseas. they could result in organizational changes. a subset of that is threat information. and during the years i was doing this, there were every day there were tons of threats coming across. the two issues, the two variables to us were specificity and credibility. you know, the worst kind of threat is a highly credible highly specific threat but in a way it's the easiest thing because if it's specific you can take action against it. the toughest is a low specificity high credible threat because it opens up the whole world of possibilities and that results in putting a lot of pressure on figuring out what you ought to do operationally. the key for my standpoint the threat information was this. every day that i was on the job or six out of seven days a week, after i got the intelligence and

threat briefing in the morning, i sat down with, you know, some of the principal people in the department and we said what are we going to do with this information today? i view the point of getting intelligence and threats as not getting tittliating details about interesting stuff going around the world but as something that called for action and that meant that at the end of that session we had to have two outcomes. either there was an operational change or action we were going to have to take in response to the threat or if there wasn't sufficient information there had to be a task to go out and collect more information. so that was really the great lesson to me in this as a person who ran an operational agency. it only makes sense if you act on it. and it's that which i think. -- that's the lubricant in my experience keeps the process going because that keeps the analysis moving. it creates new mandates for

collection and that is what circulates the flow of information. >> thank you. any others? any final comments? or anyone? >> i guess quickly i would note first of all things again. i think this is an incredible valuable conversation to have before an attack occurs and not after an attack curse. the ability to engage in a thoughtful debate about civil liberties, protection, collection, analysis in a bipartisan way is critical to enabling the people who work at nctc, fbi, cia, dhs, all those organizations. we need that to enable our mission and keep people safe. if i had asked congressman hamilton or governor kaine when they were doing the 9/11 commission how many more americans would be killed in the united states by al-qaeda and al-qaeda-inspired terrorists, i would venture there would be too

many. 14 at fort hood. carl and we have to put that 14 in the context the challenges our country faces. this is in part statement against interest and from a national counterterrorism center. but we do have to put the threat in perspective. understand that we need to focus, of course, on the low probability high impact event, whether or not that's a complex attack or weapons of mass destruction. we have to do our very best to prevent that and we have to do our very best to prevent the low impact high probability of the fort hoods of the world. we have to work very hard against all of them. but i'm not going to hit 10 for 10 on those low impact high

probability events. it is a big country. it is a big world with a lot of people. we have to work very hard. we have to improve. i think we have improved 1225. i think we learned from that from time square. we learned from all of these. but we're not going to have a perfect batting average and it's important that americans understand that. and it is important that we approach this with a sense of national resilience that in fact shows that this country is not going to be defeated by nidal hasan or faisal shahzad or anyone like them. that we're a tough country and the day people are at work in time square and they are working out at fort hood and they're traveling in airplanes and that these sorts of attacks they will occur but we have to do everything we can to stop them but they are not cutting at the very fabric of our society. >> thank you, mike. mike chertoff? >> i guess three quick points. one is -- i think implicit in

what we've said intelligence is not prophesy. there's no absolute perfect ability to predict what's going to happen. and we have to bear that in mind that you're never going to get to perfectick although we aspire 100% in our success. second i have to echo what mike said. any terrorist attack that costs lives is very bad but there is a difference between a bad terrorist attack and a threat if we had a biological attack on the country or a series of devastating radiological attacks or something of that sort. and where you have limited resources particularly the federal government has to focus on those areas with the highest impact where the u.s. government has unique capabilities and that's one of the reasons i think getting a state and local authority into the business of collecting and analyzing it in a networked way is a very good way to distribute the responsibility. the last thing i would say is we do have a lot of uncertainty

about the rules. i actually think sometimes there's lesson certainty than we think because a lot of times there grows up kind of an urban legend about what the law is as opposed to actually looking at the law. but it results in this consequence. the people who are responsible for carrying out intelligence activities are risk averse. time and again they are told to go out and be aggressive and when the immediate threat has passed they are punished for being aggressive. what we owe the people who carry out the activities in the intelligence community overseas or even those who do it here is a clarity of the louisiana if we decide we don't want to do certain things or we don't want to collect certain kinds of information we should say that with clarity and then those who make the rules ought to stand behind that decision and accept responsibility for f-it turns out that we missed something. well, alternatively if we do say we want to collect certain information then we ought to stand behind the people who do the collecting by giving them a

clarity of support in terms of what the rules are. and that, i think, is the piece that's missing. we haven't sat down and in a systemic way looked at the overall legal architecture of what we're doing and come to a consensus and pass laws that will give people the direction and the protection that they're entitled to have when they put themselves out to protect the country. >> thank you. phil? >> i guess i would go along with the secretary. i'm a bit surprised that nine years into this we still struggle to have mature conversations in this country especially in the wake of events. whether it's december 25th or fort hood. in some ways as a security professional i take heart in that. if we had a serious of incidents in this country people wouldn't ask any questions. i'm kind of proud and it seems ironic that there are ugly debates but nine years in we ought to be mature in these situations do you want us to collect against people who are looking at jihad on the internet? and if not, there are implications to that. i personally wouldn't want to be

a part of it. and i know this is sort of tilting at windmills in this town. don't go looking at what electron didn't go in the right place at the right time or whose head ought to be arena platter. ask the question how can we do better in the future? we made a mistake in the past and how do we move on? this is one of the bigger national security threats that we faced in my generation in our ability to speak maturely and that's why these forums are good is still quite limited especially compared to my -- what my friends and security services overseas deal with. over beers they laugh at us and it's painful to be in a situation nine years in where we can't have mature conversations on how to do better on national security. >> i won't tilt that windmill. i'll tilt it a different one. from for my time in the old foreign communications occasionally we would get on a role where we would try to deconflict everything and since

we're talking about the state of domestic intelligence reform i want to put down a marker that we need to avoid making the same mistake on this in fact side that we did in the old foreign intelligence community by becoming obsessed with the roles and missions. if we're going to go down this network path which we have chosen there's going to be overlap. we need to embrace that. and deal with it. ...

>> that's part, partners at intelligence community. someone has to be an advocate for the. i contend that a key job for my organization. >> i want to thank michael leiter, michael chertoff, phil mudd and pat neary for the spell. two great panels i think this morning. also want to acknowledge caryn wagner who was the undersecretary for intelligence analysis for the department homeland security talk was designated to be here today and she got called away by another mission. so patty, tell her we mr. and you can also let her know we were very able substitute. thanks very much, everyone. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> best a groundbreaking ceremony for the new george w. bush presidential center. speakers include former president as well as dick cheney and condoleezza rice. the complex is scheduled to open in 2013 on the southern methodist university campus, and will include a library, museum and policy institute.

from dallas, this is live coverage on c-span2. >> please welcome to the stage the senior minister of highland park united methodist church. the sn used to the -- student body president, jake torres. the archivist of the united states, david ferriero. the president of smu, doctor r. gerald turner. the chair of the george w. bush foundation board of directors, and former secretary of commerce, don evans.

the present of the george w. bush foundation, ambassador mark langdale. the chair of the george w. bush institute advisory board and former secretary of state, condoleezza rice. and the 46th vice president of the united states, dick cheney.

♪ >> it has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your president. there have been good days and tough days. but everyday i have been inspired by the greatness of our country, and uplifted by the goodness of our people. i have been blessed to represent this nation we love, and i will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other, citizen of the united states of america. >> they will put a presidential senator down in southern methodist university in dallas. it will be a policy institute, a place to promote the ideals of

freedom, and personal responsibility. >> today, through our commitment, to a world without malaria. and with partners across the world they are helping the people of africa turn the tide against malaria. ♪

>> you see, ours is a country where citizens decide to help somebody in need, one heart and one soul at a time. ♪ >> and now, please welcome the

43rd president of the united states, george w. bush and mrs. laura bush. [applause] ♪ [applause] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing for god bless america, and our national anthem performed by solo was lower smaller and smu's bell tones and southern gentleman under the direction of doctor pamela l. rod. the colors are presented today by the third corps, fort hood sergeant audie murphy club.

♪ god bless america, land that i love ♪ ♪ stand beside her and guide her ♪ ♪ through the night with a light from above ♪ ♪ from the mountains, to the prairies ♪ ♪ to the oceans white with foam ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home

♪ from the mountains, to the prairies ♪ ♪ to the oceans white with foam ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ god bless america ♪ god bless america ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home

♪ oh, say, can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ thro' the perilous fight ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ were so gallantly streaming ♪ and the rockets red glare

♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof through the night ♪ that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave?

[applause] [applause] >> please welcome the senior minister of highland park united methodist church, reverend mark craig. [applause] >> let us pray. we rejoice, o god, for the george w. bush presidential

center and smu. we pray, our lord, that it will be a place to answer the call to action. in order to make this world a better place. we pray that it will be a sanctuary to enhance learning, inspire patriotism, and offer insight into the world's future. we pray a very special prayer of thanksgiving for the leadership of president george w. bush, and laura bush. we thank you for their shared commitment to our country, and to the tenets of democracy. we pray that this center will be an inspiration for those who choose public service as a life's location. moreover, we pray that those who study and learn in the context of this great institution will have a deeper appreciation for the history, for the very future of the united states of america. god bless us now, and bless the

very fabric of this presidential center, and your holy name we pray, amen. >> please welcome the chair of the george w. bush foundation board of directors, secretary don evans. [applause] >> mark, thank you for the blessing and inspiration of your words. what a wonderful crowd for an incredibly joyous occasion. good morning to all of you. welcome to the groundbreaking ceremony of the george w. bush presidential center, and the beautiful campus of southern methodist university of dallas, texas. [applause] >> what a thrill to be here on this historic day, joined by more than 3000 friends,

supporters and the bush-cheney alumni. [cheers and applause] >> i would also like to send a word of welcome to several hundred names of the smu community who are watching down the block at must do them all, as well as, as well as supporters from around the world who are participating by live website. today's celebration represents a culmination of a lot of planning and hard work by literally thousands of individuals. it began with a library selection committee, whose efforts led to our partnership with smu and this incredible piece of property. the design committee, chaired by mrs. laura bush, created a plan for a beautiful and allegan and forward-looking building and grounds that will come from it is campus. the foundation board has overseen the establishment and development of the bush center and its many components.

the institute advisory board members provided counsel resulting in the launch of several initiatives and hiring of distinguished fellows. and the national finance committee and donors whose hard work and sacrifice have built a solid financial foundation for the bush center and the activities moving forward. while much has been accomplished in a short period of time, today marks another major milestone. as we turn our sights to the future. we break ground on a center that will serve as a resource for thousands of visitors, each and every year. and as an epicenter for research, innovation, and action that will result, to borrow the words of a fearless leader of ours, will result in a freer and better world. today as it is indeed a celebration, a celebration of president and mrs. bush and their service to our country.

of the enduring principles that motivate their life's work. of the future, the bush center will help make possible. and, finally, and finally a celebration of each and every one of you for the love that you have for president and laura bush, and the love that you have for america. thank you. [applause] thank you for your friendship, for your service, your generosity, and your commitment that has made this wonderful and glorious day a reality. and now, please join me in welcoming to the podium my good friend, the president of the george w. bush foundation, mark langdale. [applause] >> thank you, don. we are gathered here today on

the campus of smu to celebrate the start of the construction of the george w. bush presidential center, an important institution for this nation, and the world. it will include the 13th presidential library in the national archives and records administration system. it will contain the archives of the official records of the 43rd president, a museum that will tell the story of the two terms of president bush, and uniquely presidential library, the bush center will include a policy institute. this project has been many years in the planning that would not have been possible without the service to country that so many of you gave and the support of so many of you here have provided throughout. we thank you for that. we start with an incredible sight, 23 acres on the campus of a respected university that is on the rise in a world-class city. we are grateful to smu to provide -- for providing this

site, and for the deepening partnership that we are developing in so many areas of mutual interest. laura bush has chaired our design committee. her team high and gracious style is reflected in the building and the landscape that will come up on this site. robert stern, one of the greatest living architect in america today has designed the building that is human in scale and appealing and approachable. the design is not a monument making a statement from the outside, bodybuilding reflecting the important message that is within. a classically proportioned courtyard with an appealing fountain beckons the visitor to come inside. and freedom hall, the centerpiece of the building says it all. this place is about the message inside, the message of enduring universal principles that are important to all of us. this project is design to attain lead platinum designation, the highest statement of sustainable

building and design practices. the sustainable design example will be an important message to send you future visitors, but it is also a reflection of what the first couple have always believed. many of these sustainable design elements reflected in this project, judicious use of the footprint of the building to preserve green space, reusing storm water runoff or irrigation, attention to shade and sun, use of native landscaping, are all techniques that laura bush used 11 years ago in the design of their proper ranch house. there is a lot about the bush so that reflects the values, substance and roots of george in laura bush. there will be touches of piquant, the state official treat of texas and mesquite. the unofficial tree of west texas. [laughter] >> a tree that is as tough as nails and can put up with just about anything. limestone quarry near midland, texas, were george and laura

bush grew up with an bearish and the architecture. all of this will be set within 15 acres of texas native plant landscape design by michael and pays homage to the texas landscape that george and laura bush love so much. but it will fit perfectly right here in the distinguished capital of passionate campus of smu. china's limestone, the bill will reflect the essence of the element of america's george. and a forward-looking way, appropriate for the first presidential library at the 21st century. inside the building will permanently house the official records of our 43rd president. to consequential terms comprised of a long list of key decisions, difficult decisions. these records will be available to scholars and historians to research and reflect upon the challenges this nation faced, now president bush handled them. the records have already been transferred to dallas and are

being cataloged by 15 archivist under the direction of our low and laura. this will also contain a permit newseum what those the winner with the challenges of the first decade of the 21st century and students are learning about them for the first time will experience in one space the challenges that president bush faced, from 9/11 to the financial crisis of 2008, the story will be told through the key decisions that president bush made during his presidency to advance the ideals and principles that are so important to all of us. president franklin roosevelt dedicated the first presidential library in hyde park, new york, in 1939. at the dedication he said the purpose of a presidential library is so that future generations can study and learn about the decisions of our presidents so they can make and learn how to make better decisions in the future. we have kept that vision in mind as we've designed the center, and believe it serves that

worthy purpose right here on the campus of smu. but we will do more than that. president bush commission us to develop a policy institute alongside the library as a place for world-class scholars and leaders to gather and work together to improve peoples lives. they will do that here in the offices and conference facilities that will contain the latest technology for connecting and disseminating the good work of the bush institute. and always, the principles that guided president bush and his presidency will guide our work here. in fact, they already are. programming began last year, we had 20 scholars and fellows and practitioners working on education reform, advancing human freedom, enhancing economic growth and global health. we are all privileged here today to witness a small part of american history, and the continuing history of the american presidency, the

groundbreaking of the 13th presidential library and the george w. bush presidential center. on a beautiful spring day in 2013, we will return here to dedicate its opening. another presidential election will have taken place, and by tradition, all current and former presidents, a very exclusive club, will come here to commemorate that occasion. the official records of the 43rd president of this nation we placed here, just like to consequential time, and american history. a history that president bush and laura bush will continue to shape through the work here at the bush center. it is now my pleasure to introduce to you our partner in this project, the official custodians of the historic records of america, the 10th of archivist of the united states, david ferriero. [applause]

>> thank you, mark. president and mrs. bush, vice president cheney, and other distinguished guests on this platform and in the audience, on behalf of all of us at the national archives, sharon foster, this is a archivist of the presidential library, the director of all the presidential library, at all and low, direct of the george w. bush library and his wonderful staff, i want you to know how proud we are to be in dallas today. the presidential library system was created along with a national archives during the administration of the presidential roosevelt and 10 from the beginning was to the presidential libraries throughout the country for scholars and schoolchildren to learn about their government, the presidency, and perhaps inspire to public service. the george w. bush library is the 13th presidential library to be administered by the national archives. the other 12 libraries have created a foundation upon which this library will build in the years to come, but this library

will be the best yet, and will have features the others do not have. and a nod from this library to another librarian, laura bush, for your fine work in making this the best ever. [applause] >> first, in addition to the artifact and digital photos, the bush library has nearly 80 terabytes of electronic information, including more than 200 million e-mails. and as you told in june when we met, mr. president, not one of them is yours. [laughter] >> this is the first presidential library with a major digital collection, a collection that is larger than the whole passionate holdings of all the other presidential library's combine. having an archive of electronic records of this size and complexity and poses new challenges to us.