>> what's the question, you ought to know how he got those names? >> how he got those names and also if secret service code names are agreed upon with the protectees, do they have a say in their name? [laughter] >> jerry can clear this up for us. >> reagan gup the code name willhite in 1976. i tracked down the military master sergeant who comes up with a list, the dominican and the agency came up with a list of names. willhite was among them he remembered reagan may have been an actor in westerns and he didn't get to act in as many westerns as he would have liked and like jack warner always was putting me in a suit, not a cowboy hat with a shooter and was disappointed by that he did have a ranch mentality to cut would and he picked rawhide and chose the name and reagan liked it so much he made him keep it for the 1980 campaign and he kicked in when he was president.

>> .. >> did the hospital have it on file? or did the secret service inform you? >> yes, they knew the blood type. they know that, the hospital has it. they know the president could go to the hospital, they are notified about that. >> what -- there were -- yes, go ahead. >> i have two questions

actually. the first is for dell. did you try and were you successful at all in interviewing jodie foster. and did you get a sense of -- because i remember this i was in freshman in college. it was only three months after john lennon of killed. and there was such a oh no, not again feeling right away. >> jodi foster, no, i did not try. she's given very few interviews. she's a ten gentle figure to the book. in terms of john lennon, you know, it funny you raised that. john hinkley was a john lennon fan when he was stalking ronald reagan. and it almost destroyed him learning his great hero rock star had died. you know, we talked about -- i'm

sorry, there was a second -- that was it, you answered it. i was going to say we talked about the mistakes that were made. the media made mistakes, there were mistakes made by others. we talked about the heros. who were the other heros? i want to leave the audience with these thoughts. >> i always say jerry was -- and i also talk about dan rugy, there's such a think of v.i.p. syndrome. wealthy people that are affected with medical problem that want to get out of the local system and get expert that come in and take care of them. that usually is not the best way to do it. and during the recessation of -- i looked up the very distinguished gentleman, i knew he wasn't secret service agent, because he was older and didn't have an ear piece. and he kept looking at me, and i kept looking at him. before you know it, he came over and said i'm dan ruby, i'm the

president's physician. i'm here to provide any information that you may need. i want you to know he's your patient. you take care of him. that stopped the v.i.p. syndrome. i say he was one of those unsung heros that did the right thing at the right time. >> he didn't insist on a certain thing being done. >> right. >> do you want to go first? >> for me it was tim mccarthy. if he's not standing there with his big irish body and facing down john hinkley, i get hit or the president gets hit. it's clear he blocks one the shots that would have got me on the president. i marvel at him staying up right because he got hit one shot at really knocked him off of his feet. but he did stand there and he took it and he did what every agency was trained to do. no one knows what they were really doing. he did it that day.

the driver drove there. mary ann gordon that knew the routes ahead of time. they were all heros. they got him there fast. >> we want to remember jim brady. jim brady is still alive. i don't remember remember in that sense. >> mary ann gordon is a great one. she's a female secret service agent. the first female agent ever to drive the president of a united states. she drove jimmy carter. it must be a tough job to be a female service secret agent back then. she's in lead police car. there's the shooting. he runs back to check the scene. the limousine goes. she jumps in the spare limousine. she hurdles, let's take off. they are heading down and finally catch up. remember they have all been in washington, the presidential motorcade holds you in traffic. there's been a shooting, right now for the 30 to 40 second

witness the presidential limousine is alone. jerry parr and the driver alone. mary ann gordon catches up. the cops don't know they are diverting in the hospital because the police car got in front. mary gordon ordered the spare limousine to hit anything on the way to the hospital and made them do that. she's one. two are the nurses at gw hospital. i think that in my research for the book,up, they were the first ones who treated reagan, they were the first ones there. they were the ones that held his hand all night. there's a wonderful story involving dennis -- denise sullivan. reagan scribbled the notes because he's a constant entertainer, and he can't help himself. literally, all in all, i'd rather be in philadelphia. send me to l.a. where i can see the air i'm breathing.

some are deep questions, some are not. you know, she held reagan's hand for many hours. ten years later, if i may, they are the gw ceremony, renaming the emergency room in reagan's honor. she's there. they brush paths. does nancy know about us? innocent flirtation former movie star, you know; right? they make a joke about this at the ceremony. denise whatever, and a few days later a note arrives in the may. he felt chagrined. i hope any note didn't offend you. your hand crass of meant more than anything during my entire stay. i think the nurses deserve a hand. >> absolutely. >> i think some are here.

[applause] [applause] >> nurses never get the credit they deserve. >> this is true. there's so much more we can talk about. i think we have come to the end of our hour. i want to thank the extraordinary panel, dr. giordano, and jerry parr for the amazing book. i have been privileged to be part of the conversation. thank you all for comes to the newseum to be part of this conversation. good night. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a home, we'll hear from president reagan's press secretary, jim brady, who was

shot in the head by john hinkley. than a discussion with steve forbes on the economy spending. later a chairman testifying about the threat of a terrorist attack. >> earlier former white house press secretary jim brady met jay, the current white house press secretary to mark the assassination attempt on ronald reagan. this was about ten minutes.

[silence] [silence] >> you got a lot of people here. do you want to say something? i want to say to myself it's an incredible honor to have jim brady here and sarah and his family. obviously as everyone knows, that's james s. brady, one the great predecessors that i look

up to. >> did you say you can or cannot? >> i think it'll always be the best press -- >> keep it that way. >> jim, did you want to say anything? >> what did you tell the president? what did he tell you? >> he said he couldn't go that far with me. we sensed yesterday at the press conference, i called hinkley a whacko. >> what was your favorite moment in this briefing room? >> here, i -- hearing people say

thank you, mr. baydy. -- brady. >> i know that feeling, jim. >> do you have any advice? >> i'm not sure he needs any. >> jay was gracious to have you come to visit. we really appreciate that. we had a good conversation. >> indeed, we did. >> mr. brady, did you see the white house response for the gun control measures? >> would i like to see what? >> would you like to see this administration pressure harder for gun control measures? >> you can never push too hard. >> did you convey that to the president? >> do you want what the

president said? >> no. >> you know, he rode and said there were wanting to work through this. he agrees on everything that we are for. but, of course, it takes some time. but it's very much on his radar. jim tells the president that it takes two years to make minute rice. that was after the president had said, you know, since i've been here in washington, i learn things take a long time. >> they did. >> can i remind everyone that

jim doesn't see. which is why he's kind of -- [inaudible] >> he doesn't see anymore. >> sarah tell the story there's nothing more useless to a press secretary than a hand signal. >> i think he'd be glad to answer any questions. >> it's been so long, that you want to take the quality of the answers on what they are worth. [laughter] >> what was your favorite part of this job, brady? >> seeing you come into the room. [laughter] >> that's a good one. there are a lot of faces. here we go.

>> could you say whether you discussed with the president any specific gun control measures such as the gun show loopholes? >> we spoke of large capacity magazines. >> and did he say he supported effort to ban those? >> oh, definitely. i think he's always been against assault weapons bans. >> did you say that in the meeting? >> no, we didn't get technical. it was all very, very general. i mean we were just thrilled that he took the time to come and see us as he did last time we were in town. we were in town on the day of the fly. when the fly had to be swatted. >> it wasn't a fly. >> oh yeah, he grabbed it and threw it down.

the president is very gracious to and was very kind to jim. >> anything for gabby giffords? >> yeah, he showed the president his gabby giffords. >> can we talk about -- >> what did you tell the president about -- >> oh, he just showed the gabby gifford bracelet. >> does the bracelet say something? >> it's just a rubber bracelet. >> i can't see anymore. so i don't know what it saws. >> he just knows it's for gabby. >> it says gabby, heart symbol, and peace sign. >> that's a new one for you. >> it's not a new one. >> when that shooting happened, what did you think? tell us your thoughts? what were your thoughts on

gabby's shooting, jim? >> well, there are so many similarities to mine. that it hurt a lot. >> similarities. >> yes. jim, i think suffered through that period. both of us realized that -- how hard it is to go through a traumatic brain injury time. the first -- >> yes, it is. >> the first three days, and then the time -- long hours afterwords of recooperation. so we wish -- >> as you can see, i'm still not recooperated. >> oh, you are. you are doing well.

>> you know that's not true. >> you can see jim's sense of humor was still there. >> that wasn't meant to be humorous. it was to send you a message. [laughter] >> and that message is -- >> pay attention. you know damn well that i'm not recooperateed. >> jim, why don't you tell the story you told at the news conference today. when you were asked how it's different now, what's changed? you talked about being a track star. >> track star. running track, not a star. >> i done good. particularly for someone that was not going to walk again. i've done better than walk.

>> i think it's been a long day. we started out this morning on capitol hill, and -- >> and i'm finally almost done. >> did you talk to everyone from nancy pelosi to michelle black man outside the chambers. >> it was. i saw a lot of old friends. who are all reenergized to get back to work. and that was such good news. >> you didn't have to re-energize carolyn. >> no, carolyn mccarthy is the one who's just calling the shots. >> she's the energizer bunny. >> and all of the members that are with us to whatever carolyn tells them. she said she's our -- >> leader. >> -- leader. >> i think it's been a long day

for you guys. thank you everyone for coming. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i see the camera. you automatic give that. straight ahead. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. all righty. >> i'm scott. his son, scott. >> take care, jimbo.

>> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> watch the winning videos every morning at c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern, just before washington journal and during the program, meet the students who created them. stream all of the winning videos any time online at studentcam.org. >> now a discussion on what's happening behind the scenes on

capitol hill over funding the government. steve forbes, president of "forbes" spoke about whether he thinks republicans should force a government shutdown over spending. from today's "washington journal" this is 40 minutes. >> host: joining us from new york, steve forbes, former presidential candidate. let me begin with the headline in "baltimore sun." this is the headline, house speaker bay nor faces hard choice in budget talks. last year in negotiations with democrats, mr. boehner appeared to be ready to propose $26 million cuts, on top of $10 billion already signed into law. to make matters even more complicated for boehner, tea party activist have said we think we should put for $9 billion in cuts. mr. forbes, where do you come

down on this? >> well, i think the more cuts that you can get, the better. but i think though in terms of where the republican should go on this for now is a focus on the health care bill. as you know, there's $105 billion amazingly slipped into the thing in the 2700 page bill. i think the gop should focus on blocking that and say we have to revisit the whole debate on health care and not just focus on specific cuts, but get to something larger. most americans are very real doubts about this health care bill. and i think the republican should use the lever of these budget talks to get to that so we don't get focused on just a small number out of $3.7 trillion. let's focus on the big thing which is health care and 16% of our economy. >> host: in the short term, because congress has to pass something, in the short term, your advice is that you come to some sort of compromise. that the conservative

republicans agree to less than $60 billion in cuts? >> guest: well, if they get -- if they remove that $105 billion from the obamacare bill that was slipped in, that would be a huge victory. then we could look at this thing rationally, and move forward in getting something that i think could be real health care reform. in terms of the cuts, whether it's 36 or 61, if they don't get the $100 billion thing out there have, then i think they are missing a huge opportunity to go after something very big, very destrictive, and needs an overhaul. >> host: just to be clear, are you putting yourself in the tea party camp? those of the house republicans that were elected to office by tea party supporting who is saying we have to go either farther than $60 billion and we cannot give ground? >> guest: i think they should not give ground on the $60 billion.

where it's the 40 or 60, i think they should encompass that. if they win on that, this is huge, that overshadows any of the cut that is you are proposing now. let's focus on the big thing and get the health care bill back on the table again where real action can be done. i'm not sure the leadership has the backbone to do it. but if it came to a showdown on the health care bill, i think the republicans can win that. and i think i have a better chance of winning than simply on the budget numbers alone, which sort of people know there's a problem, a lot of that sails over people's head. $3.7 trillion. hard to get the mind around that kind of number. >> so is it worth shutting down the government? >> i think the only way that you are going to get health care on the table is by be willing to go

to the map on it. this is where we are drawing the line. >> host: the economist differ on whether there should be an invest and grow and cut and grow strategy. where do you think if you make these cuts right away, immediately, what happens to the economy? >> guest: in terms of the cuts they've been talking about, absolutely nothing. when you are talking about a $15 trillion economy, and the kind of cuts they've been talking about in the debate so far, that comes to 1/10 of an intact on the dollar. there are other headwind for our economy. weak dollar, still uncertainty about taxes, huge regulations coming on the health care which is going to impacting small businesses, and the future of energy. the real head win, $16 trillion

economy, no. that's minuscule in the scream of things. >> host: democrat of new york on the floor gave his influence on the tea party on the of budget battle negotiations. let's listen and get your reaction. >> speaker boehner knows when it comes to averting government shutdown on april 8th, it's the tea party, not the democrat that is are causing the trouble. at this point, the only hurdle left to a bipartisan deal, the only obstacle in the way, is the tea party. but for the tea party, -- but for the tea party, we could have an agreement that reduces spending by a historic amount. but would have a deal that keeps the government open. a tea party rebellion may hurt the house republican leadership politically. but a shutdown will hurt

americans, all americans, much more. >> host: steve forbes, your reaction? >> guest: well, it's typical of the democrats to demonize the tea party, which is a spontaneous movement around the country. that's what made it effective. these are people operating at the local level, using high technology to be able to operate and come together. yes, the tea party is a blockage to no deal in washington, or nondeal. you would not have had the $10 billion they have cut in the last two continuing resolution, had it not been for the purchase of the tea party. hadn't been in the tea party back in december, the republicans would not have made a serious effort to block the resolution for the whole fiscal year which kept spending at much higher levels than they should have been. yes, the tea party has an influence. i think most americans know we cannot continue to have this kind of spending, expect for

world war two. we've never had this kind of spending. i think getting back to the battle on the budget, it's important, and also start putting on the table positive things, i.e., something like the flat tax. incentive to get the economy moving again, kind of the same thing that ronald reagan did 30 years ago. >> host: when it comes to the tea party, this is the "baltimore sun" this morning again -- >> host: also on thursday, newt gingrich will visit republicans on capitol hill. he thinks further funding cut offwould be better than going back on principals. do you think there's negative fallout for house republicans if

there's a shutdown? >> guest: depends on how the debate is framed. the republicans lost that battle. today we have a very different crisis, spending is now a national issue. people know that we cannot continue on these levels which is why andrew cuomo, democrat, new york, very, very blue state has proposed a budget with spending levels less than they were before. 12 months ago, that would have been inconceivable, especially from a democrat. public opinion has changed. also pivot on blocking some of the worst aspects of the health-care bill. if they also combined with drastic simplification of the tax code, then i think they have a real high ground going into 2012, and getting good stuff done in 2011.

host: republicans are reaching across the aisle -- to centrist democrats. gop leaders can afford to lose 23 votes before meeting democratic help, which is why mccarthy reached out to leaders of the blue dog coalition. host: let's go to phone calls for steve forbes. laura, a democrat in sylv. >> caller: may be a year or so before your father died caller: may be a year or so before your father died, barbara walters have been the and -- had

an in-depth interview, and one of the worst things he said was i hope we never see $1 trillion in the deficit. we know, and mr. forbes can agree, a look at where we are at today. i am finishing up an education and schools peace. they are getting way out of wet on costs, and unfortunately, i hope one day, if it is possible, i can work for you or with the apparent i am honored with your time. . i laud you forever on your wisdom and your background. guest: thank you very much. it is a great white to begin the morning. my father was -- great way to begin the morning. certainly growing up with him was an extraordinary experience n

extraordinary experience. in terms of higher education, i think there is a revolution coming because of rapidly rising costs, and the government standing back with some of their policies. i think you'll begin to see a drastic change in higher education, where instead of going to collagen. four years, if you will be able to get your degree in three years. if you want an advanced degree, you'll be able to do it in four years, and thanks to high technology, research has sown -- showed that you learn more from the web than you do sitting in a lecture hall. i think you will see more of that kind of learning. i think you'll see real pressure on universities and new ones rising up to bring costs down. i think you can do it at a fraction of what it costs to

date. great universities will continue to do what they do, and put pressure on others to change the way they do their modus operandi. host: what does that mean for "forbes magazine?" guest: thankfully, we have a great website. we have about 19 million a unique visitors a month. in terms of reading a magazine, that might not be like reading the web, but it is very, very different than sitting in a lecture hall. in a magazine, you go at your own pace. i think there will be a print foundation, and we have gone into the wide world, and to the web is changing everything. we know what it has done to the media industry. i think it will bring about drastic changes in areas like

higher education. i am not sure they fully recognize what is going to hit them, and in areas like madison, the wind is just beginning to transform everything we do. host: technology as a front-page story of "the usa today." google says 2011 should be their highest-hiring year. what you make of that? guest: is not just the inventions, it is how you use the inventions. the big convention after world war two was the mainframe computer. the person who made the most money on the mainframe, they were not the people that made the mainframes.

even ibm almost went down 20 years ago the one that made the most money was walmart, using mainframes and software to manage inventories and then managing better the supply chains. it is not just the technology. it is how you use it. in terms of hiring, that goes to another thing, and that as immigration. we have a very real need for brains from abroad, and one of the reforms that we make is that hopefully we allow for that. if a kid comes here, and gets an advanced degree, which should put a green. in that person's diploma. host: a lot of topics on the table shop, a republican in san diego. you are next. caller: good morning, mr. forbes.

maybe you can answer a question for me. why did this idiot give brazil to appoint $5 billion to drill for oil when we have it here? if they would open up alaska, we could get out of the deepwater. i could not even afford to buy fuel for my pickup truck to apply for a dot -- job. something is wrong. host: two things are wrong. a critical reason why we face higher fuel prices today is this is what happens when you print too much money. the federal reserve has been on a bender since the early part of the last decade. he is been very disruptive, yet they get a by. congress does not know how to handle the monetary issue. in terms of drilling, there is a lot we can do you the united

states that we are not doing. the slowdown on permits is ridiculous. in terms of brazil, two years ago the export/import bank made a deal with petrobras to guarantee loans for offshore drilling off of brazil. if the deal is the company gets the money. , has to spend the equipment and services from the united states. next month, about $300 million of metal line of credit will be drawn down. i believe it goes to the j.p. morgan bank. the bottom line is that it is a subsidized loan. if they should default, that means american taxpayers are left holding the bag, not jpmorgan chase. so, that is what is happening. to get to your point, we should

be allowing permits here offshore. bp was an outsider, and is trying to change its act now. we have the technology to do it here, both on land and offshore. host: what is your message to companies that are sitting on leases they already have? ap reported that nearly two/three of offshore leases are sitting idle. guest: in terms of leasing, you can have a lease, and when you buy them, you buy a lot of them. most of them will end up being a dry hole. in terms of permits, you can not move on a lease until you get a permit, and the interior department has been dragging its feet. very few permits, even when the moratorium was lifted -- they

have dragged their feet in allowing them. when you have uncertainty and what the permits are, that eats up capital. that is why some of these rigs have gone to other parts of the world. that is a self-inflicted wound. if we had a good process, there would be a lot more activity offshore because at these prices of oil, it makes sense to do it. host: president obama will be talking about his energy policy this morning i georgetown university. go to c-span.org to watch our lives stream. james, tenn., independent caller. caller: i have worked hard my entire life, mr. forbes, and recently retired. i have worked my whole life, and really not paid attention in

sending leaders to washington. now, i have had the time to sit back over the past year, watch c-span, our politicians, and what does happen, and it is like while america was sleeping, we trusted, and everything got out of whack. around the beltway in washington, d.c., it seems everyone is doing well, but the rest of the country is not doing well. people like you, your father, we need your help. for my sons, my grandchildren, and my daughters, we need your help. host: steve forbes? guest: you make a valid point about washington doing well while the rest of the country is struggling. we saw the same thing in the 1970's, when washington rule and the rest of the country went through the ice for red

disinflation, the high taxation that made it a miserable -- through the tremendous inflation and high taxation. it was a disastrous decade. the federal reserve was printing too much money, and it really hurt the economy, sending oil prices through the roof. in the early 1980's, ronald reagan made fundamental changes. we need those changes today. make the dollar as good as gold. john kennedy, ronald reagan they endorsed the idea, and bill clinton had a strong dollar when he was a republican. george bullish and president obama have let the dollar go down the pervert -- proverbial you know what. i am in favor of a flat tax, were you can do an income tax on

a single sheet of paper. health care, we need more free enterprise and competition with proper safety nets. energy -- opened it up. we have a lot of energy. we have seen this movie in various forms, and i think it is clear what we need to do. host: new albany, ohio. good morning. caller: i have to take issue with people calling president obama names. that is very disrespectful. i never did that with president bush. also, the fact that you are from the top 1%, and you have no idea what i am going through, or anyone in my position. for you to try to take away the health-care bill -- i have a precondition. my son is under 26 years old,

but he is over 18. he will go into the health-care bill and mess with that, and it will effect me. if every time i hear republicans, it is always about win, win, win. i wish you would get together, and look at us as people, not numbers. it is always about winning and looking at 2012. today is what is going on right now in my life, and for a lot of other people. host: steve forbes? guest: in terms of people, we have gone through hard times in the media business. we have had to tighten our belts. we see it all around. nobody is safe in terms of the economy. if there have been drastic upheavals. in terms of president obama, i have never called him names. if i have criticized some of the

things he has done and some of his policies because i think they are counterproductive. in terms of health care, the key thing is how do we devise a system where we get production of more health care? we are good at producing more software, automobiles, things like that, but in health care we have this crazy system that prevents a lot of that. i want to open it up to competition to make insurance more affordable, and i have put out on number of proposals to make the safety net stronger than what we have today. you do notyou do not have to goe emergency room. you have high-risk pools. make those work. there are positive ways of dealing with health care in the here and now. it is just like food. we do not have the government running the farms. we allow companies to grow the

food, grocery stores and others to sell the food. people have problems getting that, and we have food stamps to deal with that. why can we not do the same thing with health care? i have had ideas, others have had ideas, and it will not be solved with what they did in the health-care bill. there are some good provisions, but there are a lot of things i will make health care less available. but what will -- that is what worries me. host: pete is a republican in texas. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. i know greta was upset when the bush tax cuts were passed. anyway, if the federal government took 100% of what people like me may, over $500,000, it is still not paying

for what obama has brought up in the spending of the federal government. you need to give us all break their, their (mr. forbes, -- a break, girl mr. forbes, how will we get this straight? i am one of these guys that worked hard all my life, put four companies together, and it is being destroyed right now? by whom? it is the federal government, and more specifically the community organizer in the white house. he has never even run a lemonade stand, and he is going to tell me how run my business. host: steve forbes, who would -- steve, we like to see run against 20 -- see run against

president obama in 2012? caller: i would vote for donald duck before i vote for president obama again. host: is there a republican candidate you are leaving -- leaning toward? caller: we need the government to get out of our hair. host: steve forbes? guest: i am looking into 2012 field, and one of the things we need to keep in mind is there is no front-runner. a lot of the new candidates who have not done it before, they will stumble at the beginning, but i think they will get stronger as the process goes on, and the gop will have a strong candidate in the spring of 2012. in terms of taxing, the caller

is right in terms of piling on new taxes. we want a tax code that encourages people, or certainly doesn't discourage people from starting new businesses or expanding existing ones. that is why i favor a flat tax with generous exemptions. a family of four, for example, would pay no federal income tax on their first $46,000 of income. the only way we will dig out of this whole, and the caller is right, we have never have these levels of domestic spending, is to get the economy moving terror that increases asset values, and makes it possible to deal with a looming liabilities. that is what we did in the early-1980's, and we can do it again. in terms of health care and social security, i think they're very -- there are very very -- very, very positive reforms that

could change those there are much better ways of reforming those programs. >> from what you have heard and read so far, which one of the candidates to you think has the best economic plan? guest: most all of them are still formulating their economic plans. i was impressed with the governor did in california with taxes. i was very impressed in india, in terms of reducing the size of government in a very detailed, systematic way for several years. he really made a huge difference there. haley barbour of mississippi is formulating a program. again, i am looking over the field. i am an agitator. i will be pushing these guys to sharpen their messages in the next few months.

host: greg, democratic calller. you are next. i think we've lost greg. let's move on to doug, are republicans in nebraska. you were on with steve forbes. -- you are on with steve forbes. caller: i have two points i would like to make. large corporations like ge that did not even pay taxes because they are using offshore hideaways, that should stop. the loopholes need to be covered up. number two, on the health care plan, i know from watching the senate and house there are a lot of ideas that are one cover all system to be implemented.

each issue could be handled separately by itself one at a time until it is done right. i am in offshore diver -- i to be an offshore diver. it does not take long to drill and produce these wells. guest: in terms of the drilling, the calller is absolutely right. you can have a very real save the measure in place and much -- and move much more expeditiously than this government so far is doing. to bring up an old issue, i have been to alaska where they want to drill. it can be done in a very sound way. we should be doing that. in terms of health care, there are a lot of proposals out there that do it piece by piece or try to lump them all together.

one thing that i think should be done immediately is allow nationwide shopping for health care. right now we are restricted to states. i live in the state of new jersey. we have crazy regulations. we can get virtually the same policy in pennsylvania at about half the price, but it is illegal for me to do so. i can buy a car in pennsylvania, but for some reason i cannot buy health care. have nationwide shopping and get real competition. host: the new republican senator from florida has a new piece in "the washington journal" this morning. he says this -- do you agree with the senator? guest: i think you will not get real reform on the entitlements,

fundamental reform until we get a mandate in 2012, at which i think will happen. in the meantime, i think the senator is right that there is a lot can be done, such as stopping the worst aspects of obama care and getting real reductions in taxation. in terms of using the debt ceiling, even if they put off raising the debt ceiling, washington has enough cash flow to pay the interest on the debt, paid the difference of expenditures in pesos security and medicare. we have some room. -- washington has enough cash flow to pay the interest on the debt, pay the differences of expenditures and pay so security and medicare.

it least get the debate started in the country so you get a mandate to make positive changes after 2012. host: and he writes that he will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorized and accompanied by a plan for overhaul of the regulatory structure. we will go on to houston, texas. independent calller. go ahead. albert, you are on the air. caller: i have a question for mr. forbes. this goes back to president reagan. i know this is the anniversary of the time he was shot, but if we can remember the trickle-down policy started under his administration, although he had a democratic congress that he worked with, he got a lot done that he wanted to get done. he drove up, started this

deficit trying to drive the russians out of the military. moving on into the 1990's, i ith we look at theoo people with the money, the greed is what got us into this position here yen guest. guest: it was trickle up in terms of what reagan did. that is why silicon valley came into effect. apple and oracle flourished. they became the giants' they are today. that is what you want to do now to get the future of them starting from a very small base. in terms of spending, heally did democrat congress for most of the time he was in.

in terms of the military, he did ramp up military spending after a drastic slowdown in the 1960's in 1970's, which was critical in enabling us to win the cold war, which is why we have budget surpluses in the 1990's. we did not have to spend as much on defense on this. one of the mistakes the bush administration made was they did not have that kind of break in slowing down of domestic spending, and certainly this administration has done nothing to shore up the battered u.s. dollar. and until you do that, we will not get a strong recovery. other opinion pieces. alan greenspan writing that the dodd/frank law fails to meet the test of our time.

that is alan greenspan today writing in "the financial times." arofsky has a piece in "the wall street journal." guest: on the dodd/frank bill, unfortunately in the name of preventing too big to fail, it codifies too big to fail, but which is why the large institutions are borrowing at a much lower cost than it would if they did not have dodd/frank. that is another thing that has to be revisited. it is very destructive,

especially for community banks and smaller banks. in terms of the housing markets, the government has gone in the way of a recovery of the housing market. we should be on the up turn now. the american people need 1.5 million new houses per year because of population increases, and because of wear and tear on old houses. we're building a fraction of that today, and most of them are rentals. i think by the government coming in and trying to force rewrites of the mortgages, the government has prevented the clearing. there are a lot of people who bought houses in the last decade that cannot afford to do so, and the best thing would be to get them out from the burden so they can put their lives back together and allowing lenders to work with people who may be temporarily unemployed who have a stake in the house and try to

work it out. if you have equity in your house, even if the house price has gone down, you will fight hard to try to maintain what you have put in. weat process has ..d they do a fundamental reform of fannie mae and freddie mac, the quicker we will get a comeback. i predicted they did that within 2.5 years, we would have a housing boom again that, because the inventory would be soaked up at the low prices and we do need the 1.5 million new houses per year. housing can come back if they let it. host: jim from tennessee. go ahead. wereer: kennedy's cut mostly trickle up and they worked. it took us from 870 billion to three trillion 150 billion in

debt in his eight years. bush took us to five trillion. all.on stopped all the da it roosevelt said to the media that he saved your dad and his rich houses with graduated taxes. guest: actually for the record it was herbert hoover who almost tripled income taxes during the great depression and turned the disaster into an absolute disaster. cent unemployment from 50% to 25% unemployment. -- sent unemployment from 15% to 25% unemployment. kennedy's tax cuts were the same cuts that ronald reagan enacted.

kennedy had a 22% across the board. ronald reagan had 25 percent across the board. they worked in both cases. both times the economy came roaring back. i hope we can do something even more radical in the future and have a simplified tax code with the american people do not have to spend 7.5 billion hours per year filling out tax

the former chair of the bipartisan 9/11 commission said today the u.s. has not done enough to protect itself against have been ruled

former 9/11 commission chairman thomas kean and lee hamilton's book with the threat of a homegrown terrorism and the need to set aside broadband spectrum for emergency responders. the senate homeland security committee is chaired by senator joe lieberman of connecticut. this hearing is two hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning.o thank you all for being here. the attacks on america byrists n islamist terrorists on 9/11 took place almost a decade ago, butg, the memories of that day are ar still searing. the attacks in did thousands of lives, unchanged families forever and forced our country t into another horrible y war. we all remember that morning i t know we will until the moment we leave the earth, the nationear watched on television as thoseex

extraordinary mighty between towers of the world trade centee collapsed into a pile of smoking rubble taking so many innocento lives with them. american airlines flight 77 smashed into the pentagon and set ablaze and in the fields fi near shanks will pennsylvania w saw the smoldering crash of united flight 93 whose braveosef passengers had fought to retakeh the plan from the terrorists who targeted washington, d.c., probably targeted this very very place we are, capitol hill.hill and by their heroism savedr hundreds if not tohousands of additional lives.i but even as we mourn, and we e did, we began to ask -- when iei say we i mean not just those of us pusrivileged to serve here, t people throughout the country, e and particularly the families oe those who were lost on 9/11, we

began to ask how those attacks couldh have happened, and what could we do to make sure to the best of ability that nothingou like that ever happened again eoming and so we created the w 9/11 commission to investigateia what didte happen on 9/11, with walls in our homeland securitywt and what we do to protect the nation against another suchtac attack from islamist terrorists or anyone else would want toelsw carry out such a dreadful act.a coming to the leadership of that commission were to extraordinary americans, gifted, able and extremely patriotic, governortom tom kean and congressman lee a hamilton and we are privileged e to have them with us as a with witness is today. the commission they lead and the staff with two and a half

million pages of documents interviewed 1200 individuals in 12in countries including everyry relevant senior officials of both the clinton and bush and administration held 19 days of public hearings across the country with 160 witnessestest testifying. the commission's recommendations were sweeping, and they were definitive, they were not just t general conclusions, but theyhey were specific recommendationsomn for both immediate actions the nation needed to take to defend ourselves against furthergainst attack, but also long-term actions we could take to blunt the terrorist message and dry up the recruitment.. in response to the commission'sn recommendations, this committee authored, and i'm honored to seo not only senator collins is here but senator mccain, three of the four original sponsors ofl

the legislation, the intelligence reform and prevention act of 2004 004 that adopted most common of alll but most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission including the creation of a director of national intelligence - old and foug the commission felt were the most substantial and significant recommendations for changes was making. that act was the most sweeping reformng reform of our government's intelligence apparatus and together with the adoption of homeland security act a couple of years before represented the most significant changes in our national security framework, governmental framework since the end of the second world war. this committee was privileged to be deeply involved in drafting

these and other pieces of counterterrorism legislation to implement the commission's recommendations and further strengthen our security against. but a lot of hard work in identifying, recommending and then adopting the specific reform was done by the two gentlemen who were testifying before us today. the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission now the co-chair of its successor, the bipartisan policy center's national security preparedness group. i thank, and we today for being here for their hard work and dedication to public service throughout their lives and for providing our nation with the most compelling reminder of how much we can accomplish in public life when we put party labels aside and work together for the

national good. today in the exercise of the committee's responsibility to constantly evaluate and investigate our homeland defenses and also mindful of the approaching tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are beginning a series of oversight hearings all that we have attempted to accomplish after 9/11. today we are privileged to have governor kean and thomas hamilton to help begin the review with their opinion of the state of america's homeland security. we've already scheduled for more subject matter hearings for may, june and july will work among other things that the office of the director of national intelligence, the effectiveness of the aviation security reforms, what we've done to keep terrorists out of the united states and how we are

progressing on the goal that we all said we have to improved emergency communications among law enforcement and associated personnel. i do want to say how grateful i am for the prepared testimony that the two of you submitted to the committee which will be included in the record. you've touched on some of the concerns that the committee has and will deal with in the coming hearings. one of the most significant is with regard to the director of national intelligence and how that office has done and whether it needs further support to help achieve the goals that you have to have a strong deck of national intelligence who can marshal the full capabilities of the intelligence committee.

i'm encouraged by some of the recent changes that the current dni general jim has carried out for further integration but i must say i am also concerned about some of the continuing bureaucratic resistance from other components of the intelligence community which under our vision and i believe yours were supposed to be under the supervision of the dni and i know from your testimony to you both share some of those concerns and i'm interested in hearing your comments on those and i note with appreciation that he also talked about the importance of moving rapidly towards better interoperable communications systems and that one of your recommendations is the we set aside the so-called deep lot of the spectrum for the funding of the public safety improvements. senator mccain and i sponsored

legislation to accomplish that in the last session and we are working to introduce it a similar bill in this session. so, to summarize an awful lot very briefly i would say since the 9/11 commission reforms were adopted we've seen a very significant improvement in our homeland security. we had many victories in our battles with terrorists, many plots broken and attacks planned against america thwarted. we've also had close calls that is the case of the christmas the bomber and the other case of the times square bomber and some tragic failures like the home run radical islamist major speech of who murdered 13 americans at fort hood. so, we want to continue to learn

from our success and our failures and that is the intention of the hearings the we are beginning today. let me say finally that we are very proud and grateful to be joined this morning by some family members of 9/11 victims who went on to become leading advocates for the creation of the 9/11 commission, the implementation of its recommendations and have continued to play a wonderful oversight role in that work. they are two of the most likable tests we have around capitol hill. [laughter] really i would say lovable and committed. the commission would not have been created without their advocacy. we wouldn't have passed its legislative recommendations without the most effective

lobbying and its implementation would not be as good as all of us want it to be if they had not stayed on duty as they have. so why can't think you enough to read i know i can't speak for anybody on the committee when i express my gratitude for an admiration for your personal strength, for your skill and continuing commitment to america's homeland security. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this year we will commemorate the worst attack ever on the united states. in doing so, we must ask ourselves are we safer or are we just safer from the tactics that terrorists already have tried. is our intelligence community better at fitting together these complex pieces or have we just

been lucky? are we anticipating the next threat such as the cyberattack or the use of poison? or are we just looking backwards reacting to previous plots? undoubtably, compared to where we were on 9/10, 2001, we have greatly improved the framework for information sharing among our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. but sometimes, it has been and in that bond maker or faulty fuse this spirit american life. once again, the to extraordinary leaders of the landmark 9/11 commission lee hamilton and tom kean are appearing before the committee as we evaluate our

progress in securing the nation. in september of last year, they were assessing the terrorist threat reports warned of an increasingly wide range of u.s. based militants who do not fit any particular ethnic, economic, educational or social profile. the american melting pot reports that it has not provided a fire wall against the radicalization and recruitment of american citizens and residents though it has arguably more bus into a sense of complacency that homegrown terrorism couldn't have been in the united states. this report correctly called 2009 a watershed year in u.s.

based terrorist plots with 43 american citizens residence aligned with violent islamic extremists charged or convicted of terrorist crimes in that year alone. this committee first sounded the alarm about home-based to order the some five years ago and has held 15 hearings on this topic. we found the individuals within our country and with our prison system and in our communities are being inspired by al qaeda's violent ideology to plan and execute a tax often acting as the lone wolf without direct orders or ties to al qaeda. as senator lieberman has indicated, the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004, which we offered, did do much to improve the

management and performance of our intelligence homeland security and law enforcement agency. this most sweeping reform of the nation's intelligence community suggests after world war ii would not have happened without the leadership of our witnesses and the efficacy of the families of victims. the resulting increased collaboration and information sharing has helped our nation prevent numerous attacks, and there have been on told successes, and many cases the intelligence community and law enforcement have quietly connected the botts and thwarted plots. in other cases, alert citizens have reported suspicious behavior to the authorities just

in time. challenges still remain, however. we continue to see troubling examples of the pre-september 11 stovepiped combined set from some of our intelligence and law and for some officers. for example, as documented in the kennedy's recent report, on the fort hood attacked, the army and the fbi collectively had ample information to major hasan's connection to a radical lawyer extremism but they failed to act on the red flags signaling that he had become a potential threat. major hasan and others seemed to find motivation and ideas on the line.

technology is transforming the culture, the economy and our world in many beneficial ways. yet we must also be alert to the fact that terrorists are seeking to exploit the internet's potential as well. we have witnessed recently that the internet can serve as a platform for extremist propaganda on the one hand and peaceful revolution on the other. other commission recommendations have not yet come to fruition. and of course the most obvious example of that is, chris's failure to reform itself. but there are others as well we must make more progress as the chairman has indicated in enhancing first responders communications. gap also remain at the borders and in our inspection system. as the news today indicates the

potential to plant an explosive somewhere within the millions of pieces ship around the world to each day is a real vulnerability. it is also troubling that the border patrol does not have the ability to detect illegal activity across approximately three-quarters of our northern border we must continue to work to find a balance that opens the border to our friends while closing to those who would do less harm. nevertheless, they're has been real accomplishments. the biometric system for screening foreign nationals seeking to enter the united states, the creation of a consolidated terrorist watch list, the dedicated dhs and steve and local law enforcement

employees all to surf recognition. but even in these areas of progress, improvements are needed. biometric screening must be expanded to include foreign nationals leaving the the united states. screening technology must be improved to keep up with changing threats and to ensure that the safest possible effective screening equipment is deployed. i hope this year we can expand protection against lawsuits for citizens to report suspicious behavior indicating potential terrorist activities. we must also pass legislation to ensure that the key u.s. intelligence officials are consulted falling a foreign interest detention in the united states that did not happen in the case of farruca of tumult

followed. finally, i continue to have deep concern that this administration refuses to acknowledge that violent islamists ideologies is the ideologies that fuels' these attacks. the administration should have an overarching national strategy to counter this growing threat within our own country. ten years ago, nearly 3,000 lives were lost on that terrible day. we cannot become complacent or let our guard down when every single intelligence briefing that i have ever had always warns that the enemy remains determined to attack our

country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for the excellent statement. normally we limit opening statements to the chairman and ranking member on the committee but senator mccain, as you know, the original sponsor of the legislation that created the 9/11 commission senator mccain, i would invite you to make an opening statement if you like. >> i would like to thank the witnesses. i think what they did was one of the reasons why this country hasn't been intact since 9/11. the dedicated public servants in example of bipartisan shipment -- by partisanship and it's appropriate on the ten year anniversary we get their continued input. thank you again for your service to the country. >> thank you, senator mccain. before we go to the witnesses i want to introduce charles doud who is here, deputy chief of the new york police department for communications. he's been a very strong proponent of allocating the

d-block public safety and we appreciate the fact that he's committed enough that he's in the room today. governor kean, welcome and we look forward to your testimony now. >> mr. chairman, ranking members of the committee, we are pleased to have the opportunity to be here with you once again today. nobody -- nobody has been more important than you all have been at the center of defending this country from the terrorist threat that we face. we are deeply grateful we've made in support of the 9/11 commission recommendations and your leadership continuing to reform the national security institutions. over the last decade we've done much to ensure we are taking a difficult step necessary to confront this enemy, protect americans from our allies and for that matter people throughout the world.

today, we are appearing in the capacity as the co-chairman of the bipartisan center is national security preparedness group. now it's a successor organization to the 9/11 commission. a growing and a strong roster of national security professionals who work as an independent bipartisan group to monitor the implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations and to address the emerging national security issues. let me begin by describing the changes of the governments since 9/11, the current threat and perhaps updating you and some of the commission recommendations. lee hamilton will continue assessing the status of the implementation with a number of the recommendations. so now nearly ten years after the tragic 9/11 attacks and seven years since we finished our report, it really is as the committee decided a very appropriate time to see just where we are on the national

security and how we are doing. the terrorist attack as everybody knows, have a profoundly dramatic impact on our government and private-sector. for that matter on our daily lives. the suddenness of that attack on american soil and the loss of so many lives i think made a lot of us feel vulnerable in our homes and caused us to question whether or not our government is properly organized to protect us from this kind of lethal threat. the economic damage resulting from the attack was severe. businesses in all sectors have adapted in one way or another to this new reality. over the past ten years the government response for the challenge of the transnational terrorism has been equally dramatic. we've created a major new institutions from the department of homeland security, cyber command and the 2004 leadership of senator collins and lieberman, congress created the office of the director of

intelligence, national counterterrorism center, what to make sure we had a unity of effort among the intelligence community. now despite all this progress, some major 9/11 commission recommendations still remain unfulfilled. and we would suggest today that these require urgent action because the threat from al qaeda and related terrorist groups and individual tenants to violent islamist extremism assists to this day. al qaeda and related terrorist groups continue to pose a serious threat to all of us. al qaeda central has been diminished with its leadership, osama bin laden and al-zawahiri are at large. it would leave us less likely the threat is more complex and it's more diverse than any time in the last decade.

al qaeda and its allies continue to have the intent and the reach to kill dozens of americans and do so in a single attack. there is a high risk of attacks we believe they will likely be small. the change in recent years is the increasing role of the number of u.s. citizens and residents have taken and the leadership of al qaeda and allied groups. another development is increasing diversification of the types of u.s.-based jihadists militants. some individuals inspired to engage in a tax on their own weigel others have been actively recruited by overseas terrorist groups. indeed these would be the do not fit any progress toward ethnic, economic, educational or social profile. the questions the amount or attempt range from shootings to

car bombs, suicide attacks through in-flight bombings of passenger aircraft. we've seen a pattern of increasing terrorist recruitment of american citizens. in 2000 mine there were two actual terrorist attacks on our soil. you're referenced the fort hood shootings and explained the lives of the 15 people and one u.s. military recruiter killed, another wounded in little rock arkansas. many counterterrorism experts talk about 2010 and named it the year of the homegrown terrorist. self radicalization is an alarming development. our group issued a report as you mentioned last fall and radicalization and we are going to follow up this spring with a set of recommendations to deal with this important and very, very sensitive problem. we also face new threats like

the discovery in october, 2010 of explosives in toner cartridges addressed and synagogues in chicago and shipped on fedex and ups cargo flights. the cyber threat is also increasingly severe. they pose a danger to our critical infrastructure. defending the u.s. against such attacks would be an urgent priority. so we would like to offer our assessment today where the government is implementing a 9/11 commission recommendations. an emergency preparedness we have made some progress to establishing the unity of command in other words, one person responsible for coordinating efforts and disasters. but having said that, our recommendations are still a long way from being fully implemented. we found too many community leaders and first responders have mentioned to us that many metropolitan areas still haven't solved the problem of having

unified command structure. moreover, an acceptable that the government still is not allocated additional 10 megahertz of radio spectrum, d-block as you mentioned to public safety, so that the first responders can communicate the disaster. now, i recognize that the efforts and the leadership as you have shown through your bill and i believe the president supports such a recommendation and congress needs to act. there's been improvements in the transportation security but technology still lags for the weapons concealed in their bodies and for detecting explosives contained in bags. the gao continues to find holtz and virtually every single security later that we establish. for the security remains the top national security priority. as the terrorists continue to exploit the vulnerability is to

get entry into the united states several let him the tax over the past two years have been by terrorists who could have been detected by the u.s. immigration system. we require a more streamlined harvest watchlist capability and better sharing of information between intelligence agencies and immigration authorities. one area of progress is the deployment of the bi letcher gentry system known as the u.s. visit. we still lack of water in a comprehensive exit system we don't know in other words when people leave the country. the commission recommends the government standardize the secure ratification and federal government should set standards for the issuance of this difference and drivers' licenses. the real on the act established these standards by statute about one-third of the states complete with this first tier benchmark.

the deadlines for compliance have been pushed back now twice. they lay in compliance creates vulnerability and makes us less safe. i would ask no further delays should be authorized right now i ask my friend and partner who i admire almost anybody in this country, lee hamilton, to continue. >> thank you, tom, good morning. am i to begin by endorsing what tom has said with regard to the leadership. not only has this committee but specifically of the three centers in front of me i can remember coming to your offices shortly after the 9/11 commission was made tom and i spoke to each one of you and you were very courteous and receptive, but beyond that, you acted with a genuine political leadership, and the country is very grateful to you.

i think there are a lot of reasons why the 9/11 commission had a favorable response, but two of them come first the families who gave sustained sophisticated support for our recommendations but suddenly specifically the political leadership embodied by the three of you just really quite extraordinary, and tom and i are the very grateful to you for what you have done and when the chairman and moment ago outlined your continuing hearings and investigations i was immensely pleased to hear that because i think having been on the inside and on the outside, you have the powers that we don't have in terms of getting people before you to provide tough oversight, and that continuing effort by

this committee is just a hugely important. because people say often this morning how much more needs to be done. with respect to intelligence reform, the dni has made progress in several areas, increased information sharing, the improvement of cooperation among agencies and of analysis of intelligence and sharpening the collection genuine progress, no doubt about it. still it isn't clear to us that the dni is the driving force for intelligence community integration and the commission envisioned. some ambiguity probably remains with respect to the dni's authority over budget and personnel although that can be disputed i guess. strengthening the dni position would advance the unity of intelligence effort that we think is still a very much needed. i don't anticipate new legislation. you would know more about that

than on this subject in the near future. so we have to live with that statute we have for an extended period of time. it might very well be that in the future some legislation can fortify the offers. repeated in the kitchen from the president of the dni is the unequivocal leader in the intelligence community i think would be greatly helpful. the fbi has gone through a dramatic change. i think it is moving in a positive direction but in some sense in complete. it's that i believe strong leadership from the director mueller to collect and analyze intelligence to prevent terrorism. that's an enormous cultural change as you all know away from its former focus strictly on a law enforcement. it's progress has been significant but uneven.

the fort hood shootings highlight the lingering problems your report which i looked over quickly has spelled that out in a very persuasive and compelling way. analysts do not appear in the fbi to be driving intelligence within the organization. nor have they achieved status on the cover with the special agents who traditionally a rise to the management of the bureau. fbi headquarters components didn't play the role in analyzing the threat posed by the person who leader allegedly did the shootings. there were miscommunications as senator collins indicated in her opening statement that in the field offices so the shift taking place within the fbi is still very much a work in progress and the congress needs to keep up to help the fbi with its difficult transformation.

the cia has improved its intelligence analysis and remove barriers between its analysts and operations offices. our sense is that there has been more talk than action with respect to improvement in the cia's human operations. it is very difficult business particularly in closed societies and among close-knit terrorist cells. more money and more personnel do not necessarily result in better agents. while the cia has attempted to recruit officers qualified in the languages of the greatest interest that too is very hard part of the problem is that young people in our country with some exceptions of course don't gain proficiency in foreign languages. congress can help on that. they then must continue to rebuild the will require strong support from congress and the excessive branch. we want the agency to take

calculated risks to protect the country, congressional oversight must be the politicized so that when the agency fails as it occasionally well it is not an appropriately to blame for taking the necessary risks. in pershing information sharing across the federal government and the state and local authorities was a major recommendation. in some ways i think the government is doing better. the joint terrorism task force's infusion centers across the country have improved information sharing, the national counterterrorism center as analysts and other officers from all agencies of the intelligence community working side by side sharing information with their home organizations. there have been some failures as there's already been indicated. there is no question that wikileaks, a novelist publication of sensitive documents, is very sentiment and real concern. those are legitimate. but the need to share

information we think is still remains highly important, and we should not backslide on that. congress has to stop the government strike the right balance between the need to protect unauthorized disclosures and the need to share information to defend ourselves against the threats we face. among our major disappointment has been the administration has not in paneled the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. this is a major recommendation very strongly supported by all of the commissioners. i am informed and i'm not sure that i'm quite up-to-date on this, that the administration is nominated to individuals for the panel. i know one of them personally and as far as we know they have not yet been confirmed and the panel certainly hasn't met the administration i believe needs to push this on a priority basis because the board has a lot to do and i think this committee

can be helpful in pushing the administration. we are equally disappointed the congress hasn't reformed itself along the lines we recommended. we recommended that congress create a joint committee for intelligence or create house and senate committees with combined authorizing appropriation powers those recommendations may be a bridge too far. last week the chairman of the house intelligence committee announced the decision to include three members of the house appropriations committee to participate in the house intelligence committee hearings and briefings. that appears to us to be a positive step will obviously there is more to do. oversight of the department of homeland security is fractured. the massive department will be better integrated if there's better integrated oversight. i know the concerns expressed about that.

it is in our country's security interest that congress make security reform a priority. preventing the spread of nuclear weapons must be a national priority. the administration hosted a major nonproliferation summit last year announced the new initiative to secure all nuclear materials by 2013. it plans to spend $14.2 billion over the next five years to secure the nuclear and radiological materials. may i say outside of my statement that i -- because of other responsibilities that i have dealing with nuclear power, that i have recently had the occasion to listen to some highly qualified people within our government, and i believe the access to nuclear materials and the ability to use those materials and explode them is

much greater than people generally think. and so, i hope the congress will keep a hard and too sharp focus on the proliferation and i know there's some suggestions they want to cut some of these important programs. money is not everything here, but we must not weaken or underfunded one of what president bush and president obama both said is the highest priority security need. at the outset of his administration president obama issued executive orders that brought the united states into line with international norms for the treatment of detainees. that fulfilled part of our recommendations. we believe there is a conflict between the role of law and holding detainees indefinitely without resolving their cases. both presidents bush and obama have wrestled with this problem. it's a tough one. president obama took the step

forward by requiring periodic reviews in the status of detainees there is an awful lot more to do. the congress and the executive branch simply have to agree on a statutory base to give us a comprehensive approach to dealing with the detainees. the congress and the executive branch need to agree on the rules of evidence and the procedures that should be applied in determining how to deal with these detainees. i don't think this is a problem that can simply go on and on and on. you need a statutory base and i don't suggest it's easy to reach it to how to deal with these potentially very dangerous detainees. we had a number of foreign policy recommendations in the report, the events today in the middle east and north africa are clearly indicate the region is in a state of the people and it's quite unclear to many of us

how it will emerge. we will address the role the u.s. policy plays on counterterrorism, but we didn't come to be honest about it with considerable modesty. we believe that although the countries share a common religion people have many cultural national ethnic and tribal differences, and therefore we have to deal with them on a country by country basis. we want our country ways to advance its core values but a pragmatic approach for each country, one that supports the agenda of opportunity for the islamic world we think is necessary. sukkah to conclude, significant progress has been made since 9/11 and the country is undoubtedly more secure. yet important 9/11 commission recommendations remain to be implemented. and over the next two years a lot of heavy lifting still needs to be done. as tom mentioned a moment ago the fact we have resolved the

radio spectrum problem and have not resolved the unity of the demand is just really distressing to us. it is a no-brainer with regard to the safety and security of the country. some progress lead in both areas but not nearly enough. congress has resisted reorganizing its own institutions and streamlining the oversight of the intelligence and the department of homeland security would go far towards advancing unity of effort in at the intelligence community and within the dhs. always the dni needs a clear eye appraisal. i think it is functional functioning reasonably well and likewise the fbi but i think they both need -- we have concerns about each and the goal should be to strengthen both the dni and the fbi. the terrorist threat will be with us far into the future demanding that we be ever vigilant.

our national security department require strong leadership, management at every level to ensure that all parts are working well together and that there's innovation and imagination. our agencies and their dedicated work forces have gone through much change and we commend them for their achievements in protecting the american people but there's a tendency towards all bureaucracies and vigorous congressional oversight is just imperative to ensure that the remain vigilant and continue to pursue the needed reforms. so our task is challenging and difficult we constantly have to assess our work will the devotees and anticipate new and evolving lines of attack. we've done a lot and we can look back with some satisfaction that there is an awful lot more to do. we are very grateful to you for the opportunity to testify before this committee on which has had longstanding leadership on these issues and we will do our best now to respond to your questions.

>> thank you for those fought for opening statements. i think that you've really helped us get some perspective on where we have come in the last several years certainly since 2004 when the 9/11 commission act was enacted. you've also given us a clear statement of unfinished business and priorities for the future and i appreciate that. before i begin my question i want to note that since we began with abraham space who is with was taken at the pentagon on 9/11 and is another one of those family members who have continued in the battle to everything they can to make sure nothing like this happens again. i thought both of you summarized well where we have come and also noted the steps we've taken to

improve our homeland security including those very significant steps to work part of your recommendations that we adopted have strengthened our security but the the nature of the threat has changed and that we can never say never but certainly in our defense is against the sophisticated 9/11 type of attack but there for the presence of that happening are down, thank god, but there is a higher risk right now what smaller attacks than 9/11 and particularly of attacks that come from within the country because that has become the focus of al qaeda and all the other international islamist terrorist groups. i wanted to begin by asking you, governor, just to talk a little bit more about the inadequacy of

the unity of command at this point and what you think we can do about. >> well, this is one of the problems of 9/11. the question is who was in charge. so our recommendation is strongly to all communities there's got to be one leader, new york city made a lot of progress in that regard by putting everything on to the police department. other cities some of which follow the pattern and some haven't. and so there is still a member of communities some of them fairly sizable and people tell us there is still that question if something really happens who is in charge? businesses have made more progress. i think almost all major businesses i know have somebody who's in charge of something happens they know what to do and all that is in place. but communities not yet, and we

think it's a very, very serious problem and one that we have to address make the best we can requirement that somebody be in charge. >> i'm really interested that you focus on the local or metropolitan level and i think we've got to do some thinking about to see whether we can create some requirement or incentive to bring about that unity of command at the local level perhaps by making it a condition of some of the homeland security or other grants. let me take you to the national level. of the commission report on the unity of effort across before in domestic divided and the section of the report notes specifically that during the commission's hearings members of the commission often ask and i quote who is the quarterback.

the other players are in their positions doing their jobs but who is calling the play that assigns the role to help them execute as a team to respond to this need my interpretation of the commission's report recommended creating a national counterterrorism center with the responsibility to develop counterterrorism plans to integrate all the instruments of national power and i think that is one of the most significant recommendations and one of the most significant components of our legislation. so as you look back nationally now are you satisfied that there is clarity and unity of command at the national level and we have a quarterback and is it the national counterterrorism center?

as committed as the national counterterrorism center and of course the dni. >> right. >> a combination. now whether they are being implemented as a quarterback, whether or not they really have the power that you intended when he rode the law and we intend to the we have recommendations i don't know because the signals sometimes are mixed, and we have to have unity of effort in that regard, we have to have the quarterback. and i would suggest that you would approach the that area. whether one of the quarterback is in place and whether or not the quarterback has the power that you intended it to have in the legislation. >> there is no question the national counterterrorism center has created unprecedented cooperation between components of our security intelligence community's. in that sense they are all on

the same board now and one of the problems i say in passing we ordered some of our earlier hearings and was a cause of some of the cases the we've study that were not as we would want is that there is -- the problem board thatre are somny dhaka ..rd in real time to separate out from handan to connect the ones that ought to be connected, but they are not on separate boards anymore. >> mr. chairman may i say a word about this? you got two problems here. one is the scene of the disaster and there it is a no-brainer for me any way that someone has to be in charge. now that creates difficult political problems because the government wants to be in charge, the mayor wants to be in charge, the county officials want to be in charge, and there's a reason that it hasn't

been resolved because the politicians are unwilling to address the question because it's a tough one to say who's in charge. now i don't know whether that barrier can be overcome or not, but in terms of saving lives it is an easy question to answer. you've got to have one person making decisions with regard to sanitation, public health, food, housing, transportation -- they have to make thousands of decisions within a matter of a few hours really at the seams, and if you have confusion of command at that locale, you lose additional lives. so that's why we think it's an important matter. i really don't know about different metropolitan areas around the country and how well they have addressed this problem, but i'm very uneasy about it, and i don't really think it's been solved. ..

>> he is an extremely dedicated and important, capable man. but, he is right in the center of the policy world at the whitse house house. he is not removed from it, like i want generally intelligence officials to be. so am not sure whether he is the right person to do it, but if he is then it seems to me there ought to be a very clear designation that he is in charge of homeland security and counter

terrorism. today, quite frankly, from where i said it looks to me like a number of different people are involved in it, including mr. brennan, the director of national intelligence and several others, d.h. as secretary and others. i don't know who the quarterback is. i can identify the commissioners that raise that question. >> that's right. >> my guess is the same commissioners would be raising the same questions today. >> that is very helpful commentary. i agree with you that we have got the combination, and i'm simplifying your the, the critical role of intelligence and counter terrorism and, and security, but also then the other roles which are different of preparedness and prevention

and response. i agree with you the that the top person today in our government is john burnett. assistant to the national security adviser for counter-terrorism. and, again, i have great respect for him. whether that is the right place for that to be, that will to the is an important question or whether -- >> presidents have the right to organize the white house of the want to. >> right. >> they should have. maybe the president is comfortable with this. as an outsider who looks at it fairly carefully it's not clear the lines of authority a precise. >> yakima and i think you have quite accurately identify the key players. it is the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence, the national counter-terrorism center. others at the fbi, but more than

anyone else john brennan seems to be coordinating that effort. there are different roles, although you could pick one of the other players and make that person the coordinator. might be the secretary of homeland security who has both operating and intelligence authority. you have given us a good charge for our review during this. my time is up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me pick up on this very issue of who is in charge. to me it was very clear when we passed the reform act in 2004 that we wanted the deal and i to be in charge. that is why we created this new quarterback position. yet i completely agree with congressman hamilton that in

this particular administration the person who is in charge is john brennan at the white house. putting aside his enormous debilities, which we all agree to, one of the problems with that is there is no accountability to congress. it is a member of the president's staff. there is no, we cannot call john brennan to testify before us. we cannot hold him accountable for a decision. i think that is another very big problem. the other area of confusion of command as the congressman has said, when disaster strikes and we saw this with of two but

allowed. there was tremendous confusion over who was in charge and who should make decisions. in that case it ended up being the attorney general who made the decision on how to treat abdul battelle up without any consultation whatsoever with the p and i, the head of the counter-terrorism center, the secretary of homeland security or any top intelligence official on whether or not of bill michelob should be questioned about whether to -- there were for the plots and information gotten from him. my questions are these, however, i these problems that we can fix through legislation? on their problems that depend on

an individual president setting that up who is truly going to be in power? the reason ask this question is when i go back and review the language creating the dni, it is pretty strong language. now, we tried to get it to be even stronger in the area of personnel, but, in fact, the dni has strong the party to set priorities for the intelligence community to oversee the budget, formulation, make some personnel decisions. my point is, is this really a case where we need to strengthen the law? is it a case where the president needs to empower the person we intended to be in power? and i would like to hear from

both of you in either order on this question. >> i think the latter, the president has to step in here. in the law as we all the can be strengthened. as i suggested, this law is not going to be changed in the immediate future. it took us several years to get this on the statute books. they be down the future it will be clarified, but center collins, i basically agree with your comment that there is sufficient authority than present law we envisioned, of course, that the dni would be the central powerful driver of the intelligence community. i don't think he has been. now, i want to say here, as you know, i've known all of these men that have held that position. a very tough position. we've had good men in that

position. they have been quite strong. that line of authority is not as clear as it should be, and so i think given the circumstances that you now have your second choice, that is the president has to step in and make it very clear with regard to its authority in the intelligence community over budget and over personnel and over transfer of funds within the budget, and so far as i can see that really has not been done. now having said that the dni deals with some pretty powerful players. the secretary of defense, cia director. if they get a decision within the bureaucracy that they don't like they will go directly to the president. there enough. so the dni may have authority, and he may try to exercise it, but he is going to -- he has to

exercise that authority with extraordinary skill and discretion these are all major players within the administration. so that power has to be very skillfully exercised. but i personally think the system is going to work out a lot better if you have someone at the top of it who is the driving force who is recognized as the center of power who has the authority and obviously has to have the support of the president to do the things that need to be done to give unity of effort. >> i remember when the bill was going through. that is weakened a bit in the house. i remember talking to lee about it at the time. don't worry. in the end it's the president. if the president gives the dni the authority did the and i will use it the way you want it. if not the law isn't going to

help. that is where we are. my own belief is the law says that the and i ought to be the top intelligence operative. at think a lot better that way. this president wants somebody else. my only recommendation would be that he make that clear both publicly within the public and within the administration. everyone knows. if somebody else will be in full charge let's say who that person is. that way everybody knows. the worst thing of all is a vacuum or confusion warrant lines that are not clear. the president is the only one who can make those lines clear, and the president is the only one who can make that happen. >> i agree that the president's response is absolutely clear and needs to be clear. if the president is not in powering the dni weekend by it all the language in the world.

the dni is not pulling to truly be in charge. i also remain very concerned about the lack of accountability to congress and the public when it is a member of the president's staff who is running the intelligence community. >> i just want to support what you said. a think that is terribly important. >> right. >> very, very important to be the person who is in charge, leverage is hot to be accountable to you people at all times. that is just fundamental, it seems to me, in the way that this place ought to operate. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator collins. of course i agree with you. it strikes me about both the importance of presidential and support your belts merely have the dni have ample authority, not as much as any of us wanted,

but ample authority requiring the president to make clear that dni is the person in charge of the intelligence community. we all expected that coming and as a new position to oversee existing agencies which have a real life of their own and a constituency of their own would be difficult. it is interesting to really just amplify what i said in my opening statement. i think because of his background in the military and credibility at the pentagon he is actually negotiating an agreement with secretary gates which will enable the dni to have much more authority with regard to a intelligence budgeting appropriations then was the case at the beginning of the office. that is dead.

the question of who is on top over all and the counter-terrorism, it's a complicated one. there is not only the intelligence community, but all the others, operators, printers, responders. i, again, i agree that it has to be somebody at the top. nothing-about john brennan is accountable to congress. we have to think about whether, how to deal with the problem. very important. when we first talked about the position what we envisioned was a man of woman stepping into that position to stay five or six years and developed a position, strengthen it and all of that. that has been one of the problems. hopefully we have one now that will stay for awhile. >> i hope. thank you. next in order of arrival senator

akaka and then senator carper. >> thank you very much. hal, would like to welcome governor came and congressman lee hamilton. thank you for being here today. although many of the information sharing and intelligence shortfalls at the 9/11 commission and identified have been addressed, critical work remains to ensure that we have an agile and well coordinated response to various threats. you have been discussing this. starting off federal workers will be addressing the intelligence community and other agencies in make daily sacrifices to keep a safe. it's essential to this effort.

additionally we must never lose sight of the privacy and civil liberties, implications of our efforts to protect the nation and particularly i agree with you and your witnesses, comments that the privacy and civil liberties, oversight board must be set up immediately. congressman hamilton, as you know, i believe that the gao could assist our efforts to strengthen oversight of the intelligence community. in response to my questioning in 2007 he stated that gm should have the same authorities within the intelligence community as it has in other agencies

a key principle of my intelligence community audit act were included in the intelligence authorization act last year. under this legislation the director of national intelligence must issue a directive to facility, facilitate g.a.o. audits and evaluations of the intelligence community. my question to you is, what element should be included in the de in i directive to promote the effective oversight? >> senator, i'm not sure i'd understand the question. what elements should the deal and i insist upon? >> include in the directive to promote effective oversight.

>> the dni oversight of the intelligence community or your oversight? >> well, either one. yap. >> well, i'm not sure. i am deeply impressed that only you folks in the congress can effectively oversee the intelligence community. the press does not know what is going on. those of us outside the congress don't have the information that you have in your staff to what is calling on. unlike most other areas of our government the only really effective oversight of the intelligence community and

upended can come from the congress. now, you don't have another it -- you have other agencies. you have the president's advisory board. they are all appointed by the president and are not an independent group. and all of the recommendations that we made we thought that the strengthening and persistence of the congressional oversight were just absolutely critical. but his i know that there is off internal of shiny within each agency. i think within the dni office as well. that can be important to oversee. that is not an independent oversight. that can only come from the congress.

i do want to pick up on your observations about the privacy and civil liberties board because this has been a source of enormous frustration to tom and myself. i cannot figure out. i just cannot figure out. i don't know what president bush and president obama think. they just have not put an effective board in place, and i can't understand why. this is greatly needed because in homeland security and intelligence matters you have had greatly accelerated the surveillance, all kinds of provisions are written into the law which expands the powers of the fbi and the intelligence agencies. understandably in most cases i think to check on what the american people are doing.

i think somebody needs to be out there to keep their eye on these folks. a very aggressive way because the security people within an agency almost always when the arguments. you need an independent source to really keep your eye on them. so we favored a strong, robust oversight of civil liberties and privacy with the power to issue subpoenas and the power to call people in front of them. keep an eye because i think there has not been enough attention to the question of civil liberties and privacy in general with regard to komen security. >> nothing has frustrated me more.

>> almost all our recommendation is a lack of progress on civil liberties. i don't know what problems the administration has with the bill that you passed, but if there is a problem with it, something wrong with the structure, i think it's intrusiveness something, tell us and maybe you'll change it. but it's just not to appoint members. two years ago and administration having not even nominated enough to make a quorum, it's frustrating and makes no sense and leaves a big hole and what we should be doing. i don't understand it, and frustrated by it. if there's a problem of which there would tell us what it is. >> thank you for the observations. i really agree with you that we need to set that up immediately. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> you know what, quickly we can -- senator collins and i were

talking, we can address a letter to the white house but john brennan. >> ask what is going on here. i don't think there is any policy or ideological opposition to the board. i suppose it's always possible that there are elements within the intelligence community the don't like the idea, but i have not heard that either. i don't know. it just could be that it's down at the bottom of somebody's in box. they never quite get to it. okay. we will address a letter right away. >> thank you very much. >> next is senator corporate. >> thank you. we have gathered before they number two of my favorite people a great governor of our

neighbor. lee hamilton, vice president of one of my, i'm privileged to think of him as one of my mentors. still active and vibrant and contributing. about once a month and asked what is wrong in washington. one of the things i always talk about is a lack of trust, sometimes between parties, sometimes executive and legislative branches, sometimes committee chairs and ranking members. this committee is an example of what you can get and when you have a trusting relationship. every month i talk about the trust. u.s. interpositions as leaders of the 9/11 commission and how you provide it an example through that trust to the other members and achievd extraordinary consensus and came to us and enabled us with the to

reflect and follow that example. i just wanted to lead off by saying. we are fortunate to a share the subcommittee. the federal financial management. we focus on the ways that we can -- it lets me poke into every nook and cranny of the third government to see if there are ways we can get better results for less money. in this room yesterday we had among others the department of defense, gao, and we were looking at the gao report the cannot yesterday setting major weapon systems for 2010, $402 billion, up from $42 billion a decade earlier. in this room we had hearings in the last month on something called improper payments to be not fraud, but mistakes and overpayments. and in number for last year,

1,205,000,000,000. not counting department of defense, prescription drug program. we had hearings on surplus property, thousands of pieces of surplus property we don't use. they are a burden on us, 300 billion plus tax money not being collected. that is the kind of step we focus on in this room. i think with that spirit of trying to change the culture around here the department of the defense legislative or executive branch, to go from a culture of what i call spendthrift to a culture of thrift and to ask, would you join with us today maybe just to think about it and come back, but just that i no there are things we are doing. a whole bunch of hearings on those. domestic discretionary spending programs and defense programs that we can get a better result for less money or a better result for not of a lot more money. with that spirit can you think out loud with us for a minute or

two here today about some way we can get a better result in this area of national security, homeland security, maybe a better result without spending more money or even spending a little bit less. >> next question. >> well, my impression, senator, is in this area of common security and intelligence, i know this is not the intelligence committee. in this area the whole question of cost effectiveness rarely rises. >> that's true. >> we have been set on a course for understandable reasons since 9/11 to create enormous increases in intelligence budgets creating a whole new department, massive new department. everybody has said full speed

ahead. i don't have the specific figures, but in intelligence you have had an enormous increase in the total amount of money spent just over the last few years, for reasons we all understand. so, when you began your comments on cost-effective now is getting better results from less money my response was bravo. i think you need a hard-headed business attitude in this area which has been totally absent for tenures. probably a little exaggeration. , but i think cost effectiveness here would be important. eight these fellows come and who had these agencies and not only hold their feet to the fire with regard to homeland security and stopping terrorist attacks, but make sure that this money is

being wisely spent. it makes a lot of sense to me. i think you perform an enormously important service as you push the whole business of cost effectiveness. >> public or private sector, if you wrap up to the extent and as fast as we felt we had to after 9/11 you are going to problem to fester going to have problems. your going to have to overspend and waste money. i'm sure that has been done spending on non military intelligence, that number is now public. military intelligence spending is not public debt. i assume combined it is around $80 billion. that is a lot of money to be a lot of it wrapped up in a great hurry. at think what you are doing is very important. you need to not only do this well, but efficiently. >> and just calling to ask you to think about this for awhile

and maybe respond on the record. one last question if i may. going back to the early 1990's we have seen a couple of countries come back and forth across our radar screen including somalia and yemen. both countries have been in almost perpetual decline for what seemed like a couple of decades. as a result we seem to have different interest groups proving a clear and present danger to our country. they are somalia and al qaeda from the human. both hired directly and indirectly responsible for december 205th christmas day bombing attempt at fort hood and alabama and minnesota terrorism cells. it is clear that if these two countries implode they will impose a more serious threat to us and the rest of the world. could either of you please describe your thoughts on the threat that these groups opposed

to the united states and if our federal and government is doing enough to prevent these two specific terrorist group from going into a more powerful global entity? >> you are right. obviously it is interesting how this business has evolved. years ago we used to worry about urban areas and powerful countries. now it is the un govern areas of the world, the wild areas, the areas where there does not seem to be any authority. these organizations develop. beyond even yemen and somalia we don't know what is happening now in that area of the world. we don't know what's going to happen if and when quadhafi falls and what that land, how tribal that will become. we don't know what will happen in some of these other areas that may or may not disintegrate -- disintegrate.

said this is -- this has got to continue to be our priority with the government collapsing it is going to be worse before it's better. are we doing enough? we are never doing enough. i know we are concentrating. i know the intelligence communities are working hard to learn what they can learn. we still don't have enough people and boots on the ground. we are depending on other intelligence agencies in that part of the world which now may not be able to give us that information any more. so it is a continuing and a very, very serious problem. we have to be ready to address not only those two areas but other areas that may develop. >> thank you. congressman hamilton. >> well, i think you put your finger on maybe the most difficult problem with regard to protecting ourselves from threats from abroad.

you have got governments in these countries that really do not cover in throughout the country. you have all kinds of trouble ethnic differences. very, very hard problem. i think we have to work as a nation on developing the capabilities that deal with these countries. i must say i'm not quite sure how how would spell out those capabilities. supporting the government is often done to try to insure stability, but we have surely seen the limits of that in recent years. i think we just have to develop the expertise for these countries and figure out on an ad hoc basis with each one of them what kind of capabilities exist within the country to

counter the extremist groups. if you have a government that is reasonably stable, reasonably competent, you have to work with that government for sure. if you do not have then you may have to insert capabilities our cells. you can't generalize too much. the kind of plots we had with fedex and ups packages that were sent into the united states that originated in yemen indicate test the challenges that we confront. you have to have a multi layer approach, obviously, to deal with these, not just in country, but tried to stop it when it's in transport whenever the threat may be. we said in our report about the

evolving nature of the threat. this is a mind of the fangs exactly what we meant. it is a formidable challenge. >> i would suggest, you can't do it at a public cheering, but when you have private hearings with members of the intelligence community, i would ask, have our source of the information's been compromised? how much? where did we find out the information we used to stop plots? we get information from various governments. was it the egyptian government? can we still depend on the? did we get stuff out of even libya? a lot of those people are working with us. probably not on an inability to day. if we are losing those sources of information, what will we do about it? >> thank you.

>> the afghanistan experience should tell us not to ignore these countries. as difficult as it may be, if we had intelligence, in groups that are plotting against the united states in some way or our allies, i think we have to get our brains together and figure out the best way to do it. depending on the strength of the intelligence you may want to use drones, you may want to use special operation forces. your preference would be to have the local government deal with it, but if the local government doesn't deal with the then we have to take a position that it is a threat to our national security and deal with it. >> thank you for those comments. i just want to say again to both of you, thank you so much for being an inspiration to us all. >> thank you.

governor, i have a few more. the be the last one here. we talked about the evolving nature of the threat, and i know that we agree that one of the most significant developments in terms of the terrorist threat has been the home run radicalization and self radicalization. it may have existed in some way before, but not really in an observable or consequential way, and we have seen it over and over again in cases that have existed, including the two that you mentioned, a gunner, in 2009 in which a successful terrorist attacks were carried out both in arkansas and at fort hood. those are both on grounds of radicalization cases. it's not totally clear who he

connected with in yemen, but he was radicalized. by coincidence just this morning i was informed by my staff the last night the most recent addition of a magazine called inspire, the fifth edition which is published by al qaeda on the arabian peninsula appeared. quite remarkable. very slick. printed in english, published in english, aimed at an english-speaking audience, including here in america. i think increasingly and perhaps we should take this as some kind of compliment, if you will, that we have built up our perimeter defenses, you might say. protecting the homeland such that our foreign enemies are now trying to develop within our country people who can carry out

terrorist attacks. anyway, we have done a number of hearings and made recommendations about this. it is obviously a complicated problem because the most difficult, unlike 9/11 which we should have detected and stopped , very often these are people operating as so-called lone wolves. i note that international security prepared this has focused on this problem. i wanted to, first, thank you for that. i know you have described the problem. as you mentioned, the recommendations will come the spring. i just wanted to give you the opportunity to comment on this new element in recent years, very significant threat element, attempts to protect the homeland i don't want you to preempt your recommendations, but anything you would like to say about what more you think the government ought to be doing to stop the

problem? >> extraordinarily difficult because, as you say, our defenses based on our recommendations, many cases on your work have been to stop people like the 9/11 co-conspirators' from coming in from other countries and u.s. arm. those defenses are not adequate when the dangers come from somebody who is an american citizen. they are inspired, a lot of these people, from the internet. one of the missing pieces that we never quite nail down and the 9/11 report was whether or not it was anyone in this country that supported or helped the terrorists in any way. we had a suspicion that this guy we mentioned his report. we have not got the staff for

time to dig into it further, but his contacts were suspicious. he is now gone and has become one of the people that is recruiting overseas. he has a definite connection to even the 9/11 hijackers. we don't believe there is an enormous radicalization taking place. a very small number of people. these people, many of them don't look like a traditional terrorists, american passports, present the greatest danger. we think there ought to be a real effort and a real dedication by our intelligence community's to implement a strategy to deal with it. i'm not sure that is in place as yet. >> senator. >> yes, sir. >> obviously it is a lot better

to stop a terrorist attack before it happens and prevent people from being injured. i think we are now in our group working on a radicalization report which we hope will have some recommendations for you before too many weeks go by. one thing -- two or three things come to mind. one is, this is a good illustration of how important it is to work with state and local officials. in my own experience and my state have seen communities that have out reach to the islamic community and those that don't. community of makes a difference. that committee knows the community better than anybody else. i think it is very important for the federal officials then, and

it's not easy because there are so many communities, but they have got to strengthen the state and local contacts in order to better prevent radicalization. secondly, i think there has to be a peer out reach to the islamic community. i no there is some controversial aspects, but most of the islamic leaders with whom i have had any contact want to help. believe you me, they know their communities pretty well, not perfectly, but pretty well. and so did liaison with those people is very, very important. we have a representative today from the nypd. i have been -- he would not much more about this than i, but i am

impressed with the way the nypd has -- i'm not sure the quite -- the right word to use,d various communities within the new york city region and have reached out to try to understand those communities better. the people that cause you trouble our young men for the most part. they are the key. now, maybe not exclusively, but for the most part. the community bidders have to understand their own young people. i think that the new york pd, the nypd has set an example of contacts that other metropolitan areas to follow. the other thing we talked about

earlier is the coordination or effort within the federal government, if you ask the question today, who is in charge of dealing with homeland radicalization in our government i don't think i could answer that. maybe someone from the government can. it's not very clear to me who it is. there ought to be somebody in charge. >> i agreed to be we have asked that question. the answer we got was the director of the national counter-terrorism center is in charge. that surprised us, frankly. there is an attempt to try to organize this better and a recognition that this is a real problem. we will benefit from your recommendations greatly, and a look forward to them. >> they need operational responsibility. >> that is the problem.

interestingly enough, and this now goes back a while, we had a hearing here maybe two years ago now. it's somewhat dated, but a hearing with some leaders of the muslim american community. we asked, is there any agency of the federal government that has gone out reach to your community which has done the most? to me the surprising answer we got was, yes, the fbi through its state offices had been reaching out quite a lot and had some communication the nypd sets the standard. it has committed -- not inexpensive, labor intensive. they have committed a lot, maybe because they were so struck, traumatized by 9/11 they have committed a lot of resources and excellent communication with the

muslim american community. the lapd does a great job, but there are some places and the country with significant muslim american communities where my impression is that the outreach and communication from local law-enforcement is slim to none. that is a dangerous situation. we look forward to your recommendations. senator calls mentioned something at the beginning. i'll do it quickly because i know we are both concerned about this. to come back to your report, you do a great service by identifying the enemy here and saying, yes, it was al qaeda. more broadly it is an ideology which is violent islamist to extremism. that is what inspired the attacks of 9/11 and has

continued to inspire this myriad of attacks large and small since then. at that you made a substantial contribution when you said, ', we are not fighting terrorism, some generic evil we are fighting an ideology, a corruption of theology. our strategy must match our means to to ms, dismantling the al qaeda network and prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to islam and terrorism. it has been so frustrating that the administration continues to resist identifying the ideology preferring instead to say that we are in a conflict with violent extremism. it is by no the extremism, but a particular kind. in our report on the fort hood

attack we pointed out that the defense department has even tried at one point to characterize the threat represented by the fort hood attack as workplace violence. of course it was a lot more than that. you know, i guess i understand what's going on. i think somebody thinks that if we use the term is longest extremism it is offensive to muslims. i think it is quite the opposite. we are talking about, as you said, a very small group within a larger community in america. people who are followers of islam, not islamist extremism. anyway, i invite a response. >> look, we've worked on that one. how to characterize it. debates on the commission and did research.

>> right. >> for instance, some people suggested jihadist, some good connotations in the muslim world. we rejected a lot of these terms. islamist doesn't. as llamas to extremism is what it is. i think words are important and language is important. naming the enemy is important. islamist extremism is as good a time as we have been able to find for actually identify what the problem is into the people are. i think everything from our research shows that the community itself accepts that term. >> i appreciate that answer. i continue to use the term that you use because islamist makes the point that this -- that a political ideology really has exploited their religion. not islam. that me ask the last question.

the commission made it, a series of recommendations. successful on almost every one of them. convincing both and wrestling the bureaucracy to except what you were recommending and also our colleagues. this was very disappointing. center collins and i, very stubborn people. normally we don't yield, bob the reaction has been so overwhelming that we pull back a bit. i think that mary and carry are ready to take up this battle again. it is worth trying to do it. the truth is the oversight and congress is much too diffuse and overlapping. the consequence of that is that we are taking much too much time

of the executives, particularly in the department of homeland security. i wanted to ask you if you have any thoughts about how to go at this. some sense about whether there is a way in which we can prioritize. at think we try to do a lot at the outset. we get totally defeated. this give me your thoughts about whether you think it still is a problem. they have a tactical suggestions about how we might take this up knowing that these too irresistible forces focus on this. >> you know, lee mentioned why congressional oversight is so important. the rest of us can know the

information that you know when you are doing your oversight. only you can say how effective it is. if the administration is really forthcoming in the way it has to be when they talk to you and if you really feel that you get every answer you want and the oversight is effective, that's great. we thought it would be much more effective to be interesting enough every time, now it is the third, director of homeland security. everyone has said what can we do for you? number one, do something about congressional oversight. that's important. between 80 and 90 committees. they all say they are spending as much time testifying when they should be protecting it. preparing congressional testimony takes time. it takes time testifying. they are doing a lot of it to be that is extraordinarily important.

giving the intelligence committee some fiscal responsibility. if they are not paying attention they will. also we think very, very important. it was a top priority. we think it still is. anything that increases your ability to oversee these intelligence agencies and make them perform is a step for protecting the country. the you have any thoughts? >> two points. one going back to your earlier question. how to deal with islamist extremism. your comments are well taken. know your enemy is the first goal of finding anybody. i sometimes think we have a good bit of confusion on hit the enemy is. on the positive side of want to say that in the war of ideas i think we have made some progress. the progress is that al qaeda is having a hard time. they have identified themselves

as of violent organization. i think we are making some progress there. it is important progress because they have not rallied the masses to their support. so that needs to be said, but your basic point is very much on target. the second point on the congress , boy, oh boy. i think things happen in the congress when the leaders don't. my perspective is a little more from the house, obviously, that from the senate. i wonder whether are not the key national security officials in the hs, secretary of intelligence officials and so for have been able to sit down

in a congenial environment to discuss this problem with the leaders of both the minority and the majority party's. it is such an obvious thing and that you weekend and department like vhs when you have all the time that they have to spend that you referred to testifying. so i think we need to focus our attention on the of the bodies. they have to understand that this is a national security problem. they are not dealing with a political problem and domestic consequences. they are dealing with trying to make the national security of the united states, putting it on a firmer basis. when the congress requires, i was told at one time that every single senator sits on some

committee dealing with homeland security oversight. i don't know if that is exactly right. if it is, it is an absurdity. that is not the problem. you are undermining the effectiveness of homeland security. i don't know any way to get at it other than impressing upon the leaders the necessity of doing this for the national security interest of the estate's. the leaders have enormous problems in both bodies, but they tend, if any be so blunt, to look at so many of these problems as an internal political problem that they have to solve in order to maintain their position in the caucus. okay. we are not naive, but this is a different quality problem.

we have to get that across. >> that is very helpful, and something for us to work on. the truth is the leaders have not made an attempt at this with everything else going on, since the legislation was first considered in 2004. the truth is they didn't make much of an attempt then, really hardly any attempt because they're working so hard on getting the rest of the legislation passed. why take on this fight? but it is also true that the people that have the most interest in seeing this kicks which is the leaders of the homeland security department, they always have of the priorities. maybe the immediate budget priority, maybe a legislative