.. >> the state department today faced charges of failing to report terrorism threats to congress. specifically about weapons of mass destruction. that accusation came from texas

republican mike mccall, chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on oversight and the hearing includes testimony from steve call of the new america foundation and two georgetown university professors who study national security and counterterrorism. the hearing focuses on terrorist groups in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. it's two hours. >> i'd like to welcome our witnesses to this hearing entitled denying safe havens, homeland security's effort to counter threats from pakistan, yemen, and somalia. although, bin laden is dead, al-qaeda and its affiliates are not. they are hiding in safe havens, areas that are exploited by terrorists to recruit, train, raise funds, and plan operations. the department of state has identified 13 countries agenting as safe havens today. today, we examine three that we believe pose the most serious

threat to the united states, and that is pakistan, yemen, and somalia, and what is the u.s. government doing to deny these places as a refuge for terrorists? bin laden was the most wanted terrorist, yet he lived comfortably in a town that serves as a head jr. quarters for frontier course and regimens, 41 miles from islam bad contrary to our beliefs he was hiding why a cave. he was not hiding in a cave. he was not in the mountains. his compound was less than one mile or about half the distance from here to the washington monument, from the pakistan military academy or their equivalent of west point where 2,000 cadets are trained, 600 instructors teach, and

approximately 200 representatives from other countries visit and receive training each year. cnn reported he sought a deal with pakistan in which he would not attack pakistan in exchange for protection. we do not know whot government was aware of bin laden's preps, but i am certain that some pakistan officials knew he was living in plain sight, not exactly the average house in an ordinary neighborhood. it stuck out like a sore thumb. it's difficult to determine how many groups operate out of pakistan, but we do know al-qaeda, the afghan taliban and the pakistani taliban and others use this country as a staging ground for attacks on u.s. troops to kill american citizens and terrorize countries throughout the world. for example, omar, the spiritual

leader of the pal ban is -- taliban is believed to the in pakistan. others hiding in yemen, the equivalent of the bin laden of the internet. he provides spiritual guidance recruiting terrorists via youtube and facebook and inspired more than two dozen treasure plots at the united states in two years. the fort hood shooter e-mailed him on numerous occasions before killing 13 people including soldiers and wounding 30 others. abdul, the christmas bomber, was in contact with him before afelting to set off an explosive on board flight 254, an international flight bound for detroit. experts believe al-qaeda and the arabian peninsula in yemen will attempt to become the

successor. because there's no central authority in somalia, al-qaeda and other associated terrorist groups will also use it as a base ever operations to attack western targets. according to the 2009 report on terrorism issued by the national counterterrorism center, they are considered by u.s. officials as one of the most deadly terrorist groups in the world. not only is somalia a base for terrorists, but pirates operating off the coast are threats to international shipping. this is contributed to an increase in shipping costs and the delivery of food aid shipments. 90% of the world's aid food programs arrive by sea and ships and now require a military escort. numerous documents addressed the problem of terrorist safe hatches. the 9/11's commission report to congress concluded the safe haven of afghanistan allowed al-qaeda operational space to

gather recruits and build logistical networks to conduct attacks against the united states. the obama's administration national security strategy states we'll deny safe haven and strengthen at-risk states. this nss report points out a government approach that is needed to include information sharing, law enforcement cooperation, and establishing new practices to counter terrorists. the document requires the united states to help countries build capacities for responsible governments and security. existing u.s. law, the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 and the national defense authorization agent for fiscal year 2010 requires the administration to produce a list of what each agency is doing to deny terrorists safe havens. the government accountability

office, or gao, examined the u.s. government approach and concluded that number one, safe havens are a threat to the united states, and number two, a more comprehensive list of agency efforts is needed so congress can adequately oversee and assess how the united states is denying safe havens to terrorists. in other words, gao concludes that this administration is not complying with these requirements. we currently have an incomplete picture of what each of these countries is doing to eliminate safe havens, what they are doing to prevent the proliferation and weapons of mass destruction and what they are doing to cooperate with the u.s. counterterrorism officials. this knowledge is vital to congress' ability to croft foreign policy that holds countries accountable for aiding terrorists by looking at other way. i applaud our government's efforts, but more has to be done. eliminating the terrorist base of operations where they have

the ability to recruit, train, and plan their operations is 9 key to preventing future attacks on american soil. osama bin laden orchestrated the 9/11 attacks from his safe hatch in afghanistan. others have been able to inspire more than two dozen plots against the united states over the past two years including the fort hood shootings and the christmas bomber. this will assess the role of the u.s. government in denying the terrorists the ability to reconstitute, and before i yield my time to ranking member, i do want to thank the brave men and women of our armed services, the civilians, and the departments of state and homeland security, and those across the government agencies who serve overseas. they constitute our best defense against the terrorists who want to kill us. with that, i yield and recognize the ranking member of this

committee, mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for convening today's hearing on u.s. efforts with safe havens and counter threats from pakistan, yemen, and somalia. the 9/11 attacks were coordinated from a safe haven in afghanistan. they later stated the u.s. "strategy should include operations to counter terrorism, and operations should not be in safe havens to grow and flourish." terrorism in america right now is the number one security threat. denying safe haven to terrorists is a paramount concern to our homeland security, and an important step in keeping the community safe from terrorism. we know that safe havens exist in ungoverned, undergoverned, and ill-governed areas of the world providing terrorists are cover and allow them the space

to operate ambitious treasure attacks. there's many agencies who play in counter efforts, and i thank the pam for joining us as part of that grouping. the departments of state, homeland security, justice, and defense are all but a few of the u.s. agencies combining their efforts in countering this threat. i'm interested in hearing today from our witnesses, the level of cooperation that presently exists among the various agencies and whether this multiagency approach is producing positive results for our homeland security. i think cooperation is one of the challenges that we all face in a threat so complicated and serious as this, and it's important that the coordination exists as seemlessly as possible. i'm concerned that congress receive a full and comprehensive listing of the government's efforts especially in light of the risk safe havens pose to the

safety and security of u.s. interest both at home and abroad. one hand needs to know what the other hand is doing and the production of this report in the manner intended by congress will allow that to happen. while today's focus is on physical safe hatches, we must also consider the broader safe hatches of the future. electronic infrastructure and global communications play an important role in terrorist operations and awhrow for virtual safe havens that are much harder to disrupt and dismantle than physical safe havens. the may 1 killing of bin laden who escaped detection by hiding in a safe haven located in an heavily populated governed area that indicates the terms of safe haven does not always equate with remoteness, scarcely populated areas, or lawless areas.

i look forward to hearing from both panels and receive recommendations on strategies from the best approach of addressing terrorist safe haven, and i yield back my time. >> i thank the ranking member, and i couldn't agree with you more that the virtual safe havens are a threat as realm. i know we've had hearings on radicalization over the internet which i think poses one of the biggest threats we have today. other members are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this important topic, and i want to introduce each of you. i hope we can get through your testimony. we have a series of votes coming up in probably about 30 minutes from now. it will be two votes, and then we'll return to the hearing. first, we have a ms. jackie williams-bridgers, managing director of the international affairs and tread team for the government accountability office. she began her professional

career in the gao in 1978 and she's been the in respecter general of the u.s. department of state and the u.s. arms control and disarmerment agency. it's a pleasure to have you here today. next we have mr. mark commons for international affairs at the -- mark koumans responsible for coordinating the international programs and policies. he served in the u.s. foreign service concentrating on counterterrorism and security issues, and it's an honor to have you here as well, sir. next is shari villarosa, deputy coordinated at department of state and served in beer ma many -- beer ma and her career included oversea assignments in brazil and ceo qa dore and others.

next we have mr. roberts who began his government career as a u.s. army private in 1968 serving 24 years on active duty as a military intelligence officer. let me thank you for your service to our country, and thank all of you for being here today. i've been informed that we're going to have votes in probably five minutes or so? in fact, they just called it just now. [laughter] i would -- they'll stay open -- i think we can proceed with some of the testimony. they usually keep the votes een open for 30 minutes. with that, ms. williams bridgers is recognized. >> ranking member and members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased to be here to discuss the reports released today to address safe

havens. safe havens allow terrorists the freedom to train, recruit, and plan deadly operations that constitute a threat to the united states. as you mentioned in your opening statement, charm, such ever such was the case with the attempted airline bomber which was planned from safe havens in yemen. most recently, the discovery of bin laden in a compound near a military base in pakistan makes this hearing particularly timely. i focus on three questions. to what extent do u.s. strategies focus on safe havens? what safe hatches have been identified, and has the u.s. developed an assessment of its efforts to deny terrorists the ability to train, recruit, plan deadly operations against us? my first point is that the u.s. government emphasizes the importance of denying safe

havens to terrorists in several strategic documents. three national security strategies released since 2002 and a national strategy for combating terrorism which was last updated in 2006 identifying safe havens as a national security concern. the national strategy for combating terrorism noted that the elimination of terrorist safe hatches requires the attention of all elements of national power with a focus on information sharing, law enforcement, and foreign capacity building in security sectors. in addition to national strategies, defense, justice, state, u.s. heaven aid, and the office of director of national intelligence issued strategic plans including language every sizing the importance of addressing safe havens. however, other agencies like dhs significantly involved in law enforcement efforts overseas do not specify the needs to address safe havens in their plans.

my second point -- in compliance with congressional mandates, state department identifies safe havens around the globe that threaten u.s. national security. congressman dated that state perform a detailed assessment of each foreign country who is used as a sank wash to terrorists. of note, since 2007, only one country, indonesia, and one region, the afghanistan-pakistan border, has been removed from the list of safe havens. state most recently in its country report issued in august of last year identified 13 countries as safe havens. each of the three countries that are the focus of this hearing today have areas that terrorists use as safe havens. for example, in pakistan, several terrorist organization maintain safe havens including the core of al chi cay, the

pakistani taliban. each attempted attacks against the united states or views american interests as legitimate targets. for example, the pakistani taliban claimed responsibility for the failed city bombing in times square in 2010. in yemen, they planned the bombing of a plane heading to the united states on december 25, 2009 and claimed responsibility for the cargo planes in late 2010. also in 2010, the united states designateed a u.s. citizen for supporting acts of terrorism on behalf of quap. in somalia, core leadership linked to al-qaeda claimed responsibility for bombings and shootings in somalia as well as the shooting in uganda.

last year, the fbi indicted 12 people including five u.s. citizens for providing support. in addition, the fbi expressed concerns about americans trained in somalia who might plan to conduct attacks inside the united states. my third point is that despite the expressed desire of the congress to receive comprehensive assessment of the united states efforts to deny terrorism safe harbor, the united states government has not developed such an evaluation. beginning in 2004, congress required the administration to submit reports outlining u.s. government efforts to deny or disrupt safe havens. in response, state submitted a report to congress in 2006 and subsequently updated information in its annual country report. while the reports including the most recent update issued in august 2010 identifies several u.s. efforts to address safe hatches, we found that each report is not complete for two

reasons. first, the country reports do not include at least 13 programs and activities that state funds to address safe havens. for example, state funded training provided through dhs to combat bulk cash smuggling were not included. second, programs and activities funded by agencies other than state departments like defense, justice, treasury were not include the. for example, dod's afghanistan and iraqi security forces funds and the 1206 program used to prain and equip foreign security forces were not included. to enhance the usefulness of state's reporting, we recommend they include an assessment of key programs addressing terrorist safe havens. state concurred the reporting should be more comprehensive, but did not agree such a list should be part of the country's report citing another report. we examined that report, the antiterrorism report and determines it does not constitute a guest wide

assessment of key u.s. efforts because it does not include the key agencies like dod. in 2010, congress again required the president to report on u.s. counterterrorism efforts relating to the denial of safe havens. we understand at the national security counsel has been assigned responsibility for completing this report, but no report submitted to congress. to address this reporting gap, we recommended that the nfc in collaboration with other agencies complete the congressional reporting requirement to identify and assess government wide efforts related to denial of terrorist safe harbors. chairman mccaul and chairman, that concludes my statement. >> thank you for your testimony. i've been informed we just have one vote so i ask that we take a very short break, you know, make the one vote and come right back to the hearing, and i appreciate your patience.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing comes to order. i appreciate the patience of everybody in the room and now hopefully we can finish the hearing before the next series of votes. with that, you are recognized for five minutes. >> sorry. good morning chairman and ranking member and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify on the department of

homeland security's role in support of u.s. efforts to address terrorist safe havens. protecting the united states from terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland security and denying terrorist safe havens is one the best ways to undermind their capacity to operate. the state department defines safe haven z as ungoverned or undergovern where they threaten u.s. national security, can organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, and train because of inadequate governments, political will, or both. let me first clarify dhs is concerned about threats foreign or domestic whether or not they come from safe havens. we base actions by deciding who is allowed entry in the united states. by the experience of the officers in the field and the best intelligence, we take the movements into account when making our screening decisions and in the other work we do, but dhs does not base decisions on

whether a particular area is designated a safe hatch. to address the problem of safe havens, prevent threat, and reduce risk, we work closely with departments of state and defense and other departments and agencies to protect the homeland from terrorist attack and deny terrorists the ability to finance their abilities. one of the important ways we conduct these efforts is to strengthen the carpets of foreign partners and believe it makes them stronger and them and the u.s. more secure by improving economic activity, fighting criminality, and supporting the rule of law decreasing the likelihood of safe havens. we provide technical assistance to strengthen our partner's ability to combat trrs #* -- terrorists. therefore, when our interests and priorities overlap, dhs works with the u.s. agencies that hold the authority to fund

such foreign assistance. these cooperative efforts to work with our international partners do not hinge exclusively on whether a particular area is a safe haven, but instead are based on where our assistance can help build a partner's capacity to increase security, fight transnational crime, and combat terrorism. for example, in afghanistan, dhs has led efforts that significantly improved the ability of the afghan government to control borders, increase customs revenue collection, and facilitate trade while preventing the movement of illegal goods and improvised explosive devices. this effort is based on previous efforts dhs carried out in iraq, efforts defense department officials supported and encouraged dhs to carry out in afghanistan. our work included mentoring afghan border and custom officials at border posts, tackling boat cash smuggling through kabul international airport, and establishing a training academy for afghan

officials. to cite another example, the terrorist attacks last october after two printers were found rigged with explosives, we asemibled a team to yemen. they trained officials to mitigate threats in air cargo in yemen. also this april, provided training in pakistan to counter cash smuggling and identify explosives training four officers from agencies including the federal investigative agency, customs force, and airport security force. at the same time, dhs is strengthening coordination among many components and offices internationally establishing the first national strategy consolidating information about the technical assistance activities worldwide in part to ensure our activities are aligned with our priorities.

this helps us work effectively with the departments of state and defense. chairman, ranking member clark, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i look forward to working with you as we explore opportunities as we advance our efforts and cooperation with international partners to deny terrorist safe haven. thank you again for the opportunity to testimony. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for the testimony, and the chair recognizes ms. villarosa. >> chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss state department's efforts in coordination with our other agency partners to eliminate terrorist safe havens. our ultimate success against terrorism depends on eliminating these safe havens which have generally developed in remote areas where there is little to no effective governments, frequently in border regions.

this requires a whole of government effort and an attempt to address security needs while building the rule of law including the capacity to counter violent extremism to delegitimize violence in those virtual safe hatches. in order for our strategy to be effective, we must develop regional approaches with the neighboring countries to shrink the space in which terrorists can operate. we build this regional cooperation by bringing our ambassadors together with senior inner agency officials to device strategies and action plans. state works with defense to build the capacity of military and civilian law enforcement officials. state works if the homeland

security to tighten border security. state works with treasury to restrict the flow of funds in and out of terrorist state hatches. state works with justice and fbi to improve investigative and prosecutor capacity so countries can build effective criminal cases against terrorists, and state works with u.s.-aid to improve governments by establishing the rule of law, assisting with the provision of basic services like health and education and promoting peaceful conflict resolution. we achieved success with this approach. laema can no longer travel freely due to maritime procedures. i understand knee sha's success in -- indonesia had success in prosecuting and training camps, and in the transsaherra countries have the will to fight

terrorism, but lack the capacity and welcome our assistance to build capacity and to counter violent extremists. our assistance began to work together to take action against the al-qaeda affiliate operating in their territory. the committee asked us to address three of the toughest challenges we still face, pakistan, yemen, and somalia. our complex relationship with pakistan is well-known and it's also important to remember that as a result of our cooperation, we have been able to strike major blows against al-qaeda's ability to seek safe haven in pakistan. the challenge remains to make these advances durable and sustainable. we are assisting pakistanis with basic services and approve governments in the tribal areas bordering afghanistan. we will continue to press pakistan for increased action against terrorist groups

operating within its borders, but we must also continue to help pakistan help itself to eliminate terrorist safe havens. al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula operating from yemen fried multiple times to attack us. we had some success in 2009, in 2010 with our strategy. we worked with the yes , yemens to take action against imminent threats and also helped the yemen government to deliver basic services and security to its people. we're hopeful that future yemen leaders will be solid counterterrorism partners once the political situation there is resolved. somalia has not had a functioning central government for 20 years. the main terrorist group has links with al-qaeda and conducted a major attack outside of somalia last july killing 76 people in uganda.

a defense launched earlier this year by somalia and partner nation forces reduced the territorial control and caused defections. clearly, more needs to be done to consolidate political control over the newly liberated areas. we have also begun a more intensive outreach to the somalia diaspora and civil society to foster peaceful reconciliation. in conclusion, the threat is per midble, but we're making progress. the strategic approach is countering extremism and broader regional cooperation providing us with the tools to make lasting progress. thank you very much, and i welcome your questions. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. roberts for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member clark, and the distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to

testify today and share with you the department's efforts to address underor ungoverned territories to preclude their use by terrorists and safe hatches. we recognize this requires close upper agency coordination. in fact, cooperation as is reflected by our panel here this morning. eliminating safe hatches is a core element of the defense department's counterterrorism efforts. as secretary gates has written and said on numerous occasions, in the decades to come, the most lethal threats to the united states safety and security are likely to emanate from states that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territories, not from strong states or pure competitors. dealing with these fractured and failing states is in many ways the main security challenge of our time. your focus today on pakistan, yemen, and somalia highlight the

many and diverse challenges such states can present. today's calculus demands we focus on building capacity, helping other countries to develop the tools for their security and govern nans, to defense themselves and to defend us by extension. we do this by providing them with education, equipment, training, and other forms of security assistance. america's efforts to build the capacity of our partners will always be defined by support for healthy, civil military relations. respect for human dignity and the rule of law, promotion of humanitarian law, and the professionalization of partner military forces. timely, as a long standing member of the special operations family, i i want to take a moment to remember those who

killed bin laden early last month. even as we work to eliminate safe havens, we appreciate the risks our armed forces take to eliminate threats when necessary. the department is also grateful for the outstanding support you and the congress provide to our nation's military forces in general, and in my case, to our special operations forces in particular. mr. chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. i ask the written statement i provided be entered in its entirety into the congressional record. i will be pleased to respond to any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. roberts. allow me to associate myself with your remarks regarding the navy seal operation that killed bin laden. no one will ever know the names or faces, but they are truly the unsung heros, and in addition, i would like to also commend and

recognize the intelligence community and the analysts who were able to track down the information that let us to bin laden. they, too, will never know their names or faces. the public, at least, but they deserve our congratulations as well. with that, ms. williams-bridgers, the gao came out with your report, and i want to go through some of the conclusions with you, and i want to assess how that impacts our ability to go after these terrorists in the safe havens, but essentially as i understand it, your report concludes that the state department did not fully comply with the level detail required by two laws, two statutes, one being the national

defense authorization act, and the second one being the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. these acts require the president to submit to the congress a report on the strategy and activities of the u.s. government to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. can you tell this committee where -- how these reports were defirst time, and what impact that has on our ability to hunt down terrorists in safe hatches. >> thank you for the question. i'd be glad to respond. with regard to the report mandated by the national defense authorization act, that requires the president to complete an overall assessment of u.s. government-wide efforts to address terrorist safe havens. that report has not yet been completed. we understand the speedometer has been delegated to the national security counsel, and our conversations during the course of our review, the

national security counsel says they're in the process of developing that report, so we are looking forward to receiving it and having an examination of it. we think it's critically important for there to be a high level national statement of the priorities, the goals, the objectives, and hopefully we'll see the level of detail in that assessment that will afford congress the opportunity to measure over time progress being made. with regard to the intelligence reform and terrorist prevention act, it specifically mandated that state department produce reports on an annual basis that reppedders country -- renders country by country assessments, those identified as safe hatches, and then assess the countries by the actions they've taken to prevent terrorism actions that the countries demonstrated as being cooperative with the united states, and to explain the level of knowledge that exists within these governments about

terrorist activity or say the presence of safe havens in their countries. the one provision congress recommended that we did not see in any of the country reports related to the provisions that would require state department to report on actions taken by countries to prevent the proliferation and trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. this was absent in every single country report. two states credit during the course of our review acknowledged that that provision had not been adequately responded to and they intended to incooperate it in their next report to be issued some time this year. >> your testimony indicates and your report issued that these reports are incomplete. >> correct. >> and are not in compliance with the requirements under

these two statutes? >> absolutely, absolutely. in addition, sir, i would also add in the assessment what we expect -- what i believe congress expected to see in articulation of its need to have a full assessment of information on which it could provide adequate oversight. we expected to see a listing of all activity undertaken by the whole of the u.s. government, all agencies that have a presence and contribute in a relevant and significant way towards the detection and elimination of terrorist safe havens. that was not clear and it was not complete. in the course of our review, we identified at least 13 programs that are funded by state department that we consider to be most relevant, programs that speaks to government's capacity building security, economic

development activities, this whole of government approach that was articulated in the most recent national strategic statement. we also did not see the listing of other agencies, not all other agencies programs and activities, such as dhs. as i mentioned in my opening statement, activities that dhs advancing with regard to cash smuggling that leads to money laundering which leads to financing of terrorist groups and operations which was not included in the state country report. >> so the lack of reporting by the national security com which they assured you they will be coming out with a report soon? >> yes. >> but coupled with the deficiencies in this report by both dhs and the state department is not allowing congress to do its oversight responsibility; is that correct? >> i believe that it does not provide congress with sigh detail and explanation and evaluation that allows you to

measure overtime what progress was made. for example, the removal of indonesia from the country report. it took digging for our teams to look over time to see what countries were in and which were out. there's no statement on any country report, the most current report that a country has been removed or the afghan-pakistan area was removed. that took some concerted effort and examining and data mining if you will. that kind of information needs to be provided to give you a sense of progress or lack thereof. >> as i understand it, there's no metrics reported; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> this committee, foreign affairs, armed services, the intelligence committee cannot adequately perform its job without this information? >> it cannot adequately perform the job without the insertion. the information is not currently available in open sources, however, it may be available and classified environment, and it

might be most appropriate in a classified reporting environment. the congress allowed state department to provide it that type of more sensitive information in a classified report. state department has chosen not to issue that type of report. >> i would like to give, obviously, the state department, ms. villarosa and others the opportunity to respond to the allegations in this report. we'll start with ms. villarosa. >> thank you, chairman. again, we took to heart, we have talked with the gao about the deficiencies in the country reports in terrorism and are in the process in the 2010 version to make them -- to be -- to make them more comprehensive as the gao recommended, and this will

include addressing efforts that are done with regard to the prorifflation of weapons of mass destruction. we're working with the bureau of isn international security and no proliferation of theirs to provide that information so that it is as comprehensive as possible. >> okay. i mean, tracking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seems to be a pretty serious thing that we should be reporting. why was that not included? >> again, i know that this is -- this -- our bureau of international security and nonprorifflation tracks this very closely, and it -- i do not know in terms of what their reporting requirements are, but

we understand that we need to include this information in the country reports of terrorism and are in the process of doing so now. >> i certainly hope so. i mean, that seems to be a major oversight in the reporting requirement that is by law, and it -- i think it harms our ability in the congress as chairman of the oversighted up vest gageses committee on home land security. it does not allow us to do our jobs, so i would hope that this report be updated as soon as possible. i want to commend the gao for calling this to our attention. i don't think many people knew about that, certainly, either on this committee or in the congress as a whole, and i think that's a major gap in the reporting requirement, and mr. koumans, do you have any comments? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i come at this question from the point of view of having been a foreign service officer as you mentioned in your opening remarks for 17 years before i came to homeland security, and perhaps similarly to what ms. villarosa was posted overseas during times when i had to write the first draft of the counter terrorism country reports that have been submitted back to washington and further amplified by the washington interagency community and i know the state department has specific instructions with respect to legal changes that took place in the country at that time and prosecutions, ect., and from our point of view, absolutely, if the training that icbp has done with respect to smuggling, if that should be included, we report that through other channels. we'd be happy to include that. >> this is june 2011. this is a june 2010 report. i hope dhs and state can update

this report, so that the other branch of government, that being the congress, can do its job, and so my time is way over expired, but i thank you for your testimony. i now recognize ranking member, ms. clark. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i'd like to associate myself with your opening comments as a new yorker, we are indebted and indeed grateful to our armed services, our special forces and intelligence community for eliminating the threat that was osama bin laden. i'd like to just state that for the record. let me ask the entire panel. although safe hatches have been identified in pakistan, yemen, and somalia, they each are unique and present different challenges for u.s. officials. how do the three countries differ especially as it relates to our counterterrorism strategy, and how does the u.s.

adapt to the differences? >> >> i guess i'll start with that. >> okay. >> each of these are very unique countries, and in the case of somalia, there has not been a fungsing government for over -- functioning government for over 20 years so we have a multi-- a multipronged strategy in order to start building stability with the transitional federal government forces. we're working with the african union who provided troops to assist the pfg in providing security and stability, and we're also working with the nations that surround somalia because they are also very

threatened by the threat that comes from somalia, so we're helping strengthen their borders. we're also because of the attraction of the turmoil in somalia, two members of the somalia diaspora in the west and in the united states and europe and australia, we are reaching out more broadly to the somalia diaspora to educate them about this situation, hopefully prevent people from traveling to take part in the violence, but this will a long-term effort. we are providing training for both the forces as well as the tfg forces. we are -- we're -- we are -- we're also working with some of the other sort of islands of

stability that we find in somalia, but our goal is a peaceful stable somalia, and it will take awhile. in pakistan, again, you have an established government which has its challenges that we're trying to address. there's some severe economic challenges. there's a lot of local grievances, and so we have tried to address those local grievances through a lot of our u.s.-aid programs, but at the same time, we're trying to work -- we've been working closely with homeland security in terms of building up border security and also preventing the movement of improvised explosive materials into afghanistan where they are killing our troops so we need to work on that.

we need to work very much with the security forces. pakistan has 147,000 troops in the border provinces that they have been working to eliminate the terrorist threats there so we need to continue working with them through dod to help build their ability to take action. wops they clear out these -- once they clear out these terrorists, then we want to help them hold that and start providing basic services that the people have not -- that have not been forthcoming in the past. in the case of yemen, it's on the front page of the newspapers today. there was a very serious political dispute going on. this -- but, at the same time there's a very real terrorist threat in that country.

obviously, the political uncertainty right now makes it difficult for us to do very much, but we have been working to train the yemen security forces again to exercise more control, and as i mentioned earlier, we had a lot of success in 2009 in 2010. we're also working through u.s.-aid to reach out and, again, assist in the provision of services and promote countering violent extremism to delegitimize the violence. we've been working -- there's a lot of european partners, saudis, the gulf states who are interested in working with us to delegitimize violence, prevent people from being recruited, so we do, again, we have multifaceted approaches to take

on the particular challenges of each one of these very complex countries. >> i want to thank you. my time expired, and if time permits, we'll continue on that question. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, and thank you all for being here today and your testimony and to ms. villarosa in particular, i'd like to state that since i've been -- i'm a freshman and been here january 5 i believe we were sworn in, i believe i've been to 417 different events, one of which was at the state department where the secretary of state invited the freshmen class over, and i was struck that night with the dedication of everyone over there. you go to these events and it's like, hi, how are you, get moved in, everything going okay in dc

for you? but at the department of state, everyone was excited about what they do. they were very engaging. they -- people some dated back to working in the rage p administration were over there, and if you can carry a message back to the sec and to your co-workers how much i appreciated that and their dedication to what they do, i'd appreciate it, and, now -- >> i'm glad to deliver that message, thank you so much. >> okay. that should be an easy one for you to carry back. [laughter] mr. koumans, in your opinion do you think the department of homeland security is doing all they can to deny terrorist safe havens today? >> thank you for the question, mr. congressman. the -- there is a -- there's enormous amount that condition done. i'm satisfied with the amount of work we're doing with the departments of state and defense. there is always more to do, and

i think it becomes a question for our leadership and partnership with congress and partnership with the departments of state and defense to determine where the priorities should be, where to direct the resources, and to remain nimble to be prepared to shift resources as circumstances warrant. >> you in your testimony you kind of reiterated or said i guess that you do work closely with departments of state and defense. in your opinion, to what extent does the department of state coordinate its efforts with dhs personnel overseas? >> i think, mr. copingman, thank you for your comment and your question. i think we cooperate very closely on the ground, at the embassies overseas, and typically dhs, tsa and others are part of the ambassador's country team and partner with

the other members of the country team, with the department of justice, department of defense, and others who are in the law enforcement and intelligence security cooperation groups that can establish at the post. coordinating with respect to visits, high level engagement, with the country leadership, it is an ongoing effort and one that requires a lot of work there on the ground. we tried to copy that cooperation and build on it here back in washington, and i think the cooperation that we have is extremely high level. >> ms. villarosa made mention a minute ago, and i'm still on you mr. koumans, mentioned yemen, and can you tell us how many dhs personnel is in pakistan and yemen and what their duties are? >> sure. thank you, mr. congressman. we currently have three people in pakistan, three immigration

customs enforcement officers. we normally have two in yemen also from ice, but we currently have one there due to the security situation and the departure that was ordered, we are down to just one person there. the -- question as to their responsibilities, they carry out the full range of responsibility of trafficking, contraband of every kind, partnership with law enforcement in carrying out investigations that could have roots to other parts of the world where ice is operating, and, of course, chiefly, the united states, carrying out those investigations, partnering with the state department with respect to travelers in the united states, carrying out joint investigations and training and mentoring with local officials. >> okay. and ms. villarosa, you didn't think you would get off that easy, so i do have a question

for you. [laughter] it's been suggested the pakistan government has increased questionable partnership between known terrorist organizations and the inner services, isi if you will. do you think the united states should continue to involve pakistan in antiterror training programs and provide foreign aid? >> mr. congressman, thank you for that question. i very much believe that we should remain very closely engaged with pakistan. if we are going to succeed in our ultimate goal of defeating al-qaeda, we must work with pakistan. the security assistance that we are providing is enabling them to take action against terrorists in pakistan. we have our differences with the pakistani government, and we reiterate them regularly.

secretary clinton was just there last week and highlighted the many concerns that we have. the -- the operation of terrorist groups that represent not only a threat to us, but to pakistanis themselves are very serious, and i think secretary clinton found that the -- the pakistani officials do want to continue to cooperate. we must find -- we have to do it. it may be frustrating, but i think it's very important that we stay engaged over the long term. >> okay. i know i'm past my time, but if you'll allow me, mr. chairman, i also want to thank dhs, joplin, missouri is in my district, and we had a half mile, three quart mile, 11 miles

wide wiped out last week. fee ma, under dhs called saying we are coming, you'll have everything you need, and also said we'll have boots on the ground shortly. i said no you won't. they are here. they came an hour ago, made introductions, and craig fugate came in and the deputy director, so everybody needs to keep joplin in their prayers, and i very much appreciate the attitude. the president came in on sunday, and i was thrilled with that because he got to see with his own eyes so if you can take the message to fema, we appreciate what they are doing. >> thank you, mr. long. ..

resolution today into the issue is of blood mass destruction weapons to the whether it be a chemical weapons , and so i would ask that all three agencies represented here today both the hs, department of state and department of defense fully comply with the law which band update these reports in a more comprehensive way as soon as

possible so congress can do its job for the american people. the job of the committee is to protect the american people and without that information we cannot adequately do our jobs. so i would ask you go back to your boss and tell them we needed that information as soon as possible. we will dismiss this panel of witnesses. i want to thank you for your testimony and expertise and ask that the second panel take the recede as well. >> ha our next panel has three distinguished witnesses. first mr. stifel, president and ceo of the new america foundation. previously he spent 20 years as a senior editor and foreign correspondent at "the washington post" serving as the paper's managing, editor from 1998 to 2004. he is the recipient of numerous professional boards including two pulitzer prize and on a sort

of personal privilege, i recall reading the book ghost war many years ago which is in my judgment flood definitive piece on through the afghan soviet and now the current situation we find ourselves in today with afghanistan, pakistan, provides still i think the greatest insight into the fret that we face today. so thank you for your great contributions. second, we have professor bruce hoffman, who is currently a tenured professor at georgetown university and director of both the center for peace and security studies program. he was a resident for counterterrorism at the cia between 2004 to 2006. he also previously held the corporate chair and counterterrorism and counter insurgency at the rand corporation. finally, professor daniel is a professor also read georgetown

university. we have some great professor said georgetown it sounds like and research director and senior fellow at the center for middle east policy for the brookings institution from two paulson 52010, he was the director for the center for peace and security studies also at georgetown. he's worked as a professional staff member for the national commission on terrorist attacks, on the united states and the joint 9/11 in query house and senate intelligence committees. thank you for being here today. the chair now recognizes mr. cole for his statement. >> ranking member clark and members of the committee think you for the opportunity to testify. almost a decade after the september 11 attacks the threat to the united states from al qaeda and related groups is diminishing but remains a persistent. most interestingly al qaeda field politically and by doing so has isolated itself, its

violence and absence of a constructive ideas and programs has caused muslim populations to turn away, limiting its potential in recruitment and fund-raising. the death of osama bin laden will corrupt force the group to the crisis in al qaeda history. the group's claims on the grievances and imaginations of disenfranchised muslims is waning. yet no terrorist organization requires calling to substantial damage. al qaeda remains capable from time to time of killing hundreds and dozens of citizens at once including on american soil as evidenced from recent plots makes clear. it's already been made of the zazi case and the near miss on fun northwest flight 253. both of these plots involve safe havens abroad. pakistan and afghanistan border and yemen in the case of the christmas the bombing attempt. the state department montero's

am i digit 13 terrorist safe havens. of these 13, at least six current container al qaeda groups that has historic week despite ambitions, the most common in areas of the transparent, yemen, somalia, pakistan, afghanistan and iraq. my judgment, two of the havens currently stand out as the place is most likely to produce a potent cross border attacks, yemen and pakistan. in yemen, al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, headed by bin laden's former personal sector, has emerged as the organization's most internationally in vicious and cable franchise. because of political changes and conflicts in yemen resulting from anti-government protests of this era of spurring, the political and territorial space is enjoyed by al qaeda and the arabian peninsula are likely to expand in yemen during the next few years. the country seems to be falling in the the civil war. it is likely that al qaeda and historical islamist yemeni islamist groups will seek and gain advantage in the country's

coming turmoil as they have done in previous areas of the conflict. in pakistan, too, the trend lines for american counterterrorism goals are difficult. the discovery and killing of osama bin laden and the compound not far from the pakistan military academy has brought pakistani relations already troubled to a low point. this deterioration will have an impact on american intelligence collection and military activity in pakistan. the united states has an obvious interest in pakistan success and stability. the world's fastest growing nuclear arsenal and is adopting defense policy is likely to destabilize its military balance with india in the years ahead. all of unlawful violence and pressure within pakistan caused primarily by the pakistani taliban is very disturbing. ultimately, only a stable economically growing pluralistic pakistan with much stronger civilian leadership, healthy relationships and a more

sustainable defense policy can prevent the country from remaning a terrorist haven. over the long run, a more successful pakistan will only emerge if its military and civilian elites decide that it's in the country's national interest to increase cooperation with india particularly cooperation that will lead to greater economic integration in south asia. full peace is not necessary to produce the economic growth that altered similar patterns of internal violence, government dysfunction, terrorism and failed civil relations in countries such as indonesia, colombia, the philippines and turkey. another reset in american policy towards pakistan is on the horizon. in the security realm of what seems required is a clear and more focused more manageable effort to identify and act on a shared interest against al qaeda and in the transition ahead in afghanistan. both countries may benefit now from a period of less hopeful transforming its ambitions and more clear right focus on shared

interest. at the same time and would be helpful for the united states to reset its long-term planning to construct a pragmatic addition to promote regional economic integration in south asia as well as texas and the economic growth. thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. >> thank you mr. coll and now the chair recognizes professor hoffman. >> thank you, ranking member clark for the opportunity to testify. history has shown that al qaeda is nothing without a visible century or safe haven. indeed this is why al qaeda invested so much energy in recent years to strengthening the capability of its affiliated movements in pakistan, yemen and somalia. al qaeda best created in network transnational movement in order to ensure its survival. accordingly rather than the single monolithic entity of a decade ago, today there are several al qaeda us, not just one. each of which is different capabilities and presents different often unique

challenges. this effectively negates a one-size-fits-all strategy on our part. indeed, countermeasures' have to be tailored to the specific conditions and realities in each of these places where al qaeda and franchisees have taken root and flourished. al qaeda strategy of survival in recent years has been predicated on the expansion and consolidation of a safe haven in the sanctuary in both south asia and beyond. its greatest success of course is being in pakistan but significant strides have been made in yemen and somalia as well. indeed, since 2004, every major terrorist attack or plot against the u.s. or our european allies has emanated from al qaeda or its affiliates and associates based in pakistan, yemen or somalia. the majority of these attacks and plots originated from pakistan. sizable numbers of arabs, turks, chechens, chinese and uzbeks comprise an international she hot contention based in pakistan that along with their indigenous

allies and host to planned local, regional and international terrorist operations are an ambitious scale although fewer number the plots that have originated from yemen by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula have been no less serious and if anything even more ambitious. not surprisingly the succession of u.s. intelligence officials have expressed concern at every petty with which aqap emerged as a force in international terrorism. the holding perhaps and greater threat to u.s. security and its parent body. in al-shabaab case as well american european intelligence officials have been alarmed by the global and oceans and the international radicalization and recruitment kit devotees of this relatively new militant organization. all of these incidents represent the fruition of al qaeda's strategy to fight its enemies on multiple fronts and bases. accordingly it conducts local campaigns to this destabilization in the critical operational theaters where failed feeling states provide new opportunities for al qaeda

to extend its reach and consolidate its presence. countries such as pakistan, stalling and yemen figure prominently within the category. al qaeda also deliberately seeks to seek out citizens and residents of enemy countries who can then be brought to the centuries and safe havens for training. pakistan, yemen and somalia figure prominently in the strategy. failing to deprive al qaeda and its affiliates and associates of the safe havens and sanctuaries will almost certainly get al qaeda new momentum and greater freedom of action that expanded geographical and facilitates. this would require the operations in south asia alongside a continual scatting of the horizon to counter el pais presence and prevent its expansion, too other field and feeling states. an effective strategy will come when the technical elements of the systematically destroyed and weakening enemy capabilities.

the equally critical broad strategic imperative of breaking the cycle of terrorist insurgence recruitment and replenishment that have respected lee sustained al qaeda and fuelled its allies in yemen and somalia as well and the operations would be a critical element of this approach. this will also have the ability in the post nation capabilities to a greater and more sustained extent than currently exists. it would be dangerously precipitous at this time to declare a total victory. the hopes of renewal and regeneration in the aftermath of bin laden's killing rests upon its continued access to the geographical sanctuaries and safe havens that the movement has always depended on and accused the basis with which to plot and plan international terrorist strikes. only by depriving al qaeda of this increase destroying the organization leadership and disrupting the continued residence of its message will al qaeda finally be defeated.

thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the professor for his statement. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member clark, members of the subcommittee thank you for this opportunity to present my views today. let me briefly summarize some of the point in my written testimony. as i think we all agree on this panel, the al qaeda core has enacted operational as well as strategic role in and has helped inspire your intellect and around the globe. the corps has recovered from its low point in 2002 and now pakistan from which with it can plan. and direct the attentions and the actions of its groups. these affiliated groups oppose a range of dangers to the united states. al qaeda and the arabian peninsula which is based in

yemen is increasingly important given its record of near success against the united states. the al-shabaab in somalia is another concern given the radicalization of small numbers of simile americans. affiliate groups, however, have different relations with the court and often do not fully three's the objective. the death of bin laden is a serious blow to al qaeda one. it is a blow to its image of strength and bin laden was a charismatic and capable leader and the fighting may occur now. in addition, recruitment and fund-raising may suffer. these problems in turn may meek al qaeda less able to influence its affiliate groups. the core however is likely to survive even if it is less capable it will be eager to conduct attacks to prove its relevance. the drone campaign is extremely important for striking the al

qaeda core. the united states has few alternatives to acting in remote parts of pakistan, and al qaeda has a finite number of skilled leaders come and the loss is a tremendous blow to it. the drone at tax also forced the organization to communicate less, force leaders to reduce the number of associates, and these leaders must also spend their time in hiding. this is difficult for any organization but especially difficult for an organization that is having to deal with a major leadership transition. the air and spurring also requires fundamental changes in the u.s. counterterrorism policy. the change sweeping the arab world undermines al qaeda's message. but at the same time it offers terrorists far more operational freedom. thus united states must exploit the threat to al qaeda's message and encouraging transition to democracy in countries like egypt and to nisha while continuing counterterrorism partnership and building new

ones. in addition to the efforts abroad, u.s. officials must consider how american foreign policy can lead to domestic radicalization. the case of the radicals in of the some of the americans is instructive as a relatively minor counterterrorism operation overseas helps create a potentially dangerous problem at home. also at home, the fbi and state officials should redouble their efforts to know local muslim communities and to gain their trust. in the end however it's difficult to separate over there from here. he was intelligence and homeland defense should focus particular attention on areas where the united states is a taxable outside of u.s. soyoil such as on airplanes, from airports overseas to airports in the united states i think you for this opportunity to testify and i would welcome your questions. >> thank you, professor byman. let me start out just a personal experience i had. a couple of years ago i visited afghanistan and pakistan, and i

went to in afghanistan to visit our troops around the fourth of july on the border of afghanistan and pakistan. and at that time they told me three of the soldiers had been killed the day before we arrived and they are very barbaric in the way they kill our soldiers, but they said to me congressman, they are coming at it and pointed to pakistan, they are coming over here and they are killing us. i remember coming back and met with then president bush and talked about the threat in the tribal area in pakistan that when they were bleeding, they were training in the tribal area. he recognized that that was a serious concern, and i think not too long after that in a conversation we had the drone a project that you mentioned,

professor, which i think has been very successful in terms of taking out high-value targets. and i think it is greatly -- the command and control structure has been damaged by the drone of project. but the question i want to ask before i go on about that issue is just pakistan in general, mr. coll, i think all of your experts but i wanted to ask you particularly when i visited them they were talking about the battle plans from the soviet days and how can we battled with him. but fi isi continues to be a troubling issue for the american people and the converse in the sense they always play this double game or the like to play both sides of defense while one hand cooperating with us on some high-value targets and on the other hand, protecting

extremists when it's in their best interest for a simple the kashmir area where you mentioned the issue with india, cooperation with india would go a long way. but this double game i think came to a head wind we solve the killing of bin laden and we saw where he was living for quite a few years. it's a very troubling to me because if you look at a diagram up there about the compound, the location as i mentioned in my opening statement it is less than a mile away which is half the distance between here and the washington monument to what is the equivalent of pakistan's's west point academy. you have retired military in the community surrounding the compound, and you have isi agencies in the area as well. this is not in normal house. it was a large compound, very

heavily fortified, very suspicious looking and a very sort of military area. it leads me to the question or the relationship but pakistan where do we go from here because in my judgment it's hard for anybody to believe they didn't know he was there and the question is what little did the pakistan government know about this? i believe either the are complicity or they are incompetent. either composite with providing material support to the most wanted terrorist by providing him a safe haven or confidence in not knowing he was there. so with that, let me throw that question now first to do in terms of what is your assessment of this picture? and how does this affect the and and that our relationship with a

very dicey pakistan who has been known to proliferate nuclear weapons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i would associate myself with your observations and analysis. i think you described well. the circumstantial evidence about the house race is very disturbing questions about the knowledge that almost certainly must have been present in at least some sections of the pakistani government about this unusual compound. i hope that over time we will discover more about how far up the chain in command such knowledge might have gone. just a couple of quick observations about the compound. pakistan is one of the lowest rates of participation in the world even for a poor country and one of the reasons the officials tax participation as low is it to build a million-dollar house in the middle of the security town someone knocks on your door and says i have a way to avoid taxes

and that is put me on your payroll the person who knocks on the door is almost always an official of the government and in a term raises the question of whether the isi would have been involved in such a racket. the isi is best understood as a criminal enterprise as well as a security agency in many brackets around the country. second, it's important for americans to understand i think that the ambiguity and the nature of the heat and that bin laden found in pakistan is not by itself unusual in the country. from india's perspectives there are five or six terrorists living in the country in similar circumstances george to be under house arrest and notional fugitives hopeful the of either admitted to or they have been incredibly charged with mass killings on indian soil. and so, these patterns with

outrageous to the united states with the personality from some like osama bin laden but in the context of the way pakistan has evolved over the last ten years his circumstances are not by themselves on usual. just on the question of what it poses by way of challenging the united states and pakistan i think it is a useful wake-up call to both sides. the problem as you point out is the pakistani military intelligence service has not been held accountable over a long period of time adequately. by its partners or by its own people by the military supremacy, and i think for the united states this is an opportunity to for the mardy group to become effective group with the fact that the united states and pakistan do not always cds importance to the questions the same way.

and to try to halt pakistan's chief of military to a greater account even while the acknowledging the sacrifices the soldiers made in the war on terrorism and the shared interest that will endure between the two countries. >> i think it also calls into question as we going to the appropriations cycle the billions of dollars we provide to pakistan and foreign-aid, like to the need to be held accountable and we need some answers as to what they were complicity with us or not. professor, do you have any observations? >> thank you, i agree with your marks and also. there might even be a third explanation that goes on between complicity and incompetence but willful ignorance but it's preferable not to ask on the question of the double defeat could double game extends even

beyond what better protection may have been afforded to osama bin laden as i assure you know right now the federal district court in chicago there's a trial of someone and the testimony is being made by david headley who's an agent of the isi to the effect that one of his isi handle nurse not only knew of the mumbai plot but also made absolutely no effort to stop the plans to target american citizens both of the jewish house but also at the hotel. and the denial and pakistan we haven't seen to my knowledge any investigation of what his role is and i think this is another area where we need to put pakistan very accountable. >> it's a great point. how many of their other terrorists are provided with savings by pakistan whom we provide so much aid and purportedly work together to eradicate interest? to you have any comments?

>> to briefly at pakistan has long had its interest in both pakistan and india in ensuring a the government in afghanistan and now one dominated by pakistan, and in preventing cashmere from becoming the normal part of the union. as a result its work with a range of militant groups and we think of al qaeda of course as a terrorist group. but it's also an organization that put a tremendous amount of energy working with insurgencies around the region and in this capacity, i will say it's hard to say where al qaeda begins and where some of the components of its network begin but certainly components of the network have been extremely useful to pakistan and india and in afghanistan. so it's very hard for us to make progress on the counterterrorism front without making progress on afghanistan and kashmir which

makes it exceptionally difficult. >> you and mr. coll raised the same issue and it's a very good point. my time is expired. i now recognize the ranking member mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank ms. clark, too. appreciate that. i think the greatest concern we have right now is the possibility of terrorists getting ahold of nuclear weapons, and that brings pakistan front and center in that regard, and the way we are proceeding with pakistan i think clearly some of the issues about the weak and governments and some of the strong anti-american sentiment that has existed and the limited ability we have to monitor the programs, now the president said he's going to call fourth to measure accountability and metrics for

the entire panel could you comment on what kind of metrics this could be measured in? how can this be tangibly monitored and how can we hold pakistan accountable? most everyone now i think senator kerry when he returned from a meeting in pakistan had said that it's going to be more what you do, not what you say. so this seems like senator kerry and the president or on the same page looking for tangible metrics to be measured so if you can comment on how you think we could measure what those metrics should consist of the would be appreciated. >> i think that's an excellent question and subject and a very important direction for u.s. policy. you can start with the observations the chairman made about compounds in pakistan. the first metric would be the status under the law of the

listed terrorists known to be residing in pakistan. there is a substantial body of open source evidence about a number of terrorists. you enlisted terrorists, so it doesn't even have to be something coming directly from the united states whose status under the law confuse or not satisfactory. there are two other important areas the united states has the capacity to monitor the conduct of services and its relationship with militant groups. there's always the debate about what the true capacity of pakistan the state is to do more there are some areas where the state's capacity to control terrorist and activities is clear, and one of those is in the cross border movements from the pakistani territory into indian and kashmir for example. that border is essentially a

military zone. nobody moves across the border with the pakistan army's permission. the indians have been watching the army and the man with groups across the border with impunity for years. and the united states has not make a priority of holding pakistan to account for the rate of infiltration. it would be unreasonable to say you should have zero infiltration it's just complex territory, big mountains but the rate of infiltration pakistan has allowed suggests state policies. similarly when the afghan border where american lives and security interests are more directly at stake there are metrics to monitor the actual conduct of pakistani security services to prevent cross border infiltration applying some rule of reason as to what the state's capacity really is and then holding the state to that account.

>> i agree completely that mr. coll. i would add some of the metrics in the degree of cooperation and i think now at least publicly cooperation is slacking rather than increasing the number of u.s. military trainers and pakistan has decreased the number of cia intelligence officers and also decreased, so it's the strength of cooperation and some of these things the metrics may be able to be publicly stated that the reporting may have to remain classified these are enormously the degree and extent pakistan is about the cooperation against terrorism. >> i just have a few seconds left so i apologize for getting difficult questions so quickly but how would you suggest, and what would be some of the benefits and dangers of linking our foreign aid to these metrics? do you think there's a way to do that? is there a danger in doing it too closely or a benefit in doing it? >> i don't think we have much

choice. the problems for the pakistani perspective they believe that in essence they know we require the cooperation and it's a blank check in the musharraf time or an open checkbook so that we can exert over them. >> i think there has always been for there has often been conagra's sources of conditionality attached to pakistan but it has often been the executive branch brought it to judge pakistan's performance in the criteria has often been general or abstract whatever the degree of of the automatic trigger that such accountability that might involve would be a

helpful change to attach specific metrics of the sort we are talking about even if the executive branch retains some discretion it ought to be held, our executive branch ought to be held accountable on some of the specific issues rather than just a generalized sense that things are good enough. >> i just want to thank you. i couldn't agree with you more. i think that some countries use their own weakness as an excuse. so thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> i agree and this is excellent testimony as we go into the foreign aid appropriations cycle that we need to use these metrics because clearly the location of the bin laden compound - calls into serious question pakistan's cooperation with the united states. with that, i recognize the gentleman from missouri.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. the question for all three of you however you can best answer it's been said that al qaeda on the arabian peninsula has put its american supporters on a noble quest to vanquish and save the world from invading evil. however we know that al qaeda killed far more muslims than it has americans. so how do we as the u.s. government about debunking and powering this message. >> to me this is the great weakness of al qaeda and it's something that muslim thinkers and commentators the list and repeatedly mentioned. certainly islamist and even in the jihadi community that question of killing muslims especially the noncombatants. it to me i would recommend several things to emphasize

this. one is that when the united states does public diplomacy we do not make it about the united states. i think if we end up trying to sell our policy weather in iraq or israel, palestine, we are not going to wait on that one, but we do put it in the court when we make it about the killing of the muslim noncombatants. also we should be elevating credible voices that make this the statements that condom al qaeda and hear this is a particularly difficult issue for congress however because many of the credible voices are anti-american so you might have a quite sheik who says you shouldn't kill muslim women and children al qaeda is wrong and evil but you should go to iraq and kill american soldiers and of course i understand why we do not want to support anyone making that statement and if you are trying to reach into the radical community someone who is on the other extreme is not going to have any residents

there so with credibility to condemn al qaeda are going to have the use we often disagree with at times quite strongly. >> you cite public diplomacy again walk me through that, the public diplomacy issued what? >> in my view often our public diplomacy emphasizes how good it is to be muslim in the united states, the validity of justice of u.s. policies, and these are legitimate activities. but to me it's far more credible given the unpopularity of al qaeda's message when we make the public diplomacy about the message and this is negative campaigning. they have done many things and they are extremely unpopular in the muslim world and have been criticized even by elements in the radical fringe, and we need to amplify those leases and make that what the debate is about rather than try to insert ourselves into this which i think that fires.

>> professor hoffman? >> i think this question of al qaeda and its affiliates claiming a far more muslims than its enemies is important and today i would say generally we do a very bad job at countering the al qaeda narrative and the message of radicalization and recruitment. first within the united states government these types of activities are both poorly resources and have a very low priority. i think we also tend to look at the ball through our allies not through the eyes of the audience we have to communicate with. >> how would do we change that attitude? >> i think we have to understand our enemy and our target audience much better. as the professor was saying that too often it's directed from an american prison or from the american lens and i will give you an example much was made in recent weeks about the videotape of osama bin laden sitting on the floor with a blanket around him in a very austere surroundings wearing a cap almost as the sense this is some

broken prophetic old man watching old films of himself but yet we haven't fought of with that image actually portrays to the muslims elsewhere for example they see a man who lived on till the end who was true to his own commitment to forsake a life of comfort and luxury to wage jihad, of lived simply, what does a by is muslim, so we see this as someone sitting there humiliated in essence but that's not necessarily the image of the people especially the audience we need to reach seas. in terms of how we can better counter this than we have done, the victims of terrorism especially the muslim victims and the young women in washington really are with a small network that created a survivors' group that has been motivated and the mission is to better eliminate the role that victims and survivors of terrorism can play in countering

the message and the documentary unit on a shoestring killing in the name was nominated for an academy award this is a measure just think we expect under joost. >> i agree with the professor. the only thought i would add is the arab spring does offer an opportunity to advance the recommendations of both of the previous speakers outlined there will be an opportunity for the united states and other countries around the world wishing well to the democracies forming in countries like egypt and tunisia to support civil society groups, credible voices to strengthen speech and to bring forward the underlining opinion in many of these societies that al qaeda does not represent their ambitions and is in fact an evil in their midst

and so that indirect opportunity speaks to the strategy is that they've both outlined. >> thank you all for being here today and i have no time to yield back but if i did, i would. [laughter] >> thank you for the generosity. the chair recognizes mr. duncan. >> thank you, gentlemen for being here that i've been here has been very enlightening. i will direct this question to dr. hoffman but i'm just trying to understand the relationships on the arabian peninsula and north africa. what is the relationship if any between al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood? >> it is a relationship that perhaps at one time in history was similar, but i think in the recent years there has been forces where ayman al-zawahiri was a teacher of al qaeda now but until recently bin ladens's

deputy certainly in recent months attacked the bus or a hood and egypt and hamas which is part of the muslim brotherhood network and gaza for attempting to make peace with israel and in a kind of negotiations in egypt for getting to participate in any kind of a space process so we're talking to the phenomena that have maybe some ideological similarities that is quite separate and different >> al-zawahiri managed to write a book denouncing the muslim brotherhood and while on the run being hunted i of difficulty writing a book sitting in my office for years on end without such interruption so the fact that he puts such effort into it he is also had quite a bitter relations with hamas, the palestinian terrorist group that is also a muslim brotherhood of shoot. so i think it is what people refer to as a narcissism of

differences where they were close enough ideologically that there is a subsequent split in terms of where they've gone and where they moved to all the more so with the muslim brotherhood in egypt now you have an alternative, political alternative. this is a group that is so far we should perhaps not quite hear moving on the path to being part of the regular elections in a space society. and if that is a success, that's quite a different message and quite a different hope that should be encouraged and come with a lot of bumps even if it is a success but that in itself could be a blow to al qaeda. conversely if the muslim brotherhood is excluded from power that will send a message to the young members that the world will not allow them to take power peacefully so that exclusion could be dangerous and radicalizing to a small group of people >> just kind of a follow-up about al qaeda and what is the

relationship between al qaeda and the iranian revolutionary guard corps, is that quds force? can you talk about that because i'm reading a lot about that now and i would love to hear some testimony on that. >> congressman, i would urge you to get a classified briefing on this because the unclassified material which i studied explicitly is often noticeable by its absence. there is clearly significant thing is going on. we had senior al qaeda members transit iran. some have found haven in iran but perhaps under different degrees of arrest. iran has a history working with a wide range of groups that doesn't see eye to eye and certainly in this case there are often violently in disagreement, but iran is quite pragmatic. so we've seen in cooperation with that. we've seen a degree of cooperation since 9/11, but in my judgment it is a for ideological differences, iran is much more cautious in its

terrorism than al qaeda and i would say he hates one another is the right word but they have other problems as well. but this is an area i think we're both iran and al qaeda for their own reasons have been trying to keep any relationship as secret as possible. it's politically damaging to both of them. >> there on iran and the cia canceled a program tracking the individuals and i was going to ask how you feel about the cia canceling that tracking program. >> and nomani have you tracking guerra al qaeda and individuals should always be a priority. i can't speak to this particular program because i don't know its strengths and weaknesses. >> the report came out i read this morning. thank you. i peeled back the balance of my time. >> in closing i just want to make a couple of comments. when we heard from the previous panel that the administration is not providing a complete and

accurate picture of the threat assessment specifically as it relates to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, so when we look at countries like pakistan and others that have nuclear capability i think that is absolutely essential that they come forward as required by law and i would assume you would all agree with that assessment as well. aqap al-awlaki has troubled me the past two years. almost more so than bin laden because of his ability to impact muslim youths in the united states and radicalism as a ranking member talked about this is a virtual safe-haven. and she's in a safe haven in yemen, failed the state. it looks like it is becoming but the ability to use the internet very deceptive fleet to radicalize remains, and the

testimony i heard as you probably agree that al-aulaqi is emerging as one of the top leaders of al qaeda and one of the biggest threats. my last question and if anybody else would like to ask a question i will recognize them but we talk about the predator drones and i believe that it's been very effective. the strikes, but they have had some controversy obviously within pakistan and yemen as well. how effective are hoveys drone strikes? >> thank you mr. chairman. in my view is a drone strikes are effected but let me begin with three caveat. when you bomb people at times you miss or kill innocent people nearby. the drones are far more surgical than the traditional fixed wing aircraft that are manned and of course far more surgical than the pakistani military but nevertheless we have to accept innocent deficit.

the drones are unpopular in pakistan. when you are conducting military operations, that's understandable. often there are less popular further away from the areas the drones are operating. that is in some ways people farther away are easier to take offense when you don't have to deal with a militant nearby. and the feared caveat is the drone itself is not a strategy that solves the problem. in my view it reduces the problem but this is something that will be solved more fundamentally or not by the actions of the pakistani state. but the drones, the skilled number of al qaeda leaders and the bench is not. and more important it forces them to operate in a different way. they spent much of their time playing defense and it's hard to quantify. but if you extend the spending 12 hours a day organizing planning for training, then use that to because the other are spent moving place to place it

is a huge impact on the organization and especially given the leadership transition going on and it can be out there and be communicating and needs to be showing that it's taking over and that is much harder because he risks himself to the u.s. intelligence and the u.s. military if he does, and his death in the short period of time would be an extreme blow to the organization reducing the continuity. >> mr. coll, professor hoffman, do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. i would just add a couple of points to feed it has been a highly effective tactic. we have run the risk of confusing the tactic with an overall strategy and this is one part of the board met on terror. what concerns me the most is we will see the diminishing returns on the program. i think we already are when we see the publicly released list of targets that have been killed on hundred ortiz the people you look at that list as a diminishing number of factual

high-value targets at the senior leaders of al qaeda. nothing wrong with disrupting the mid-level as well but i think it is a decapitation we are going to find that it pays future dividends. i think also that they will take increasing measures to frustrate the drones and to make sure they are not the victim by wind and the point that one of the lessons were messages we should take from the highly successful operation is we also have the capacity in the future not to just take out the targets but also to use the capability to capture and a gain the necessary intelligence but often high-value target killings don't enable us to obtain. >> on the compound to believe pakistan is fully cooperate with us? on getting the information? >> one hopes but it's difficult to say at least publicly it is not clear. they did of course let the -- >> there's one important development a let the cia into

the compound to do their forensic scans with equipment and the pakistanis don't have, but beyond that to have a treasure trove of information as actively applied in terms of actionable intelligence it's not clear. it may be happening but i'm not aware of it. >> it's my understanding that the access to the other early days and thempound into circumstances in which those individuals were held by pakistan raised questions about the pakistani government's intent in terms of mechem monday to maximizing the cooperation. so it does seem as if from the open source evidence things improved and that is certainly the first 48 hours or 72 hours there were some breaches in the cooperation i think and on the larger subject i would agree very much with both of the previous speakers i do think that professor hoffman's point

of the diminishing returns i think the mix is clear what he serves and also bin ladens's circumstances or just what life is like if you are on the run from one of the drones. you do not sit in this case that you know the drone is actively patrolling. >> it's a great point. >> ten days to submit questions in writing and if they do so i would hope he would answer those and thank you so much again for appearing here today. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

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

the head of regulatory affairs for the obama administration says that a recent small business administration estimates for the cost of federal regulations as, quote, deeply flawed. in testimony to the house energy and commerce subcommittee, he also said that environmental or worker safety rules often benefit the economy. many republicans on the subcommittee raise their concern that the regulations were hampering job growth. the subcommittee also heard from several advocacy groups during this three hour hearing. >> i will open with my opening statement.

we can be in this hearing of this subcommittee to get an update on how the administration is implementing president,'s executive order announced on january 18th untitled, quote, in proving regulation and regulatory review and of quote. to do so, we welcome back mr. sunstein that of the office of information and regulatory affairs or as we call that, oira. and the office of budget mr. sunstein testified before the committee at a first hearing on january 26, a week after president obama signed the order and publicly committed to striking the right balance between regulation and economic growth. mr. sunstein agreed to come back in three months to discuss how his office has improved the regulatory review system to reduce burden on the american economy and industry. president obama's the executive order affirms agencies must of not only those regulatory actions whose benefits justify

its cost. tayler to impose the least burden on society that take into account the cost of cumulative regulation that maximize net benefits, that specify performance objectives, and that evaluate alternatives to direct regulation. in addition, this new executive order calls on agencies to review significant regulations that are already in place. expanding upon this requirement, the president announced in a wall street journal op-ed that this action, quote, ordered a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove the outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. now this is incredibly important given that the federal register stance s an all-time high of over 81,000 pages. the 2010 alone several agencies

added more than 3500 final rules to the book. i hope that mr. sunstein will share with us a number of examples demonstrating how this commitment put into action and how agencies will relieve small businesses of expensive and burdensome regulations to promote job growth. this morning's report of a 9.1% on an plan a rate was significantly less job creation in may and april and adds to the urgency of this task. after all, regulation totals 1.75 trillion a annual compliance costs according to the small business administration. that's greater than the record federal budget deficit projected at 1.48 trillion for fy 2011, and greater than annual corporate pretax profits which total 1.46 trillion in 2008. in addition i hope mr. sunstein can also give us a sense of how he is enforcing the other

requirement of the get sick of order. he is the traffic cop. enormously expensive regulation has spread through the review process on his watch with little or no opportunity for the meaningful public comment. this leads me to believe that oira has either been left out of the process or hasn't been effective. may 18, 120 days after the executive order was issued, each agency was required to submit to oira a draft plan including an initial list of regulations that were identified in their retrospective analysis as candidates for reconsideration or review. agencies were supposed to consider all of the burdensome regulations identified by this stakeholders. in the private sector before submitting their planned. in the hearing january 26 on the agreed with mr. sunstein when he said that, quote, one idea we have had is that the public has

a lot more information than we do about what rules are actually doing on the ground, in of quote. as i said before, however, it is important that rhetoric is mast with measurable results. the epa alone has received approximately 1,500 comments on its rules and regulations. the chamber of commerce weighed in on a roughly 20 regulation proposed or finalized over the past two years at the environmental protection agency. ..

that ruined almost all of the programs under the clean air act and clean water act and undertake about 90 percent of the enforcement actions. after reviewing the plan it appears as though epa officials overwhelmingly disagree with or simply ignored the folks that actually implement regulation that have been identified as burdensome. not only ignoring stakeholders, but also opposed over 900 new regulations on the state since the beginning of this administration. spoken repeatedly about the need to create a new regulatory culture across the ticket to branch, and i think all of us agree. an unprecedented amount of authority has been delegated to the executive. new aspects of it all of american lives are being promulgated and this same plot

system that produces the regulations are to depart today. hopefully we can take steps toward changing this culture and the court to the testimony of cass sunstein. with that i recognize the right gang member. >> thank-you very much, mr. chairman. in january of this year president obama ps it issued a directive for plans to improve the regulatory system. he urges to agencies to expand opportunities to participate in the regulatory process and to look for ways to make regulations more efficient and effective. mr. chairman, you will be pleased to know that both sides of the i'll support the school. this subcommittee has a valuable role to play in the implementation of the order. i want to join you in all coming mr. cass sunstein back.

the last hearing devolved into a criticism of individual regulations that individual members might disagree with, but i'd think it is worthwhile for this committee to continue to focus on the regulatory reform efforts of the administration and see if we can make real progress. i know we are taking away, once again, from your efforts to implement the program, but it is important for us to hear it babies since our first hearing in january from what i have heard is executive branch agencies have developed preliminary regulatory review appliance that the administration has provided and posted on the white house website. my initial review reveals a range of efforts. agencies are streamlining and modernizing to save industry and government time and money.

a more precise detailing in regulation to save money for industry, creating a broader opportunities for public participation in the design and implementation of regulation and are improving their review process. so i hope that we can hear about some of those things, but i also hear -- hope we can hear about what the in -- administration hopes to do next to streamline and take this input and modernize and eliminate unnecessary regulation. having said that, i will say the administration appears to be working hard to implement a regulatory reform. after hearing the distinguished chairman opening statement and also the sad unemployment news of this morning i wish the majority, rather than complaining in vague terms about the regulatory reform efforts and unemployment rate, would sit down with minority and together

develop a job bill. we have talked about this since january. if we want to reduce unemployment, let's stop niggling about the edges and craft a plan. that would benefit the american public. if we start now, we might be able to decrease unemployment by the end of the year, and i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> cass sunstein, we welcome you back. we welcome the changes that are coming from some of the agencies. i want to hear more about what the administration is doing and if they're doing anything to slow the onslaught of regulation being implemented. we went to the white house earlier this week. the president said to us that he wanted to clear out the

regulatory underbrush. i took that as a positive sign. he said regulations should not be obscure and difficult for people to understand. what is hard to understand is how the administration wants to continue to be anti-employer and at the same time be pro-jobs. it does not work out. businesses across the country are plagued with uncertainty as to what to do, what regulations will be and what regulations will be handed down. ensure safety and promote the market, but you must know every day people come to washington to tell congressman of their fears about the avalanche of regulations that will increase compliance cost. i hear from business owners talking about how regulation coming from hhs, a dense, and more. and i don't see how this will be a deliverable and it will help them through problems they're

having. and i might add, those problems are delivered by the united states congress. while some may be necessary, i feel many don't understand the effects that it has on jobs and job creation when cost goes up it cuts into the bottom line and that means jobs will be lost. i'm afraid this review has, perhaps, been the reaction of political purposes, a president who does not understand how to create jobs. this is his attempt to appease jobs. the higher-ups' at the white house will have little interest in continuing, particularly after special interest groups and outside groups castigate the white house for reviewing regulations and the first place. the regulations coming out that the medical loss ratio, accountable care organizations,

the federal government has taken something that was working in practice and proving that it cannot work in theory. these pieces would ensure more consumer benefits, lower-cost power and encourage coordination per patient improvement and financial savings, but because of the way regulations have been written, we still have great -- systems that encourage fraud. planned solvency will be at risk. there is the ultimate. if your plan goes bankrupt you don't get much health care. accountable care, that is the unicorn that nobody believes exists or wants to adopt because it is so difficult and onerous. i hope that you folks managed the budget and your counterparts at the the federal trade commission will understand this and, perhaps, allow doctors to practice medicine. yield the. >> the gentle lady from

tennessee. >> take you, mr. chairman. and you for being with us again. everyone will agree that the number one issue facing our constituents is jobs, and the greatest obstacle we are hearing about jobs is regulatory overreach, uncertainty through the regulatory process. this is not surprising. when you look at epa alone, they finalized 928 regulations since the start of this administration with more than 6,000 pages of regulations released last year. seeing you want to get rid of regulations and issuing more is counterproductive to jobs. it is killing the growth of jobs. figures this morning attest to that. i encourage my colleagues to

remember, you do not do a jobs bill to create jobs. washington does not create jobs. it is the private sector. it is our responsibility to create the environment for java code to take place. i have to tell you, all of the regulations coming out of this town are not helping employers, whether it is health care, painting, regulation from the ftc, the fcc, the epa, this must stop. we look forward to working with you to get these regulations of the books and not add more. i yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to welcome mr. cass sunstein back. i have questions about agencies

and challenges as well as a bigger picture approach to see how we can get this executive order because one of the concerns i have as we have gotten over to a half years into this administration today's numbers show a dramatic decline from the numbers the test cannot in any. frankly, when i talk to employers of only throughout southeast louisiana, but industry groups and represent employers all across the country one of the first things they tell you about the limitations is there inability to create jobs and the biggest impediment is nothing to do with protecting people or environment, but agenda is driven by bureaucrats in washington. that is not how regulation ought to work. we pushed regulations her to help create jobs that is a

lingering in the senate, but you have the ability to go out and reform this process. i hope it is more than window dressing and look forward to our conversation. >> they cute. the ranking member of the full committee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the subcommittee is returning to the subject of the executive order on regulatory reform issued in january by president obama and the implementation overseen by the office of affirmation and regulatory affairs. we are fortunate to have the administrator, cass sunstein, with us. he will be able to tell us about the regulatory review activity that has occurred since our last hearing. the stated focus of this hearing is to learn more about the agency plans for regulatory reform which the white house

released for public review and comment. if we are going to have an honest review, we must consider all relative facts. we should examine cost and do so wherever possible. we also must give equal consideration to benefit. yesterday we were supposed to mark up a bill called the trade act which calls for analysis of the cumulative impact of epa regulation which was postponed. it illustrates what is wrong with how we approach regulatory reform and this committee with this majority. it focuses nearly exclusively on the economic cost and amend its analysis of the impact of regulation on jobs, electricity costs, manufacturing and trade which is all appropriate, but it ignores the dangers of unchecked pollution on health, environment, and global climate

change. one-sided approach is the antithesis of what we should be doing. this approach, i think, was so clearly illustrated by the opening comments of my republican colleagues. the greatest obstacle to jobs is regulation. i cannot believe that. no economist with suggest that the recession is not a major reason for having a problem with jobs. the regular editions overreach, that's not new. i have heard by colleagues say that the president wants to a slow job growth which is absurd. no president wants a bad economy. this president inherited a terrible economy, in great part because of bad judgment and policies of the bush administration. we must look at both sides of the regulation.

we must maximize the benefit while minimizing the cost. a good case in point is the clean air act which, along with health care, has become a republican whipping boy. we consider a proposal after proposal to weaken the clean air act on the theory that it is a job killer. well, we should not have to pick between jobs and clean air. that is a false choice. when that act was written in 1990 we heard horror stories about how the law would impose a ruinous costs on industry leading to widespread unemployment which to not turn out to be true. we asked for a balanced analysis of the cost and benefit. results show that the law has been a stunning success. epa found that implementing the clean air act creates american

jobs and bolsters the global competitiveness of american industry, even as it lowers health care costs and protect american families from birth defects, elvis, and premature death. health benefits. in one year it prevented eight teen respiratory paralysis to 18,000 asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, 205,000 premature deaths. the benefits are projected to reach $2 trillion by 2020. is that something we should ignore? the implementation also creates american jobs. the environmental technology and energy -- industry creates $300 billion in annual revenue and creates over one and a half million jobs. i see the value over and over again. following the collapse of the financial markets, the economy

after the deepest recession since the great depression. millions have lost there job. because -- the cause of the financial crisis was not regulation but the absence of regulation. the deep water horizon oil spill created widespread dislocation caused by too little oversight and regulation. we can identify and this is a regulations. they should be identified and regulated. we should remember that sound regulation is vital to protect our nation's economy and well-being. >> thank you. with that, we welcome mr. cass sunstein, administrator of the office of of regulatory affairs. before we start that may make some comments considering your testimony. you are where we are holding an

investigative committee and have the practice of taking testimony under oath. if you have any objection to testify under oath the chair advises you that under the rules of house and committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel if you so desire during your testimony. if you would please rise and raise your right hand the was were you when. to use where to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? you are now under of and subject to penalties set forth. you may now give a five minute summary of your read statement. i think he need to put the mike on. >> thank you so much. thanks to you and members of the committee, not only for your strong commitment to the reduction of unjustified regulatory burden but also for your generosity and kindness to

me and my staff of over the last months as which door to work on these issues. my focus on these opening remarks will be on the process of retrospective review of regulation, the look back, as we call it. i will devote a few words to the effort to the control regulatory burdens going forward. in the january 18th executive order the president referred specifically to two topics that have come up, economic growth and job creation, central factors in the process. for the process going forward and with respect to new rules, i would like to underline the four elements of the ticket if order. first, it requires agencies to consider cost and benefit to ensure benefits justify cost and

to select the least burdensome of alternative. central going forward and will be followed to the extent permitted by law. it the a executive order requires unprecedented levels of public participation. it asks agencies to engage with state, local, and tribal officials. there was a reference to cost imposed. affected stakeholders and experts in relevant disciplines. i would like to underline the requirement that agencies act in advance of proposed rulemaking to seek the views of those who are likely to be affected. the executive order directs agencies to harmonize, simplify, and coordinate rules with a specific goal of cost reduction. the executive order directs agencies to consider flexible approaches that reduces burden and maintains freedom of choice

for the public. those are directions for all of the store and forward. but many of your opening remarks focused on is the look back process. last week in compliance with the executive order 30 departments released preliminary plans to the subcommittee and public in an unprecedented process. to some outlined in these hundreds of pages have already eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars in annual regulatory cost, including those imposed on employers. over $1 billion in savings can be expected in the near future. not to their aspirations, but concrete products that have either been delivered or will be delivered in the near future. over the coming years reforms have the potential to eliminate billions of dollars in regulatory burden.

in many initiatives representative a fundamental rethinking of how things have been done. we have heard that red tape and paperwork and reporting burdens exerts a toll on the economy, including small business. there is an effort throughout the plan to reduce that burden. there is also aired effort to rethink rules of outdated technology that may promote innovation. many of the reforms have already saved significant money. epa has recently exempted note and dairy industries from its oral special rule. the punchline of material is of of the next decade the note and dairy industries will cry, not at all, over spilt milk and save

over $1 billion. the few additional illustrations, burden on employers. a very alert. personally very alert. last week occupational seven -- occupational safety and health administration will remove over 19 million hours of paperwork burden which will save over $40 million in annual cost and may be a lowball estimate. in recent discussions that burden saving measure was highlighted as an extraordinary step forward. osha plans to a proposed rule that would result in half a billion annual savings for employers. not 40 million, over half a billion. to eliminate unjustified economic burden on railroad the

department of transportation is reconsidering a rule that requires railroads to require equipment to create certain equipment that is expensive which would save potentially over a billion dollars over 20 years. these are just illustrations. there was a reference to a cultural change. the art tends to create that. while a great deal has been done , an unprecedented effort and a substantial savings have been achieved, the agency plans are preliminary. they are being offered at all levels emphatically including the business community for view and perspective. suggestions are eagerly welcome. we need your help in order to make these plans as good as possible and do as much as possible to promote economic

growth. agencies will be assessing comments before plans are finalized, and we have a number of weeks and months to do that. to change the regulatory culture we need a constant exploration, not a one shot endeavor of what is working and what is not. we need close reference to evidence and data and a very close reference to view of stakeholders above what is happening on the ground. we are trying to promote public health and economic growth and job creation. >> the committee, before i start, is different than some other committees. we ask questions that are asking for yes or no answers.

we are trying to seek information. we would appreciate a direct answer. it you or the administrator and are complying with the executive orders and dealing with regulatory reform. that is correct. >> that would be a yes. >> you have a role in ensuring this very important to president executive order. is that correct? >> yes. >> you are the men. now, when you have a rule and it has economically significant impact in the economy, wouldn't that particular rule require more attention? >> absolutely. >> because there are huge implications of the impact in the economy with this regulatory

framework and this risk analysis that should be done in supporting documents. officials have repeatedly claimed that during the obama administration regulatory reviews have been shorted and i'll think that, is that a fair claim? >> no. >> abcaeight. while the impact is much larger, your staff, i'd think, has remained -- your staff has remained small. i have a graph. it looks like it is wiggling quite a bit. i am trying to show you to charts. the first shows that your room -- reviewing more large complex regulation. the second shows that the agency spends less time on the review.

this would be in contrary to we just talked about and you agree to. isn't it true that your office's reviews are shorter in duration? >> do we have a printed chart? >> we do. will the staff give him a chart that is not -- >> moving. isn't it true there shorter in duration than those under previous administrations? >> i would want to attack those numbers. whether we are as fast, i would want to check. >> why are so many regulations issued after schorr reviews to public comments that they violate the executive order principles? >> i don't agree with the premise of the question. we have about the same number of rules as the first two years of

the bush administration. 2007-a the bush administration imposed higher cost than 2000's 9-10. >> i have here a steady that i will insert into the record. it praised the economic analysis and reviewed showing the quality of analysis declined when nephews were shortened. are you familiar? >> i am. >> to you agree? >> not really. the important thing is not based on the calendar but the degree of attention and care. the same study shows no premonition and quality. we are eager to increase quality and make it better. >> the executive order i cited earlier requiring agencies to

identify and a clear and simple matter of the substantive changes between the draft submitted for review and the actions subsequently announced as well as those changes in the regulatory actions that are made at the suggestion or recommendation. despite claiming to be the most transparent administration in history we'll understand the position is that this requirement only applies to the formal regulatory review process. is that correct? >> i believe that is correct. we're following the bush administration and its predecessor. there has been continuity across republican and democratic administration. i'm not sure what you mean by informal, but it sounded right. >> most the rules are submitted on an informal basis before the draft rule is officially

submitted. with respect to significant rules would you be willing to provide changes suggested during the informal review process? >> it is very rare that a rule is submitted and formally. that is not normal practice. it is extremely unusual. all i would say that happens sometimes is there are interagency discussions of rules we don't have the authority to make changes in those discussions. sometimes the agency describes that the discussions are informative. so in other words informal review is extremely rare. what is not is interagency discussion, and there are no changes made because there are no rule checks. >> you're saying is rare, but

was it done? >> in a formal review, no. discussion, but not -- typically not in formal. >> you're saying is rare, but it occurred. >> i would want to go back and see. my own involvement is standard and touring a formal review. i would want to go back and see. >> obviously we probably don't agree on that point. >> there is informal review which is very rare where someone sends a rule and says what to you tank. in health care context -- >> if you would follow up because you're saying you're not sure that you can remember. just follow up. with that, my questions are complete.

>> it sounds like the definition of an informal review is determined to it, in your mind, as somebody actually send text over and it was reviewed and sent back bursas general discussions about potential rules and policies. >> exactly. >> i would like to ask you about the cost of regulation. we keep hearing that the annual cost of deregulation is more than one and three-quarters trillion dollars. as i understand it the basis for that figure is a september 2010 study the state's the annual cost of drug regulation totaled approximately one and three-quarters trillion dollars. a 0nd breached a different conclusion finding regulatory costs ranged from 62 billion to

73 billion. i am wondering how all they calculate an estimate of total regulatory cost. >> the cure. what we do is to aggregate the cost of all of the rules in one year and then over a 10-year timeframe we can multiplied the number of rules issued by the cost that we generate and then you can have a 10-year as a result. the study to which you refer, the extraordinary figure is deeply flawed as is a report by the congressional research service. it has become a bit of an urban legend. we share the concern. one implication of that analysis, the united states would be richer if it adopted regulations more like those of sweden or canada even though both the world date and oecd rate those countries as having

more restrictive business environment. >> who said that? >> screen and grain. a respect those offers. >> regulations more like sweden and other countries? that is -- >> an indication of their analysis that we would do better if we had regulations. >> and the administration does not agree. >> we do not except. >> one of the reasons why, what the crs review showed and what others have demonstrated is the estimate was so high in the study is the offer only utilizes the highest cost estimates and tribulations. now, additionally what i have heard is that the authors of the study did not calculate the monetary benefits of regulation where there are benefits.

omb found in 2008 annual benefits range from 1,503,000,000,000 tax 806 billion. >> yes. >> can you please tell us how regulation could benefit americans and save money? >> there are various ways. i refer to them know cub rule. that can save money. a lot of concern about rising gasoline price. if you have more fuel efficient fleets consumers can save money. clarifying savings. a rule that promotes fuel economy can save consumers a lot of money. if you have all of the saves lives, that saves money in the sense that healthier packed living people are good for the

economy and the value people health and longevity. in those three different ways we can have significant benefits from regulation. >> it seems to me, i don't want to be implying that more regulation would save more money or fewer regulation would cost or save more money. in truth here have to look at it on a continuum sometimes it's not cost-effective and they should be fixed or repealed, but sometimes that protect public health and can save money. you have to work and regulation by regulation which is what the administration is trying to do. >> exactly. >> i yield. >> thank-you. familiar with the paper from 3,000 -- 2003.

>> vaguely. >> page 14 and this is quoting. older people are treated worse for one reason, they are older. this is not an injustice. the question, some people describe this as the senior discount. your office, oversees regulation, you will be doing an analysis of the upcoming health and human services rule for the independent payment advisory board in light of this philosophy. i am older than the author. i am starting to blink i'm not sure of the end of what pat again and wrote. not a legitimate part of what you do as a government official part of the team.

not focusing on sentences and yon cass sunstein for years ago. it points out an important philosophical approach. and many of us are concerned right now. this is the only plan promoted by the demonstration and they're for the democratic party for dealing with the cost increases in the medicare program over time. the difficulty that a lot of -- the difficulties that i have with an independent been an advisory board is, for the first time some central planner, maybe a benevolent planner, but one who is pushing data points around on the spreadsheet in far off washington d.c. will be able to tell me where to get my care

and when to deny care, but most importantly, when i've had enough. if that's based upon the fact that i am old, that is a troubling relationship. i appreciate your answer, and we will take that at is how you can incorporate that into our evaluation of the independent payment advisory board that the president has popularized as his approach. our last hearing earlier this year, and i appreciate you coming back. , shifting gears, another example of a mandate that is inconsistent with the executive orders for regulatory efficiency. the epa proposed federal complementation plan for greenhouse gases that would

affect the state of texas. probably exclusively the state of texas, but a federal plan implemented because taxes to not meet the requirements under state implementation plan. so the epa said it was necessary to step in. wall street journal. the war on taxes from earlier this year right before you came and testified, this was the result of an error of 18 years. eighteen years the plan did not address all plans subjected to regulation. so somehow regulators in texas 18 years ago were not able to -- 18 years in the future, and as a consequence the epa will come in and regulate at the federal level of the power, production, electricity in the state of

texas. this seems incomprehensible. .. >> it was an active debate within the court, and when the court said that, it wasn't as if i hope the epa didn't think it was a mistake for 18 years, but had to do something to allow

permits to be given out in texas for people to build, and so it was responding, my understanding is a difficult situation caused by the supreme court decision and the permitting practice. >> may be a difficult situation if i may that they made impossible because they came back and said you can't do a state implementation plan. we'll take that over at at federal level. texas was the only state singled out for that. and the "wall street journal" article called it political revenge in an effort to intimidate other states from joining texas in lawsuits. >> i'll tell you something that nicely connected the enterprise we're in with your question is that we're looking back at regulatory practices and epa has one rule i hope will benefit taxes that will eliminate redundant regulatory requirement that costs a lot of money. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> it's fair game to raise that question. >> mr. chairman, i would like to submit this for the record.

>> by unanimous consent, so ordered. >> i'd like to review it before its submitted for the record. >> thanks. >> well, we're waiting for her to review it, we'll take -- >> just take the next questions. >> yeah, we'll start. mr. waxman is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe in government because they can help set the rules in place to make the society of ours and the economy more productive, more competitive, provide for more jobs and also protect the public health and safety and that's what regulations are all about and we hear negative antigovernment and antiregulation statements that you'd wonder what they think would operate in its place except for whatever industry

wanted that may or may not be the best for the economy and for our public, but i want to focus on what i think you're hear about to talk about and that's efforts to ensure that executive branch agencies deploy a regulatory process that produces common sense balanced regulations. that should be our goal, and i'm pleased that we're going to look at this topic. in january, president obama directed executive branch agencies to undertake a thorough look back at regulations within their jurisdictions and to examine ways to make those rules more efficient, more effective, and more reflective of public input at large. at this point, you've received lookback action plans from 30 didn'ts and agencies; is that right? >> that is correct. >> can you tell us the ideas emerging from these department and agency plans? >> happy to do that. there's been a lot of discussion in the last decade for

participation from the department of health and human services which are conditions imposed on hospitals and doctors and a lot of these vice president been rescrutinized in light of what's happened on the ground and possible redundancy and changes in medical practice and hospitals over time. hospitals are often concerned that the federal government is too hard on them, hammering them a little bit with respect to regulatory requirements, and hhs has a very detailed discussion of steps that they are taking to reconsider those requirements. we have in the context of has discard communication from the -- hazard from the department of labor and ocean in particular, there's been suggestion from employers in particular that they need to be harmonized across international lines and things are simpler and less burdensome for them.

they proposed the rule and the plan says they're going to finalize it in a hurry. there's been a great deal of discussion about med -- medical devices and innovations in the united states which often these small companies are frying to bring medical devices to market have an adequate process within the fda or if it's too time consuming and difficult. the epa announced a number of initiatives to speeds up that process. that should save a lot of money. one thing with a potentially large payoff involves exports. we know often small american companies have the best opportunity to grow if they are able to export. one thing we've heard a great deal from in the last year and a half from signal business in particular -- small business in particular is that it's too cumbersome and difficult to navigate the system and there's too many restrictions, and we've taken away some of the restrictions,

and we'll take away more. that should promote economic growth not in the long term. >> we hear from members who are frustrated, hearing from their frustrated constituents that a lot of the regulations don't make sense to them. the purpose of the innovations are to see if they are right, and if they are right, bring them up to date and make sure they are basic common sense and tried to accomplish the economic goals as well as the protection of the public with is another side of it. what happens next in this review process? by the end of the summer, do you expected the agencies to have final regulatory lookback plans in place? >> late august. >> and what will happen then? >> my expectation is that we'll have in late august three tracks. one track will be things that are completed and as i say, we expect a billion dollars in

savings to be able to be achieved in the very short term. other things that are on fast tracks in the sense that the rule making apparatus has already got moving. maybe there's a proposed rule out there, maybe we can propose is relatively quickly, and that's the second track which is a potentially rapid for the rules, and then there's a third track where the rule making apparatus has to be inaugust rapted, and my hope is we can prioritize with the aid and views of the people on this committee and your constituents and the fact of stakeholders and prioritize thing to complete in the relatively short term even though the work is being inaugurated these days and through the summer. >> realm, it appears to me that the president's regulatory review process holds a promise for creating a more effective, efficient, and responsive federal government. i applaud it. it seems to me something that

both sides of the aisle will want to see government succeed should welcome so. i certainly encourage your efforts and you in nor efforts and we should be willing in congress to do whatever we need to do to help out. >> thanks so much, thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. we have a vote -- we have just under 10 minutes, and after this, we'll break. we have a second panel, and so i encourage all members to come back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sunstein you testified before the committee, i asked you about a rule you imposed with the deepwater moratorium on drilling and that didn't fall under the purview of the types of rules you would review under the executive order. when the rule came out, the signing tisk experts the president appointed disagreed with it. they said it would reduce safety

in the gulf and the best rigs leaving the country. they were true unfortunately. we lost over 13,000 jobs, about a dozen rigs to foreign countries. the scientific efforts were correct unfortunately because those terrible consequences happened and so we lost those jobs. safety was surely not improved, and yet under the rule you're taking the position that that type of rule would not fall under your purview. i ask that the rule, make not properly drawn, if an actual rule that's gone through the process that cost our country 13,000 jobs and according to the scientific experts the president appointed reduces safety and doesn't fall under your purview. is that something to relook at? >> that's a great question. anything with an adverse job effect, we're focused on. our do main is the domain of

regulatory actions defined under executive order 1 # 866, and for technical reasons of moratorium doesn't count as regulatory actions. >> right, but should the executive order be updated, amended, revised to take into account those types of rule as well. i'm talking about a rule that cost 13,000 jobs and did not fall in your purview. >> a legitimate question. anything that cost jobs in that domain or any other domain is part of the lookback process. >> i know the fcc is one of the entities who said they don't fall under the purview, they'd like to be included, and i think there's some other independent agencies that said they would voluntarily like to be involved in this. have you gotten any requests from the fcc or any of these other independent agencies? >> we have gotten a plan

actually from the nlrb. that's significant. it's a short blain -- >> i heard it's a one-page plan. >> sure it is. >> of all the independent agencies, you have one page to review? >> we very much hope for more. >> this is it? >> we very much hope for more. >> you have not had anything else? >> you're right. the independent agencies have not delivered plans, but we are hopeful and encouraging them to engage in a lookback process. >> yeah, and i know we had our meeting with the president on wednesday. i think you were there. one of the questions asked to the president was specifically relating to the epa, and we've had this conversation with the epa on many of the proposed rules and regulations that have no impact on improving safety. it's much more alignedded with the political agenda and ideology rather than safety,

and, in fact, the epa has almost bragged that they don't have to comply with the rule. we brought this to the president's attention. has anything changed in that regard? >> the epa is very clearly complying with the executive order, and you've seen both a plan for the epa which is detailed. it has 31 suggestions for reforms, and the epa will be considering what comes in in the next period to add to that 31, and the epa's recent rules have been detailed in their compliance with the executive order including their analysis of what you point to, job impacts. >> can you give our committee any examples of where you said no to the epa in any of their rules and regulationings or the department of interior for that matter? >> the way we work with epa and interior is collaborative rather than anything else, and you can see that -- >> have y'all collaborated in a way where some of their proposals were rolled back?

>> you can see a number of their rules when they were finalized were far more modest than when they were proposed. >> can you send examples to our committee of cases both the previous proposal and then the rolled back proposal that i guess ultimately made its way into -- i don't know if it made it all the way to regulation or just further in the process. >> we can show examples, and i know the national association of manufacturers particularly applauded the concern >> the gentlemen's time expired, and we just -- >> i appreciate that. >> complete the answer and then we'll call it recess. >> the epa's action with respect to the boiler mack rule including a recent stay and also a scale back in response. >> appreciate it if you get us that information, and thanks, i yield back. >> we don't have any objection to the article being entered.

>> okay. the article will be made part of the record and we'll reconvene right after the vote. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the subcommittee of oversight committee will reconvene, and we'll recognize the next series of questions, a gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, and i appreciate you being here today. i'm reflecting back on a quote from ronald reagan that says it's not my intention to do away with government, raptor than to make it work with us, not over us, stand by our side, not ride our back. government must and can provide opportunity, not smother it, foster opportunity and not stifle it. he said that in 1981, and i think we can agree. nobody said we don't like regulations. they do provide a role in health and safety, but there's am by giewty added on. when the administration came out with the executive order in january of this year, it said that regulations should be evaluated that are difficult and are those measures that you use

when you review regulations? >> our principle focus as the previous sentence of the executive order emphasizes is cost and benefits and quantified so our focus is how much does this cost? what is the benefits? that's the principle focus. ..