looking at your qddr section and improve oversight and accountability. you just told us i believe that law enforcement is an inherently governmental function. >> page 179 of the qddr there's a statement that when you read it with your mind open it's a little jolt dropping. you say bill direct capabilities and in two specific state bureaus international narcotics and law enforcement and information resource management or the i.t. guys and they both work for you, right? both of those heroes? >> inl works for the political affairs. >> okay. irm works for you. inl works for the pravachol this is about interesting narcotics and law enforcement we can't let

this pass. given the importance of security sector systems to state missions and the fact that the current work force comprises 5% indirect rebalancing is necessary to. you're telling me that in busbee 13 work force law enforcement its 95% contractor. that's what the qddr says. >> no, sir. estimate is that with the qddr says? >> yes, sir, but there is a major distinction between law enforcement, the power to arrest in training before in law enforcement, so i do not regard the training of the foreign law enforcement as inherently governmental. we deutsch training takes in

many forms. what the qddr also talks about, and this is a specific request to the secretary as you agreed on, is we have been in numerous consultations with other u.s. government entities to the department of justice being a primary one to find out that in lieu of contracting for training could they put it on the disposal of they put it at our disposal the foreign officers -- >> no we don't have the capacity. >> that is correct. >> you are not billed for it and they aren't built for it, so therefore you have to hire contractors or personal service contractors to oversee your contracts. is that a fair statement? so the part of the qdr cost analysis of the two bureaus will

be conducted to develop the appropriate work force balance and expertise. is that in all this is complete? >> no sir, it is ongoing. the chief information officer is looking at what cost savings might be obtained by federalizing part of her work force and -- >> of cost savings aren't and hadn't won its governmental. it should be inherently governmental if it makes sense. it just says it's inherently governmental we could have a discussion about that. it must be done by the fed. >> but the analysis of both of those is there are -- those are being looked at to determine if we have any activities that are inherently governmental. >> the example to the cost savings run the gamut of is it cheaper to bring it in house than to contract. >> would you share with us at

the appropriate time the result of these analysis. >> i would be glad i'm really not sure that they are going to be done within the commission's timeframe. these are very complex issues given our worldwide i.t. -- >> i have one more question. >> security at the embassy was provided by u.s. troops at some .01, 02. >> very beginning. >> as was in iraq. >> by understand of the dot said not our mission give it to state at the point that that decision was taken today agree with that commission and increase it and say give it to us we can do it, it's not inherently governmental >> i was not in position that was involved in that. i will be glad to check with the record however it is the consistent opinion of the department of defense that they will provide, and we are deeply appreciated of it emergency

assistance for example in the yen and with all of the constant >> our existing staff on the decision. >> thank you. no one is going to interrupt you and your four minutes. >> thank you mr. sherman. i have a couple of quick yes and no. in the request i made earlier about the contract enough as a representative, i know in your response to our recommendations to make reference to the waivers for the core certifications which are available. that tells me maybe you've made use of the waivers for that list of contracting officer representatives for the projects that you put out what you include waivers in that listing as well? second thing is as you know the omb circular 123 requires each agency to chief acquisition officer to review and evaluate its acquisition function so i

will ask you first have you done the devaluation and secondly, if so, is it possible could you submit that for the record as well? >> that is an internal document. let me check with our lawyers because of the unique nature of the executive and legislative branch and the commission i think i've given you everything you asked for up-to-date. i just have to check on that type of internal document. >> in the act that you monitor your activity that might be another way to get that. the dot has already set up as my understanding for transition in afghanistan from of a dod to the state department. has the state department set up with the contracting and particularly in mind? >> yes, we have come in and we are actually dispatching as our chief administrative officer or chief management officer in

kabul is an officer who has been involved in the same office working on the transition to a systemic my understanding is that had not been done yet, so i am glad to hear that. secretary gates said to stick to the clinton in december of 09 a memo looking at alternate ways to pull funds and resources for those missions that have become conflict between the department of defense and the department of state where they are overlapping missions and authorities. did the state department ever respond to that request from the secretary defense for being back on the proposal? >> of that activity has been worked out between the secretary of the state and the secretary defense between the deputy secretary of state, the deputy secretary defense and omb to the estimate is there a formal written memo? >> it was essentially resolved in the fy 12 budget request. what you see in the fy talf budget request represents the

collective administrative position on that. estimate is that part of putting everything in the account? >> it is related but separate. the authorities invest in one agency or another are in the budget request the account of the state department is simply how we request those sums for our operations or for the result of the agreement between the state and defense. >> it's already expired and there's something in the fy 12th. >> there is. >> my last question, you make reference in your statement to the qddr's blueprint for elevating american civilian power. i think that is one of the things we certainly have been looking at on this commission. what is the appropriate mix for the work force with an eye towards some of the problems

that the agencies have had getting silly and overseas? we had the ambassador before us over and your regular just to talk about the scrs which has gone out of existence. i say it is a failure in the fy 12 budget. there's support for that but the request is for 92 million which is down significantly from the 120 million. what is your prognosis for being able to get civilian presence, not just the state department but the other civilian agencies into iraq or leader into afghanistan? >> well, the state department has filled a free state department position in iraq and afghanistan and other agencies and i would like to specifically noted the incredible assistance provided us by the department of agriculture and deploying personnel in the country we are filling those jobs.

the contingency question that you raise is one that specifically called out in the qddr. there is a task force at the state department reviewing structure function way ahead for the civilian stabilization is referred to the overseas contingency operation. >> yes or no i will get a yes or no as a conclusion. you have been able to get all of the civilian representation that you wanted. yes or no? >> that's the conclusion. thank you. >> the conclusion has to be specified. yes or no answers aren't just -- >> it's kind of on your time because it's 11. >> i will keep going. >> do you want to explain --

>> to draw out of your long answer sort of what the bottom line was. >> some agencies have had the resources to be able to provide personnel on detail to the state department and other agencies because of their missions in the united states or elsewhere have not been able -- >> have chosen not to provide. >> have not been able to provide staff for deployment to iraq and afghanistan. >> in some cases they've chosen not to and haven't been able to. >> chairman shays and i were in afghanistan and were told the agriculture department had left approximately 40% of the slots on the field and of those that were filled many were from the foreign agricultural service that had been the absolutely no capability, no to deal with the problems in afghanistan. so, with all due respect, mr. ambassador, i think what my

fellow commissioner is saying not exactly as we are putting it and the agencies are not forthcoming and we're still not fighting this war and when they send people they send the wrong people with a bother to send them out all and i insist on putting that in the record because that's what it's really like out there. skilling guide like to ask you about one of my recommendations regarding the certification. we noted in our report that agencies have conceded that they just don't give priority and recording past performance assessments into the officials database. we said there for that is all to be certified that a database is actually been used. the accurate information, comprehensive coverage of contractors and candid assessments of performance will make the database the softer tone. sure, if it's done.

>> do you believe it is now being done? >> until recently there was a split between the defense agencies that use one to will and state agencies, and sort of a civilian agencies that use another tool. >> we are now all filling in the new dod tool and by the state department is populating the data base. i can't address other agencies. >> we are concerned about use and the certification is we want to have certification of the database. do you have any statistics of all to indicate that the u.s. has increased and people are using the database, what you have to base as it were your disagreement with us that such a certification is not necessary to make the state department checks all available information and before we award contracts. >> would be nice to get a set of

statistics. i don't know if you can come up with that. i have another question in the minute or so i have left. in your testimony you talk about the fact that you're achieving greater efficiencies through new contract terms. you mention for example the reduced time lines and the timely options and even a company fails to perform can you give me a sense of the acquisition time lines and what some of these timely options are, what do you mean by that? >> taking the second first. for example, when it you have a master contract and which you have the qualified eight firms and then compete the specific task order, if for some reason one of those contractors fails to mobilize for some other occasion cannot perform the fact that we have qualified and we have their individual bids on the task orders and to

immediately go down that list we offer one contract at the time you'd have to go out and we compete the contract. i don't want to say anything is instantaneous but it's certainly eliminates weeks if not months of effort. >> i think the fact that we are awarding the contracts such as the medical contract for iraq, the medical conduct of the security contract when this goes to a very inherent point in the inspector general report, the inspector general's report was a snapshot done in the three quarter of last year and he was absolutely right they the picture was taken we hadn't a word of the medical contract with a secure the contract. as a yoakley today and in my

written statement now on the sixth of june we have done this and this and this come snapshots are good to call things to our attention this is a continuum, this isn't a sprint, this is a marathon until we hit midnight on december 31st, 2011 and when you look across the time line it's one of the most difficult things we've done as the commission noted but we are making the hack marks as we go down the line? >> thanks. obviously we have issues with some of what the state does >> you do a good job and i think you for that. >> mr. v3 estimate ambassador, i'm going to go back to the suspension and debarment discussion we had. i went back in the interim time to look at your full response to the state department response page 2728 on the department's response to the report and basically what you say there is there are two kind of agencies

with regard to sustention, there are those where the recommendations where the evaluation and the recommendation has made at a lower level and then the determination of whether this is spent or to bar is made within the agency or somebody higher and people making the recommendations to make the determinations of the decision makers somebody in the management chain and then the person who makes the ultimate determination given the recommendation whose cause i independent you call it the distance meant department official and your concerns on like leaving your full response by two things. one of the administrative burden, and number two, with regard to the suspension debarment official compromising that person's independence by requiring the agency had to sign off on the determination of this as we say in our recommendation

it has to be approved by the agency head. estimate we are happy to modify for my part i had to modify that recommendation the concurrence of the agency does not require, that's not important to me and i would argue it wouldn't be important to the commission as a cold the issue is whoever makes the determination to ignore the recommendation or disagree with a recommendation to suspend whoever makes the determination, that person, whether within the management chain or independent ought to have a written justification for the final as to why the determination was made. and to argue it's an administrative burden to me is nonsensical and i'm surprised the state department has that position and i would urge you to rethink. >> as you rightly noted we did a very great concern about compromising about the independence of the per commit executive who has a statutory responsibility. second, we also want to make

sure especially somebody on the outside can bring a charge, if the charges truly frivolous or very serious and giving it the credibility of documenting its rebuttal rather than simply dismissing it as -- >> but we are not talking about -- to stop you there we are not talking about somebody on the outside. we are talking about a recommendation made internally in the agency that is overruled by somebody within the management chain and independent besio and whoever it is that makes the determination to overrule a recommendation within the department by competent officials presumably to make that recommendation. >> i will document it for the record. >> we have read your statement recommendation 23 against the contractor officially recommended for the state department that could be by

anyone. as beneficial to be why anyone? >> from another agency for which -- we will take the chairman's notes and take these which i regard as clarifications maybe we misunderstood but you post to clarifications i did not read when i read this and with the intent of your recommendations were we didn't have to put oversight on the program executive for an external internal question as the chair asked me to do. >> thank you. >> i have just a few questions and will let you close with any comment on to make without interruption. commissioner henke was making

reference to the dod kind of pulling the rug out from under you and the department and saying you have to provide protection security to your embassy in kabul and it ended at that you how your are mur group and then the dialogue we had an 09 in the middle of a nine we realized to get the lowest price contract instead of the best value so we jumped in to try to help you will deal with the best value. what's disconcerting is the group is still there and why is it is concerning its disconcerting because they jeopardize one of the security in our judgment in the embassy come second lady brought tremendous disrepute to our government defending the government embassy, and third,

the whistle-blowers that step forward, their lives were threatened. they are still there. one of the reasons why we recommend the ready a cadre of people that could step in is so a contractor like this can see fine, find somebody else, and you can't find somebody else so you are stuck with them. my sense is you are stuck with them and i want to know why you are still using them to september since the photos came out in july and august 09 the shooting was in september of 09 and they're still there, why are they still their scan it and they're there for two reasons, one we just recently awarded the new worldwide protective security contract and competing of the task orders and this goes as one of the examples where the original, the original low bid for that specific task order did

not mobilize in time so that is why we are going to an additional replacement. this goes back to the doctor's question of us having the ability to have the world wide protective security contract cover both stat and movement security that allows us when something to move to a replacement entity. >> we wonder why there shouldn't be within your department, within the dod folks who can step in immediately to deal with this because the contracting process takes too long and it's hardly in a perfect. >> i think the issue, mr. chairman, is that by my notes, we have something like 4900 static guards in iraq.

i'm sorry, in afghanistan. that is a very, very large number. and even that 4900 number you after that about 50% factor for training and movement. none of us are going to have the swat team -- >> we are thinking that maybe foolish and in danger the indices and may endanger our good will and we believe that the extent may be worth it to have a cadre you can turn to quickly because the bottom line is you are stuck with them, and that shouldn't be. let me just make an argument for you to rethink your opposition. 4981 is a grand total for all.

some 760 but even that you read that rotation is over a thousand personnel and we are simply not funded or not programmed to have that kind of a reserve force available for the immediate -- -- your deutsch should be. let me just make this last point for the record and open and let you make your final closing comment i find it difficult to understand the opposition to the independent special inspector general for contingencies and that's based on my experience in congress because frankly as republicans and democrats both realized we were not seeing the kind of oversight of contingency contract in and when we got cigr we began to see that the of inspector general's started to pay more attention.

in fact it wasn't even in the letter so the value was it kind of raised the attention for everyone. second, the very example that cigr doesn't have the legal authority because when they were assigned they were given only a certain charm of contingency we believe that they should have the full breadth so that they wouldn't encounter the very thing that your legal people are saying that they don't have the authority. we want a permanent inspector general with has the authority to cross different departments to do the interagency activities. we want them to look at state, dod, and i just would suggest to you that we would like you to reexamine this in the light of the fact that a huge savings

could take place. you have a final word to close out. you can take as much time as you want. it's your time and i will just say again we appreciate the candid dialogue that's taken place between us and look forward to you getting back to some of the things you said you would. >> that we respond to your question i think you are entirely correct that there was not a full focus of the full in-depth focus that should have been made in the very beginning but i think the corrections that we have seen the dod now deploying their personnel in the theater, the state department opening a regional office to do both iraq and afghanistan does address the question of focus, secondly, i think on your question about the breadth of the responsibilities of an inspector general i certainly

agree that we need full breath. at the same time, when you are receiving a request such as volume cigr to investigate not the activities -- >> you already addressed that, honestly. i am suggesting that if the had been given authority it wouldn't have been in this question. >> but i'm saying i'm opposed to having a third party inspector general so to speak as opposed to a second party investigate the platform the state department is operating on one has to understand that platform, the general accountability office, the state department's inspector general, house surveys come investigations understand that platform and then there is what is riding on the platform i have no problem with that if it's open to any inspector general there are some 15 different united states government agencies operating

overseas and if i have to have each one of them occupied to investigate my platform i will never deliver any services under the platform i will just be doing questions and answers that is a detriment to the united states interest abroad. estimate let me ask you this state has closed a not sure the middle east in the office. >> they have not. >> how many people do they have there? >> they haven't closed. they haven't closed the mideast regional office not that i'm aware of, they are in fact just done another report. it is a report that you cited that they did last fall. >> we are talking about people there. you have the closing word now. any comment you would like to make. there's no doubt the activity of this department is engaged in in

iraq and would be engaged in in afghanistan when the time line is fixed for the withdrawal of the united states troops it is unusual, it is beyond the scope of anything we have ever done in the past, and that is acknowledged. on the other hand, the state department has historically stepped up to challenges, the fall of the berlin wall resulted in the opening of 24 new diplomatic and opposed in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the wall, something that a number in a short skirt of time and the tragic attacks on the embassies in nairobi which caused additional funds to be appropriated at the state department and now we have i think it is 77 new embassies built in the past decade 11 years. we know how to mobilize for this

activity. we have the confidence, we have the personnel, and we absolutely in this case have the full support and partnership with the department of defense from every level from secretary gates and chairman mullen down to the east six expendable and excess property clerk's but we are dealing with in iraq that has provided us almost 4,000 pieces of equipment. ..

is we have not already awarded, the congress has provided us fund. not all the funds we might have liked but we have adjusted the mission. not the safety or security but we have adjusted the mission to comport with the dollars available which is what wet and the executive branch office does in our democracy. my last point is i want to thank the commission for calling attention to issues that we do have to address. your assistance a year or so ago in allowing us to make contract awards on best value was incredibly helpful and is part of the new worldwide rejected security contract that we have awarded a master two and we have already awarded several orders.

it is a long road. is a marathon and i think we have already crested heartbreak hill. we have only so far to go. the time remaining is short. anything can go wrong and i'm sure that something will go wrong. but with the teams we go, the team in baghdad and teams in state, joint teams and the staff i brought with me which money more staff who were there, i think it is three times a week at 8:00 in the morning with everyone in baghdad. we will deliver on this mission because it is in the u.s. national interest we do so. thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. >> ambassador thank you very much and have a good afternoon and with that, this hearing is closed.

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] several wider than to tell you about tomorrow morning.

next a discussion about members of congress are approaching this year's agriculture spending bill, including the issues of school lunches, food marketing in dietary guidelines. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes.ned

>> host: we are joined by my us up to director of leadership or for health activities. thank you for being here. i wanted to get your take on thd governments role in combating childhood obesity and telling children how to eat. what did you make of this new chart we have, this choose myplate.gov the agriculture department and the first lady to change up the way americans are told what's a good diet. guest: the chart is a vast improvement over the previous pyramid. that certainly had many people across america confused. but this chart actually gives you a visceral sense behalf your plate should look like every day when you're eating. and it certainly makes it clear that fruits and vegetables should be a greater portion of the american diet than it currently is. so i actually thought it was a good visual. i think that it's going to be helpful, not only for adults, but also for children. because it's an excellent way for them to easily see how

their plate should look on a daily basis. host: walter olson, does it go too far, is it too much? fwoip as a graphic, it is way better than the old pyramid with the rainbow and the steps, and it's clearer. the underlying question is how far the government should go to telling who's to eat. though we may find some grounds for disagreement, it's been telling us for a long time this is the latest in a government efforts, but what has ramped recently is the set of other policies, everything from new roles for school lunch programs to government advertising on one side or the other of nutritional issues. host: there's a cost that comes with trying to get healthier nutrition in schools. i mean, we're talking about some sizable fees. lawmakers say meals containing more fruits and vegetables and whole grains and low-fat dairy will cost an additional $7 billion over five years.

guest: healthy foods tend to be more expensive. however, let's look at the cost of society. childhood obesity is a major problem in this society. over the past several decades, we've seen the rate of overweight and obesity increase drama tippingly in children under the age of 17. currently we have more than 23 million children who are overweight and obese. that's one in three kids. this is important for society because there are costs to society. not only are there costs for the children themselves and eventually who will become perhaps overweight and obese adults who will have, you know, type two diabetes, heart disease, stroke, all of these costly and very expensive, but also preventable chronic diseases that are affecting our country. and the implications for society as well, if you look at the cost to our social insurance programs, like medicare certainly, and also to our safety net programs like medicaid, there are certainly chronic diseases that are

obesity related that are significant in that regard. so we just can't cut off our nose toss spite our face looking at the short-term costs without looking at the long-term costs. i need to point out that we're in this big debate about the future of medicaid and medicare, and certainly healthcare costs related to obesity-receipted chronic disease realize significant driver of the healthcare costs that are causing us to rethink some of those programs. so the short-term costs are nothing compared to the larger societal costs, and we should keep that in mind. host: walter olson, how can we afford not to improve school lunches and get kids healthier for the reasons maya just outlined? guest: let me start by another point of agreement. so many of these issues have been lost as just the leftovers for other school policies, other sorts of agriculture policies, and school lunch program was treat as a dumping ground for surplus agricultural commodities in schools. the decline of recess and physical education is in part

the result of everyone lobbying for more attention to various curricular areas. and simply by not doing things wrong, the government can give us an improvement. particular when will we say, for example, that we're not going to have whole fat milk or chocolate milk because nonfat milk would be a better choice for kids, it means the kids are not going to drink it at all, you're not solving the problem. host: you have a response? guest: we can't take this out of context. we have a problem with our energy bali situation in this country, meaning that where many of our children and certainly many of our adults are taking in more calories than they burn off certainly in physical activity. and this is causing an overweight and obesity problem. that's a crisis for our society. it's a crisis for public health. it is certainly a crisis, it's driving our fiscal crisis. so we can't just limit it by looking at, you know, how much the lunches are going to

increase because of that. we have to look at the entirity of the problem. and certainly america has been involved in providing nutritional guidelines and guidance for americans since the early part of the 20th century. and so we should understand that it's long been accepted that there is a role for government in protecting and safeguarding the public health. >> walter olson you have a piece called "back off: it's my plate." you talk about this myplate.gov effort that the first lady and usda are involved in. you even take issue with the name of, it the fact that it's called my plate, because that does sort of imply a level of getting into your personal business here. guest: yeah, it's not their plate, it's my plate. and yes, i want dietary advice, and society is full of it. you can turn on the tv without finding some of the best-selling books. the government has a track record -- and "the washington post" had a wonderful article last week about going through the near century of governmental advice and finding how much it's changed and how much of the advice today take

back later as they realized more. it used to be the food groups included not only sweets, but also butter. imagine a day when they were recommending we consume more butter, but it may have made sense in a malnourished society. host: in looking at this right now. you can see what walter olson is talking about, tracing the history of how the agriculture department has been trying to figure out the best way to package its suggestions for eating. you see how dramatic the changes are. back in 1894, the four food groups were proteins, carbohydrates, mineral matter like ash and salt, and fat. and moving into the 1916 era, we had sugar and sugary foods as a food group, fat and fatty foods, certainly changing all the way to 2011, where we've got dairy, protein, grains, fruit and vegetables. let's take a look at part of the ad campaign for the my

plate effort going on right now coming out of the white house. >> for americans to lead happy, productive lives, it helps to stay healthy, active, and fit. it's really pretty simple. choose a healthier plate and balance it with exercise. it all comes down to the choices we make. that's why i'm excited to introduce to you usda's new food icon, my plate. it's a simple reminder to make healthy food choices. my plate symbolizes mealtime and the food groups, fruits, vegetables, grains, protein, and dairy. a healthy plate for every meal. it's easy. and what we eat matters. overweight and obesity rates are at dangerously high levels, and the obama administration has worked to support americans who want to improve their health and nutrition. my plate is a partner to what we're used to seeing. it's an easy to understand

visual which shows thousand build a healthy meal based on the 2010 dietary guidelines for all of americans. host: that's the white house my plate ad. our guests are here to talk about healthy eating, obesity in schools, and what should or should not be done about it. walter olson with the cato institute, a senior fellow there, and maya rockeymoore with the leadership for healthy communities. let's get to the phones in phoenix, arizona, where christine is on our independent line. good morning. caller: hi, yeah, the lunch programs that i saw a special with jamie oliver, and they talked about the school lunch program in california, and they wouldn't even let him in the cafeteria to see what kind of food they're serving our children, and the idea that there's some kind -- you know, they regulate what they serve, and it's apparently ok to serve meat that's been washed with ammonia.

i couldn't believe what i was seeing, what they're feeding our children. this was in california. i'm actually -- my kids are grown now and don't have school lunches anymore. but when i was in school, school lunches were pretty good. so the idea that they're serving packaged and processed and ammonia-cleaned hamburger meat that can be -- i mean, it was disgusting what i saw. and it seems to me that with cutting funding for schools, you know, the schools got to cut funding for some things, so, you know, lunch programs, not to mention there's no more physical education in schools. most schools here anyway. they just don't have the budget for it. host: she mentioned jamie oliver, a celebrity food who made an effort to bring locally-produced foods into the school system. maya? guest: the caller brings up a good point, and that is that young people spend a majority

of their day in schools. schools have a responsibility to make sure what they're serving children actually support the health of children. certainly when parents send their children out of the home every day to be taken care of in school, they want to make sure that the schools are providing them, their children with healthy foods. and so, you know, in terms of what's offered in the school lunch line, what's offered at school breakfast, what's offered in vending machines, and certainly what's offered in terms of p.e. and physical activity, they're all important things that schools can do to improve the health of children. host: can it go too far in your opinion? guest: actually, i think there needs to be a balance. it's all about the energy bali situation. but we've gone too far in the other direction in this country with regards to, you know, certainly if you look at some of the lunch lines, if you look at what's offered in vending machines, these high-calorie, high-fat, low-nutrient foods, they're offered in excess, so much so that it's impossible, virtually impossible for

children to actually have a healthy weight in this country because of that imbalance. and so, also, the fact that walter is absolutely right. physical activity in school has declined dramatically in our nation's schools. and so, when you have a system where children are spending their time confined to a school for the bulk of their day, they're not getting access to healthy foods, access to water or access to physical activity, then what you have is what we have today, which is a childhood obesity crisis that needs to be solved. guest: one thing people don't realize about school cafeterias, you are must less likely to find an actual cook than 30 or 40 years ago. you're more likely to find processed food that has been heated up. one reason is fear of food poisoning. in general, anyone who works -- they don't want to be the person who's watched with an

outbreak. so the canned vegetables, frozen fruits are less likely. i mean, that's what statistics indicate to make your school the one with an outbreak. and yet that's incentive just to give them, just to be safe, be safe, be safe, at the expense of giving kids a more interesting and often more healthy eating experience. host: what is your ideal school cafeteria or eating facility, what would it be paid for and how would it work? guest: well, first off, decentralization. i think if you allow different places and different systems to go their way own, you will find some of them with successful experiments that are worth following elsewhere. that makes me suspicious of trying to dictate a solution from washington, even if they ask me to dictate that solution, i'd rather see what california is doing, see what new england is doing, see what illinois is doing, and then, you know, one of those is going to throw out something new. there's better and worse, and at least one advance here is they're not using it as much

for surplus agriculture. host: what is -- what if you're a parent of a student of a school system that doesn't have much funding, under the model you proposed, you might be unfortunate? guest: which is another problem with school systems that do not work well, which is that we are assigned to one, and if we don't think it's workable, school choice would help a lot. i don't know whether people are going to make decisions on school choice just based on the meals, although people have chosen hospitals based on the meals, so i guess it wouldn't be a first. but in general, get schools competing against each other, and one of the ways they will compete is by persuading parents that the overall experience, as well as it's better for their kids. host: we have a comment on twitter. larry writes, he thinks there's a direct connection between the nanny state fostering individual irresponsibility and an obese population. where does personal responsibility come in in taking control of what you put

in your own body? guest: the issue of overweight and obesity has many contributing factors f. you're talking about genetics or certainly behavior, you might be talk about the environment, and certainly sober yo cultural issues come into play as well. you have to realize that certainly people make choices within the context of their environment. and we actually currently live in a society where the environment has been structured to be an obese environment, meaning there are not enough choices provided for individuals so that they can make the healthy choice. and it's government's role to actually make sure that there are choices for people so that you can have liberty if you want to lead a healthier life. and so, people make choices in the context of their environment, and it's important to realize that it's not a state, it's certainly the state's role to make sure that people have those opportunities to make healthier choices. host: let's go to hawaii, where brian is on our democrat line. good early morning to you. caller: yeah, we have only one

party in hawaii, and that's the democratic party. i would say that the government -- it's not their job to tell us what to eat. i think this is still america, but why don't we buy foods that are made in america? if you look at canned foods, they'll say that they're made in spain or they're made in thailand or they're made in red china. that would be the first thing. the second thing is why don't we try leadership by example? look at the adults in the house of representatives and tell these kids that they're supposed to be thin when half the people in d.c. can't get out of their chair. guest: well, there's a couple of questions there. i think that we would be -- it would be a disservice by keeping food from overseas which provides a lot of the fruits and vegetables that the

usda correctly points out are good for us. that hasn't been said, there's a lot going on with the obesity problem. i wanted to respond to something that maya said, in that the obesity program is strongly different from region to region. there are parts of the country, even though the economies are similar, even though the supermarkets seemed to be stocked in a similar way, have much lower rates of obesity than any own native midwest, for example f. we're trying to figure out why there is this societal trend, part of the question is, what is california or colorado or parts of new england doing right? you know, what can we imitate that they have been doing right for years? guest: i'd like to speak to that certainly we've decentralization prior to the passages of healthy, hunger free kids act. certainly we look to the states as laboratories for

experimentation in terms behalf are best practices. we've seen those best practices infused in this recent bill, also that we can crealts. we're taking the best of what's been out there to create standards for the nation. once we know better, we do better. in this case, the federal government has a role to make sure that everyone has access to certainly healthy foods. now, realizing that there are significant differences in access, even within states, even with cities, we've got neighborhoods that don't have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. they have more access to fast food restaurants than fresh fruits and vegetables because of the disinvestment of supermarkets in their neighborhood. when you look at the statistics in terms of rates of chronic diseases, they approximately overlay the issue, the areas where there are issues with access, and those areas tend to be low income neighborhoods, they tend to be populations that are disproportion natural the racial. and so you see higher rates of chronic diseases in the areas that have less access. government has a role to make sure that there is access, and

certainly in neighborhoods and certainly in schools, we should make sure that people have what it takes to be healthy. host: let's go to florida, nick on our republican line. welcome. caller: i just wanted to make a few comments. i know the majority of conversation this morning is about schools, but the thing is , i'm a parent, and it's up to me what my child eats. and for me to be responsible for my child until they reach the age where they're responsible, and if i'm not feeding them at home, they're not going to get it, the right nutrition to begin with, because school lunches with only one of their meals a day, maybe two if they're on the breakfast program. but they still have the weekends, and if they're sitting around playing video games when they're at home and not doing exercise at home, it's not just the schools or the government's responsibility, it's up to

parents to be parents and maybe educating the parents on, hey, cut out the video games to only give them 20 or 30 minutes a day and do something outside with them as parents. and maybe incentive programs to help them exercise in different areas. host: you brought up something there about what you were saying about incentive programs. do you think there should be -- explain to me about how incentive programs would work. would there be ones to eat healthy as well as exercise? host: well, yeah, maybe for the kids, because they have health programs that come out for adults, you know, in different work places, you know, to -- an incentive for them to be healthier so that their insurance isn't as much. so maybe do something for the kids. maybe have some kind of awards program. i know they got the presidential physical fitness program, maybe expand on that and get kids more involved in

local areas, and let's face it, no matter what's on the shelf, if a kid has a choice, they're going to choose the thing that is less healthy for them just because of what's in it. host: our caller was saying personal responsibility is up to the parents, but then he brought up this idea of incentives. guest: well, the idea of adjusting people's health insurance rates, although it's often been suggested, is an enormous pushback and looks like charging the highest prices to some of the people who are in the most trouble to begin with, so good luck in f that's your idea. i don't think politically it will be happening. but i agree so much with nick's point, which is it's very hard to find a better predictor of whether a child will wind up struggling with these problems than the food environment in their home. different kids can go to the same school, they will have different outcomes, not because school is treating them differently, but because their home lessons in food are different. that is something that the

government can't really take the lead on. we need to be better parents. one of the things ties in with the lack of recess at schools, but studies have found that kids do not play outdoors nearly as much as they did. part of it is fear of what happened if they got kidnapped, part of it is video games, lots of reasons. but for whatever reason, it's not one that you can blame on the schools. kids just don't do as much physical play these days. host: let's look at some of the numbers. this is coming from the c.d.c. 17%, that's 12.5 million children adolescents are considered to be obese. since 1980, obesity prevalence has almost tripled. one in seven low-income preschool-aged children are obese. guest: what nick was talking about was the role of patients, and parents are certainly important. all parents want their children to be healthy, to lead really robust lives and really long lives. and certainly when their children leave the house, they have the right to expect that

institutions that act in place of parents are supportive of those aims and goals. and so, certainly, schools and communities have to work in partnership with parents to make sure that they support children's health as well. certainly through access to freck fruits and vegetables, certainly healthy options, and also access to safe physical activity. now, in the school, that takes the form of recess, it takes the form of p.e. classes that are high quality and meet the basic standards. but in the community, it also takes the form of making sure that children have access to safe places to play, that they have parks and recreational opportunities that support certainly happy, healthy, physically active children. host: ohio, carol, democratic caller. good morning. hi, carol. carol, are you with us? you're on the air. caller: good morning. host: carol, turn off your tv and we're with you.

caller: yes, i am. host: turn off your tv and just talk on the phone. we're ready for your question. caller: one caller did touch on the jamie oliver issue and schools. what is the government's role in all of this? i think he plays a big role, because they allow the chemicalization of our schools. the foods are not natural anymore. these chemicals do disrupt all types of body systems in children, adults, so why is the government allowing so much chemicals into the food? it enriches the corporations, we understand, but could either of your guests please answer that question for me? host: to both of them. walter olson. guest: i think we start with the presumption that people are allowed to choose what food they want to buy, and for a lot of us, the ones that have been processed in some way have attraction today. they last longer before they

spoil. they are less likely to have certain types of spoilage. they're with the government only if it's very clear that there's no reasonable consumer would want in a food. and that leaves us with -- and it leaves every country with a heavily processed food system which we're going to wind up, even if they have healthier food, there's still going to be a lot of processing. there's no way of getting around it. host: the government has had a longstanding role in ensuring the food products, through the usda, f.d.a., there are regulations and standards in effect. at the federal level, the farm bill is certainly very pool. there's a food bill that sets standards for the nation's society. and so a lot of these issues with regards to what's state of for the american public are front and center and the government does do a lot of regulation.

the issue that she's raising, the issue of the chemicals in foods and preservatives in foods, it's one that i think is still bubbling to the forefront of america's can sheness. certainly there has been a lot of pushback in recent years about various additives like salts and other things. and so, the science is still being debated, and certainly the plate that the first lady and the government just released in addition to the plate they had guidance about what things to look out for in terms of the ingredients in foods. but certainly, the government does have a role and will continue to have a role and as we know more about various additives and certain other various chemicals, and trees issues will be debated in the future. and i am -- i am sure these issues will be debated in the future. sure we will air on the

side of public health, especially in light of the equalizer outbreak in germany correctly -- the e. coli outbreak in germany correctly. host: our guest is chief of staff to congressman charles rangel, democrat of new york. our other guest is a senior fellow at the cato institute. a senior fellow at the manhattan institute in the past and his writings appear regularly in the "new york times" and the "new york post." we are talking about the new campaign by the fda and the choosemyuse called

plate.gov. here is a tweet. what do you think about advertising in the schools and some of these commercial endeavors that appeal to the palate of fatty foods and rich foods? guest: i think there is a challenge in advertising to schools and advertising in general and society, whether it be through school programs or online or through television. there is nothing wrong with marketing to children, but when you are marketing bad health to children your marketing the

notion that you will be cool if you eat this particular food or beverage. it ends up undermining your health and causing you to die young and have poor health in your lifetime. there is a notion of marketing high calorie, high-fat food to children. host: what you think? guest: i did not blame the commercials when i wound up costing them on children's tv because my son was already -- when i wound up seeing them on children's tv because my son was already going to want them. this is why i pack a lunch, such an important step for parents. such an important step for parents to connect with a children's food choices is to be there for them at lunch. host: here is a claim out of

california, that company's advertising violates california's consumer protection clause. how this is from the chicago tribune business online. you mentioned that you do not hold the advertisers responsible, but is there a line that should be there in public schools and how these things are appealing to children? guest: i agree there is a question of britain these things into public-school where there is a -- in bringing these things into public school where there is a captive audience. at a restaurant, the parent is in charge. i think the child would also want the food if there were no choice in the happy meal.

guest: why not a character or apples? why put the toys with the foods that have been the -- the least nutritional quality? guest: but mcdonald's will give you the apples. guest: i am saying if you look at where advertisers promotional items with children -- for children, they're often paired with foods that have low nutritional quality, high foods, high-fat, foods that undermine children's health. -- high-fat, high calorie foods. foods that undermine children's health. host: let's hear from dan in iowa. independent collar. good morning, jan. caller: good morning, thank you. i called in and i really did not

want to talk, but she said it's ok if i want to. please hear me. i do not mean to be disrespectful to any of you, but in truth, we are talking about taking 1 khandelwal. and if you -- one chemical. if you take aspirating, that is in all kinds of foods. -- aspartame. it is in all kinds of foods. it has been proven to do so much damage to all parts of the body. and yet, the continue to use it. if you really think about this, believe that the american people should trust the government that cannot manage other things, even our spending, but they are going to manage our food and what we put in our mouth and tell us what we should eat? , oh, it is healthy and we

really care about you when they cannot even keep our borders safe and our kids are dying for us. guest: if you look on infomercials, there's all kinds of scientific and evidence. she is right about aspartame. how are american supposed to navigate the large amount of data about what is healthy and was not? certainly, our government has a role and will continue to play this role in serving as arbiter of this information to make sure that there are standards of evidence that are met with science. and certainly, that they're promoting public health and having better protection to have access to this data.

guest: i do not think that the government always comes up with the right answers. i noticed earlier that choosemyplate.gov gives information about product that is not good advice in all circumstances. i hear from one half of my friends that low carbohydrate or new carbohydrate diets are better. -- or no carbohydrate diets are better. guest: when we know better, we do better. there are instances, perhaps, of misinformation, but on the total we are headed in the right direction. this is guidelines. this is giving people a sense of what they should do. it is not perspective. it is not saying you have to do this and you cannot do something

else. host: let's go to kalamazoo, mich., barbara, republican collar. caller: the government, i do not feel, has any business of telling the parents -- we do not make the parents responsible for discipline, but it is the parents' responsibility to keep the chart -- to teach the children what is good and what is bad. at the schools we have vending machines and the kids have money all the time nowadays, so they are using that. but when they actually serve the meals, they have the chicken nuggets and the vegetables and a sloppy joe's. the kids are going to take what

they want. guest: actually, that is what the healthy, hunger free kids campaign was all about. it was about setting nutritional standards in the schools, that what was offered for lunch and breakfast meet nutritional guidelines. the idea of junk food being the predominant food is hopefully becoming a thing of the past as a result of this. host: let's look at the numbers from the cdc. our last caller talked about personal responsibility, pants

and parents teaching good lunches and giving good tips on what to buy and what to eat. if you are not lucky enough toto have an engage concerned parent where does that leave kids who don't have that kind of a whoort system? >> guest: many of them will of follow the path of leastsu resistance. , i guess, t is why there is some agreement with were the schools are offering package and not doing anyone a favor. getting back to solve, for example, for a moment, because we have now been lectured for some time about less salt. soup is often one of the best things on the menu. it is one of the best ways to get vegetables into kids, but it is hard to make it taste good with are using more salt than the government recommends. -- without using more salt than the government recommends.

host: looking into a story from cq weekly talking about agricultural funding in the house, the agricultural spending bill for fiscal year 2012, the appropriations bill, there is some discussion about how far the government should go when it comes to setting standards. the panel adopted an amendment by senator rayburn, the republican from montana. he said that the fda is starting to use soft sciences in some considerations in the promulgation of its roles. what do you think about this, mr. wilson, as far as what language is used to create these

rules and standards? guest: on the one hand, it is hard to have hard scientists -- hard sciences set the standards. on the other hand, the public has a bit of an unreadable standard. i think we have rushed in, and often without the best sciences behind it. i understand the motion behind it -- the emotion behind it. host: and this bill, it would cut funding and other things. the bill includes 100 vote -- $108 billion in mandatories bending. -- mandatory spending. guest: whether it is through the

nih for the cdc, certainly we have other arturs -- arbiters. all of these entities have scientists on board who are looking at the data and evaluating the science to give us the best sense of what the research suggests we should do. and those guidelines have influenced the standards that were sold -- set forth in the healthy, hungry free kids -- healthy, under free kids campaign. and that actually did give kids the ability to define -- and did give them the ability to define what the standards are in the schools. and now policymakers want to roll back the ability to afford children access to help the food based on what is acceptable sense right now.

-- acceptable science right now. we need to understand the healthy kids certainly means a healthy and productive society and are ultimately means less cost to the state in the form of reduced costs to medicare and medicaid. we cannot cut off our noses to spite our faces. we need to invest in jabr and while they are young so they can grow up to be healthy, productive adults with fewer medical costs that society and our families have to bear. host: let's go to our next call, from alabama. caller: most of you are missing the point. schools across the nation are too busy cutting and not trying to find the money that is

supposed to be helping schools. why is that? i have never seen c-span question anyone about the lotto money. guest: i'm sure there would be a lot to find out about a lot of money. this is why the issue has come to a head in congress with the amendment and so forth. it is going to cost significantly more to provide meals in schools. we just do not have the money. we are laying off teachers. do we have to do it now? inevitably, the politics of this, we had an election in which we are more skeptical about washington.

guest: it is not an unfunded mandate. there are actually funds that have been appropriated as a result of policy makers understanding that healthier foods tend to be more expensive. you certainly see that in the fire out -- the child nutrition bill and the federal reimbursement rate to pay for these bills. and certainly, consideration of other ways that these schools can make sure that they are not subsidizing the cost of these meals are undermining the subsidies for these meals. it is important to understand that the healthy and were free kids act is not an unfunded mandate. -- the healthy, hundred-free kids act is not an unfunded mandate. host: here is a tweet. can both be done with the financial situation that we have

right now in america? are they compatible or can they be at odds? how much real money is spent teaching us how to eat verses feeding the poor and taking care of the needy? guest: fortunately, we are not in an either/or proposition. we sought funding to make sure that we are presenting the best data. but we are also trying to provide food support for people across america, whether the be through food stamps or the school lunch program for the summer feeding program that are so important to low-income children across the country. we are in a situation where we can do both and we want to make sure that we can continue to be a country that can afford to do both. the only way we can do that is by ensuring that we have healthy, productive children that grow into healthy, productive adults that can

contribute to the national economy. guest: one of the connections between money and the government being too bossy is that, for years, school food has been wasted. they serve it to them sometimes because they have a lot of cauliflower and is not well received by the kids. in the district of columbia where the kids were served green onions and scallions, most of the kids did not like it. if you are not meeting the kids -- i do not know if halfway is right or one-third of the way -- [unintelligible] guest: there are also studies that show when kids are offered and vegetables, they often consume it. you would be surprised that kids

are actually going through the cell bars at schools. i do not think we should underestimate -- the salad bars at schools. i do not think we should underestimate giving them the option. host: the difference between wilted, c.b. tal afar vs fresh -- soupy cauliflower vs fresh cauliflower. you see a difference there? guest: yes, there are ways that you can make healthy foods at

>> chairman of the homeland security oversight subcommittee, texas republican might call says the state department has failed to fully report terrorism threat to congress specifically the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. >> comments came in a recent hearing on terrorist groups in pakistan, yemen and somalia. this is a little less than two hours. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. i would like to welcome our witnesses to this hearing entitled denying safe havens, homeland security's efforts to

counter threats from pakistan, yemen and somalia. although osama bin laden is dead, al qaeda and its affiliates are not. they are hiding in safe havens, areas of relative security that are exploited by terrorists to recruit, train, raise funds and plan operations. the department of state has identified 13 countries acting as safe havens today. today we examine three but 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? osama bin laden was the most wanted terrorist and he lives comfortably in abbottabad. pakistan and a town that serves the headquarters of the frontier force, and infantry regiments. only 31 miles from islamabad.

contrary to our beliefs that he was hiding in some cave and the fata or the frontier. 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 over 2000 cadets are trained from 600 struck his teach and approximately 2000 representatives from other countries visit and receive training each year. cnn recently reported that osama bin laden has sought a deal with pakistan which he would not attack pakistan in exchange for protection. at this point we do not know who in the pakistani government was aware of osama bin laden's presence. but i'm certain that some pakistan officials knew that he was living in plain sight. not exactly the average house in

an ordinary neighborhood. it stuck out like a sore thumb. it is difficult to determine how many terrorist groups operate out of pakistan but we do know al qaeda, the afghan taliban and the pakistani taliban and other groups 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, mullah omar the spiritual leader of the taliban, is believed to be in pakistan. anwar al-awlaki is hiding in yemen. he is the equivalent of the bin laden of the internet. he provide spiritual guidance and recruits terrorists via youtube and facebook. hughes had inspired more than two dozen terror plots against the united states over the past two years. the portrait shootershooter, nidal hasan, e-mailed al-awlaki on numerous occasions before he

killed 13 people including soldiers and wounded 30 others. abdulmutallab, the christmas bomber, was in contact with al-awlaki before attempting to set off an explosive on board northwest flight to 54, and international flights bound for detroit. with the death of bin laden, many experts believe al qaeda and the arabian peninsula based in yemen will attempt to become the successor. because there is no central authority and somalia, al qaeda and other associated terrorist groups will also use it as a base of operations to attack western targets. according to the 2009 report on terrorism issued by the national counterterrorism center al-shabaab is considered by u.s. officials as one of the most deadly terrorist groups in the world. not only is somalia a base for terrorism, the pirates operating off the coast are a threat to

international shipping. this has contributed to an increase in shipping costs and the delivery of food aid shipments. 90% of the world's food programs shipments into somalia arrived by sea and ships and now require a military escort. numerous documents have addressed the problem of terrorists safe havens. with 9/11 commission's report to congress concluded the safe haven of afghanistan allowed al qaeda operational space to gather recruits and build a just to go networks to conduct attacks against the united states. ..

existing u.s. law the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 and the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 requires the administration to produce a list of what each agency is doing to my terrorist safe havens. the government accountability office giglio examines the u.s. government approach and concluded 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. but they are doing to prevent the proliferation and tracking of weapons of mass destruction and what they are doing to cooperate with u.s. counterterrorism officials. this knowledge is vital to congress' ability to craft foreign policy that holds countries accountable for a interests by looking the 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 the key to preventing future attacks on american soil. osama bin laden orchestrated the 9/11 attack from his safe haven in afghanistan. all anwar al-awlaki has 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 hearing will assess the role of the u.s. government in

denying the terrorist ability to reconstitute. and before i yield my time to the ranking member, i do want to thank the brave men and women of the armed services, the civilians and the department of state and homeland security and those across government agencies who served overseas. they constitute our best offense against the terrorists who want to kill us. with that, i yield and recognize the ranking member of this committee. >> thank you mr. chairman and for convening today's hearing on the u.s. efforts to deny terrorist safe havens and counter threats from pakistan, yemen and somalia. the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were coordinated as we all know from a safe haven in afghanistan. the 9/11 commission leader stated that the u.s., quote, strategy should include offensive operations to counterterrorism and tariffs should no longer find safe

havens where the organizations can grow and flourish. terrorism in america right now is our number one security threat. denying safe haven to terrorists is a paramount concern to our homeland security and important step in keeping our communities safe from terrorism. we know that stevens's exist in on government, under governed and ale governed areas of the world. they provide terrorists cover and allow them to cease to operate and plan a vicious terrorist attacks. there are multiple agencies that play a role in implementing u.s. counterterrorism efforts and i think the panel for taking their time today to join us as part of that grouping. the departments estate homeland security justice and defense are all but a few of the u.s. agencies that combine their efforts and countering this threat. and i'm interested in hearing today from our witnesses to the level of cooperation that

presently exists among the agencies and whether the small - agency approach is producing positive results for our homeland security. i think cooperation is one of the challenges we face in a threat so complicated and serious as this and it's important that as possible. as the congress receive a full listing of our government efforts especially in light of the risk ct vince pos to the safety and security of u.s. interest both at home and abroad. one hint needs to know what the other hand is doing. and the production of this report and the manner intended by congress will allow that to happen. while today's focus is on physical safety fence, we must also consider the broad safe havens of the future. electronic infrastructure and a global communications play an important role in terrorist operations and allow for virtual

safe havens that are much harder to track, disruptive and dismantled and physical stevens. furthermore, the may 1st killing of osama bin laden government. it indicates the terms of savings does not always equate with remoteness scarcely populated areas or law less serious. the recommendations on strategies and the best approach for addressing terrorist stevens and i yield back my time. >> the virtual safe havens are a threat as well and i know we had hearings on the requisition over the internet which is a pos is one of the biggest threats we have today. other members statements may be submitted for the record and

have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this important topic and i want to introduce each of you and i hope we get through the testimony. we have votes coming up in probably about 30 minutes from now it'll be two votes and then return to the hearing. first we have jackie williams richards is the managing director of the international affairs and trade team for the u.s. government accountability office. she began her professional career in the gao in 1978. she has also been the inspector general of the u.s. department of state and u.s. arms control and then disarming the agency and it's a pleasure to have you here today. the international affairs of the department of homeland security was responsible for coordinating the department international programs and policies. prior to joining he served in

the u.s. foreign service concentrating a counter terrorism and security issues and it's an honor to have you here today as well. we have the deputy cord meter for regional affairs of the u.s. department of state. previously she served as the chief of mission in burma and her expensive foreign service career included overseas assignments in thailand, brazil and ecuador among others. next we have mr. james roberts who served as a principal director for the special operations and combating terrorism and the office of secretary defense. mr. roberts began his government career as a u.s. army private in 1968 and served 24 years on active duty as a military intelligence officer. thank you for your service to the country and for all of you for being here today. i've been informed we are going to have votes in about probably five minutes or so.

in fact they called it just now. [laughter] i would -- i think we can proceed with some of the testimony. they usually keep the votes open about 30 minutes. so with that, ms. williams-bridgers is recognized. >> chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, i am pleased to be here to discuss the report that gao is releasing today on u.s. efforts to address terrorist safe havens. as we all know, a lot of tourists the freedom to train, recruit and plan deadly operations that constitute a threat to the united states. as you mentioned in your opening statement, was the case with the attempted airliner bombing on december 26, to the ascent line which was planned safe havens in yemen. most recently the discovery of osama bin laden in a compound in the military base in pakistan

makes this hearing particularly timely. my testimony focuses on three questions, to what extent the u.s. agency strategy focuses on the terrorist safe havens, but terrorist safe havens have been identified and has the u.s. government developed a comprehensive assessment of its efforts to deny terrorists the ability to train, recruit, plan deadly operations against us. my first point is 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 the national strategy on combating terrorism which was last updated in 2006. identify state patrons as a national security concern. the national strategy for combating terrorism noted the elimination of terrorist stephens require the attention of all the lines of the national power. with a particular focus on information sharing, all

enforcement and for an capacity building in the security governance and development sectors. in addition to the national strategy, the defense, justice, steve, usaid and the office of the director of the national intelligence has issued a strategic plan that includes language emphasizing the importance of addressing the safe havens. however, other agencies such as the dhs that are significantly involved in the relevant law enforcement efforts overseas did not specify the need to address threats from safe havens in their strategic plan. my second point, in compliance with congressional mandates, state department annually identify the safe havens around the globe which threatens the u.s. national security. congressman perform a detailed assessment of each foreign country whose territory is being used as a sanctuary for terrorists. since the 2006 is published this information in its annual country report on terrorism. since 2007, only one country

indonesia, and one region, the afghanistan pakistan border has been removed from the list of safe havens. most recently in the 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 organizations maintain safe havens including a the corev al qaeda, the pakistani taliban. each group has either attempted attacks against the united states or as legitimate targets. if they claim responsibility for the field fecal bombing in "the new york times" square in 2010. in yen in the al qaeda and arabian peninsula plan the attempted bombing of a plane headed to the united states on december 25th, 2009 and also the

responsibility for the attempted bombing and cargo planes in late 2010. also in 2010, the united states designated anwar al-awlaki, a u.s. citizen and a leader for supporting acts of terrorism on behalf of aqap. al-shabaab's pour leadership is linked to al qaeda has responsibility for several bombings and shootings throughout somalia as well as the deadly suicide bombings in ugonda. just last year the fbi in indicted 12 people including five u.s. citizens on charges of providing support to al-shabaab. in addition, the fbi has expressed concern about america's trains in somalia who might plan to conduct attacks in the united states. despite the expressed desire of the congress to receive a comprehensive assessment of the united states effort to deny safe harbor the united states

government has not developed such an evaluation beginning in 2004 congress required the administration to submit reports outlining the u.s. government efforts to deny or disrupt safe havens and in response states submitted a report to congress in 2006 and subsequently updated information in the annual country report. while these reports include the most recent updates issue in august 2010 and identified several u.s. efforts to address c2 vince we found the report is not complete for two reasons. first the country reports do not include at least 13 programs and activities that state's fund to address seat ravens for example foreign military financing and training provided through the dhs to combat cash smuggling are not included. second programs and activities funded by the agency's other than the state department such as defense, justice, treasury were not included. for example the dod afghanistan and iraqi security forces fund and the 1206 program has used to

train and recruit foreign security forces were not included. the usefulness of the steve reporting we recommend the seat include an assessment of the key u.s. agency programs that address terrorist safe havens. they concurred that its reporting should be more comprehensive. but they do not agree that such should be part of the country report. citing another report that issue. we determined it doesn't constitute a government wide assessment of the key u.s. efforts because it does not include the contribution of the key agencies such as dod. in 2010 the congress again required the president to report on the u.s. counterterrorism efforts relating to the denial of safe havens. we understand that the national security council has been assigned the responsibility for completing the report but no report has been submitted to congress to read to address this reporting gap we recommended that in collaboration with other agencies complete the congressional reporting requirement to identify and

assess government-wide efforts related to the denial of terrorist safe harbors. that concludes my prepared statement. i would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you for your testimony today by an informed we have one vote. so i would ask we take a very short break, make everyone and then come back to the hearing. i appreciate your patience. [inaudible conversations]

>> the committee will come to order. i appreciate the patience from the witnesses and everybody in the room. hopefully we can finish the hearing before the next votes and with that, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, chairman and ranking member and distinguished members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the department of homeland security colin support of u.s. efforts to address terrorist seat ravens. protecting the united states from terrorism as a cornerstone of homeland security and denying terrorist safe havens is one of the best ways to undermine the capacity to operate. the state department defines terrorist safe havens as on governed, under government or ill governed areas where they threaten the national security are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communique, recruit

and train because of inadequate government political will or both. let me clarify the dhs is concerned about the threats foreign or domestic whether or not they come from savings. dhs actions for example in deciding who should be allowed entry into the united states on the experience of officers and field and best available intelligence. we take the source for the movement into the account when making other decisions and the other work we do the dhs doesn't faze those decisions on whether a particular area is designated a safe haven. to address the problem of safe havens to prevent threats and reduce risk dhs works closely with the department of state and defense and other departments and agencies to protect the homeland from terrorist attacks and denied the ability to travel and finance their activities. one important way the dhs conduct these efforts is to strengthen the capabilities of the foreign partners. we believe that these efforts make partner countries stronger and make them and the u.s. more

secure by improving the government and economic opportunity, fighting criminology, and supporting the rule of law. and so, decreasing the likelihood of safe havens. dhs carries out programs around the world to provide training and technical assistance to strengthen partners' ability to confront terrorist speed de hs is generally not authorized to use its appropriated funds for foreign capacity building purposes, therefore when our interest and pre-ready is overlap the dhs works with the u.s. agencies that hold the authority to fund such systems. these cooperative efforts to work with our international partners do not hinge exclusively whether a particular area is a terrorist safe haven but instead is based on where our assistance can help build the partners capacity to increase the security and fight the transnational crime and combat terrorism. for example, in afghanistan, the dhs has led efforts that have significantly improved the ability of the afghan government to control its borders, increase customs revenue protection and

facilitate legal trade while preventing the movement of illegal goods including in protest explosive devices. this is based on previous border security efforts the dhs carried out in iraq, efforts the defense department officials supported and encouraged them to carry out in afghanistan. our work has included mentoring afghan border customs officials at border posts, tackling through kabul international airport and a training academy for afghan customs officials. to cite another exodus from vietnam that terrorist attacks last october after explosives were found, tsa derwood deployed the team to yemen to assess the security programs and subsequently turned the officials to mitigate the air cargo security in yemen. also this a role provided the training in pakistan to counter both cash smuggling and identified, and explosives.

we trained more than 50 officers from four different pakistani border control agencies including the federal investigative agency, customs force, and airport security force. at the same time, the dhs is strengthening coordination among its components and offices operating internationally. dhs established its first international strategy and is consolidating information about all dhs training and technical assistance activities worldwide in part to insure every activities are closely aligned with our priorities. these events will help us work effectively in the department of the state and defense. chairman, a ranking member clark and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i look forward to working with you as we explore opportunities to advance our efforts and cooperation with international partners to deny terrorist safe havens. thank you again for the opportunity to testify as provided a complete written testimony i look for your questions. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. villa

rosa deacons -- villarosa for five minute. >> ranking member card and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss state department efforts in coordination with our other agency partners to eliminate terrorist seat ravens. 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 government frequently in the border region. this requires a pool of government effort and a strategic approach to address both the immediate security needs while building long-term governments rule of law including the the capacity to counter violent extremists and reduce terrorist recruitment and delegitimize violence in those virtual safe havens. in order for our strategy to be effective we must develop regional approaches with the

neighboring countries to strengthen this case in which terrorists can operate. we build this regional cooperation by bringing our investors together with senior interagency officials to define it collaborative strategies and action plans. state works with defense to build the capacity of military and civilian law enforcement officials, state works with the homeland security to tighten border security, the state works with treasury to restrict the flow of funds in and out of terrorist safe havens, the state works with the justice and fbi to improve investigative and prosecutorial capacity so countries can build an effective criminal cases against terrorists and works with usaid to improve government by establishing the rules law assisting with the provision of basic services such as health and education and promoting

peaceful conflict resolution. we have achieved success with this approach. he can no longer travel freely between indonesia and the philippines to to improve maritime surveillance procedures indonesia success and prosecuting terrorists and the greater philippine government control over territory formerly used for its training camps. in the chance to hear of the countries have the political will to fight terrorism but lack the capacity and the welcome assistance to build a capacity and counter violent extremists. the countries of the region with our assistance have begun to work together to take action against the al qaeda affiliate operating in their territory. the committee has asked us to address three of the toughest challenges we still face, pakistan, yemen and somalia. our complex relationship with pakistan is well known. 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 advanced historical and sustainable. we are assisting the pakistanis with delivery of basic services and improved government in the federally administered tribal area 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 eliminate terrorist c stevens. al qaeda and the arabian peninsula operating out of yemen have tried multiple times to attack us. we had some success in 2009 and 2010 with our strategy and worked with the yemenis to take action against imminent threats

and deliver basic services and security to its people. we are hopeful the future leaders will be salles with counterterrorism partners once the political situation is resolved. somalia hasn't had a central government for years. the main terrorist group al-shabaab has links with al qaeda and conducted a major attack out of somalia killing 76 people in ugonda and launched by the partner nation forces has reduced the territorial control and defections from al-shabaab. more needs to be done to consolidate the political control over the newly liberated area. we've also begun a more intense as outreach to the diaspora in a civil society to foster peaceful reconciliation. in conclusion, the threat is

formidable but we are making progress. our strategic approach of capacity building countering violent extremism and broader regional cooperation provides us with of the tools to make lasting progress. thank you very much and i welcome your questions. >> the chair now recognizes mr. roberts for five minutes. >> good morning chairman mccaul, ranking member clark and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to testify today and share with you the department of defense efforts to address and governed territories to preclude the use by terrorists a stevens. a dot recognizes such efforts require close interagency coordination in fact cultivation has was reflected by the panel here this morning. eliminating terrorist safe havens is a core element of the defense department's counterterrorism efforts. as the secretary gates has written and said on the numerous

occasions, in the decades to come, the most lethal threat to the united states safety and security are likely to emanate from states that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory not from strong states or pure competitors. dealing with a fractured and failing states is in many ways the main security challenge of our time. the focus today on pakistan, yemen and somalia highlight de diverse challenges such states can present. today's strategic calculation demands the u.s. government focus on building partner capacity, helping other countries develop tools for their security and governance to defend themselves and defend us by extension. we do this by providing them with education, and equipment, training and other forms of

security assistance. america's efforts to build the capacity by partners will always be defined by support for healthy several military relations. respect for human dignity and the rule of law, promotion of international humanitarian law and professionalism of the partner to leave the military forces. finally as a longstanding member of the special operations family, i would like to take a moment to congratulate the special operators who killed osama bin laden early this month. even as we work to eliminate terrorist stevens, we remain grateful for the risks the armed forces take in directly eliminating threats when necessary. the department is also grateful for the outstanding support you in the congress provide to the nation's military force and general and in my case special operations forces in particular. mr. chairman, this concludes my opening remarks and i ask the

written statement i provided be entered into the record and i am pleased to respond to any questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. roberts. and allow me to associate myself with the remarks regarding the navy seals operation to kill bin laden no one will ever know the names or the faces but they are truly the unsung heroes and in addition i would like to also commend and recognized the intelligence community and the analysts who were able to track down the information that led us to bin laden. fae 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 a report and i

want to go through some of the conclusions with you and assess how that impacts our ability to the left for the terrorist safe havens but essentially as on the understand, your report concludes that the state department did not fully comply with a level of detail required by law to the statutes, one being the natural defense authorization act and the second 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 the terrorist sanctuaries. can you tell me where this committee how these reports were deficient and what impact that will have on our ability to hunt down at her for some safe

havens? >> thank you mr. chairman for the question. i would be glad to respond. with regard to the report was mandated by the national defense authorization act that required 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 responsibility has been delegated to the national security council and our conversations during the course of our review the national security council says they are in the process of developing their report, so we are looking forward to receiving it and having an examination of it. we think it is critically important for there to be a high level of national statement of the priorities and the goals and objectives and hopefully we will see the level of detail in that assessment that will for the congress the opportunity to measure over time progress being made. with regard to the intelligence

reform and terrorism prevention act, it specifically mandated that state department's produce reports on the annual basis that renders country by country those that have been identified as terrorist safe havens and then to assess these countries in terms of the actions the country has taken to prevent terrorism, actions the country has demonstrated is being cooperative with the united states and to explain the level of knowledge that excess which are in the presence of safe havens. the conagra's recommended we did not see in any of the country report the provision would require state department to report upon actions taken by countries to prevent the proliferation and trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. this was absent in every report.

during the course of the review they acknowledge it hasn't been responded to and in corporate in the next report we expect to be issued sometime late this year. >> your testimony indicates in your report you issued that these reports or incomplete and are not in compliance with the requirements under the two statutes. >> absolutely. in addition i would also add that in the assessment would be expected to see in the 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 the activities undertaken by the whole of the u.s. government that have a presence and tribute

significant toward the protection and the elimination of terrorist safe havens. that assessment, that listing of all other agencies activities and programs wasn't clear and complete. and in our own review we identify at least 13 programs that are funded by the state department that we consider to be most relevant, programs that seek to the government capacity building, security, economic development activities, will whole of government approach articulate it in the most recent national strategic statement. we also didn't see a listing of other agencies, not all agencies programs and activities such as the dhs as i mentioned in my opening statement activities that dhs advances with the smuggling that leads to money laundering and financing of terrorist groups in operations that too was not included in the state country report.

>> the lack of reporting live national security council which the assure you they will be coming out with a report soon coupled with deficiencies in this report by the dhs and state department is not allowing the congress to do its oversight responsibility; is that correct? >> i believe it doesn't provide a sufficient detail and explanation and evaluation that allows measure overtime where progress has been made and there for the removal of indonesia from the country report it took some digging for our team to work overtime to see what countries were in and out. in the report a country has been removed or the afghans in the area have been removed. that took some effort in examining if you will each of the country reports over time. that kind of information needs

to be provided to give you a sense of progress or lack thereof. >> there are no metrics reported so this committee foreign affairs armed services, the intelligence committee cannot adequately perform its job without this information. estimate it cannot perform the job without this information. this information is not available in open sources. however it may be available in classified and timid and it might be most appropriate in the classified reporting environment. the congress did allow the state department to provide that type of more sensitive information in a classified report the state department had chosen not to issue that report. >> i would like to give the state department news villarosa and the opportunity to respond to the allegations in this report. we will start with ms. villarosa.

>> thank you, chairman. we took to heart and have talked with the gao about the deficiencies in our country reports and terrorism and are in the process of finalizing the 2010 version to make them more comprehensive as the gao has recommended. and this will include specifically addressing efforts that are done with regard to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction working with the bureau of the is in international security nonproliferation affairs to provide that information so that it is as comprehensive as possible. >> tracking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

seems to be pretty serious thing that we should be reporting. why was that not included? >> again, i know that this is -- our bureau of international security and nonproliferation tracks this very closely, and i do not know in terms of what the reporting requirements are but we'll understand that we need to include this information in the country reports of terrorism and we are in the process of doing so now. >> i certainly hope so. this seems to be a major oversight in the reporting requirement that is by law and it harms our ability and congress investigations committee who and homeland

security when it does not allow us to do our job, so i would hope this report would be updated as soon as possible. i want to commit a solfeggio for calling this to our attention. i don't think many people knew about that, certainly either on this committee or in the congress aha as a whole and that is a major debt and the requirement. mr. collins, do you have any comments? >> thank you mr. chairman. i commend this at the point of view being an officer in the opening remarks for a number of 17 years before i can to homeland security and perhaps similarly to ms. phil roe said. overseas and times when i had to write the first draft of the counterterrorism country reports to put it back to washington and further amplify i noticed the department sends specific

restrictions with the changes that took place and from our point of view absolutely if the training they've done with respect if that should be included we report that two other generals and are happy to include that. >> june of 2011, this is a 2010 report. i would hope that the dhs and a state can update this report. i would hope the other branch of congress and the congress can do its job and mai tais over expired but think you for your testimony. i now recognize ring gig member ms. clark. >> thank you pierrick i would like to associate myself with your opening comments. as the new yorker we are indebted and indeed grateful to

our armed forces special forces and intelligence community for eliminating the threat that was osama bin laden. i would like to just state that for the record. let me ask the panel also the safe havens have been identified in pakistan, gemini and somalia, they each are unique and present different challenges for u.s. officials. how does the country differ especially as it relates to our counterterrorism strategy and how does the u.s. about to the differences? >> i guess i will start with that. each of these are very unique countries. in the case of somalia, there hasn't been a functioning government for over 20 years. so we have a multi prong

strategy in order to start building stability with the transitional federal government forces. we are working with the african union has provided troops to assist and provide security in mogadishu, and we are also working with of the nation that surrounds somalia because they are threatened by the threat that comes from somalia so we help strengthen their borders. also because of the attraction of the turmoil in somalia to members of the diaspora in the west in the united states and europe and australia we are reaching out more broadly to the diaspora to educate them about

the situation, hopefully prevent people from traveling to take part in the violence but this will be a long-term effort both for the amazon forces as well as the forces. we are getting ready to -- we are working with some of the other islands of stability that we find in somalia that our goal is a peaceful stable somalia and will take a while. in pakistan, again, you have an established government which has its challenges we are trying to address. there's a lot of local grievances and we try to address

those local grievances to a lot of our usaid programs. but at the same time, trying to work closely with homeland security in terms of building border security and also preventing the movement of interest explosives, materials and to afghanistan where they are telling the truth 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 and they have been working to eliminate the terrorist threat. so we need to continue working with them through the dod to help build their ability to take action. once they cleared out these terrorists then we want to help them hold that and start

providing those basic services people haven't been forthcoming within the past. in the case of yemen it's on the front page of the newspapers today. there is a very serious political dispute been going on. but at the same time, there is a real terrorist threat in that country. obviously the political uncertainty right now makes it difficult for to do very much, but we had been working to train the yemenis security forces against, to exercise more control, and as i mentioned earlier, we had a lot of success in 2009 and 2010. we are also working through usaid to reach out, and again,

assist in the provision of services and promote countering violent extremism to delegitimize the violence. we've been working with a lot of european partners, the saudis, the gulf state are interested in working with us to delegitimize a violent and prevent people from being recruited, so again, we have life as it approaches to take on the particular challenges of each one of the very complex countries. >> i want to thank you. my time is expired, and if time permits we will continue on that question. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> think you for being here today in your testimony and to ms. villarosa in particular, i would like to state since i'm a

freshman and i've been here january 50 believe we were sworn in i believe i've been to 5417 different defense one of which was at the state department where the secretary invited the freshman class over and i was struck with the dedication of every one over there. you go to these events when you've been to 5417 of them it's like for you doing is everything okay in d.c. for you? but the department of state everyone was excited. they were very engaging, with some go back to a administration and your co-workers how much i appreciate that and their dedication to what they do appreciate that. >> and now -- >> i'm glad to deliver that message. >> that should be an easy one for you to carry back.

in your opinion do you think the department of homeland security is doing all that it showed to deny terrorist safe havens to today? -- thank you for the question, mr. congressman. there's an enormous amount that can be done with the department of state and defense. there was always more to do, and i think it becomes a question of leadership in partnership with congressmen and the departments of state and defense to determine whether the priorities, direct resources and to command nimble so always to be prepared to shift from resources as the circumstances warrant. >> in your testimony you said you do work closely with the

departments of state in your offense to be cut defense what has the state department coordinated efforts with dhs personnel overseas? >> i think -- thank you for your question. i think we cooperate very closely on the ground of the embassy's overseas typical of the personal, i.c.e., tsa and others are part of the country team and partner with the of the members of the country team with the department of justice, department of defense and others who are in the law enforcement and intelligence and security cooperation groups that get established coordinating with respect to assistance with respect to business and engagement with the country leadership it is an ongoing effort and one that requires a lot of work on the ground. we try to copy that cooperation

and build on a tear back in washington and the cooperation we have is extremely high level. >> ms. villarosa made mention a moment ago and i am still on you mr. collins but mentioned about yemen and said you tell us how many dhs personnel you have in pakistan and yemen and what their duties are. >> sure. thank you. we currently have three i.c.e. customs enforcement officers. we normally have to in yemen and i.c.e. but we currently have one of their due to the security situation and departure that was ordered. we are down to just one person there. to answer your question as to their responsibility they carry out the full range of i.c.e. responsibilities with respect to countering smuggling and trafficking of contraband of every kind of come partnership

with local law enforcement with investigations that could have routes to other parts of the world and of course the united states accounted of those investigations partnering with the state department and with respect to the united states and training and mentoring but local officials. >> ms. villarosa you didn't think you would get off that easy so i have a question for you. it's been suggested the pakistan government has increasingly questionable partnerships between known terrorist organizations and the inner services intelligence isi and think the united states should continue to involve pakistan in anti-terrorist 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 regularly secateurs reclined and was just there last weekend highlighted the many concerns that we have. the operation of terrorist groups that represent not only threat to us that pakistanis themselves are very serious, and i think secretary clinton found that 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. >> i know i passed my ty if you will allow me mr. chairman, i also want to thank the dhs in my district and we had a half mile, three quarter mile about 11 miles wiped out by the f5 last week and i got their last morning liaison for everybody needs to keep jobs on their prayers and i very much

appreciate the attitude the president came in on sunday and i was thrilled because he got to see with his own office take the message and we appreciate. thank you. >> thank you shiastan conclusion, let me say that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has always been a central threat and a shoe for the congress going back to, talking but pakistan, and back to a.q. khan who proliferated his nuclear capability to syria, north korea, iran, pakistan has nuclear weapons, so the idea that if they precourt required by law under the national defense authorization act and the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act would not include information about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to me it is a woefully inadequate report and a resolution today the issue is

weapons of mass destruction do they have whether it be chemical weapons, 10,000 man pads, and so i would ask that all three agencies represented here today but dhs, department of state and department of defense who are compliant with the law and update these reports and more comprehensive way as soon as possible so congress can do its job for the american people. the altar of a job is to protect the american people. and without that information we can adequately do our job, so i would ask you go back to your boss and tell them we needed that information as soon as possible. with that we will go and dismiss this panel of witnesses and i want to thank you for your testimony and expertise and ask that the second panel take their seats as well.

our next panel has three distinguished witnesses. first mr. steve call who is president and ceo of the new american foundation. previously he spent 20 years as an editor in a foreign correspondent at "the washington post" serving as the managing editor from 1998 to 2004. he is the recipient of numerous professional awards including two pulitzer prizes and on a sort of point of personal privilege, i recall reading the book ghost war many years ago which is in my judgment the definitive piece on the the afghan soviet and now the current situation we find ourselves in today with afghanistan and pakistan provides still i think the greatest insight into the threat that we face today. so thank you for your

contributions. second we have professor bruce hoffman who is a professor of georgetown university and director of both the center for peace and security studies program. he was a scholar and president for counterterrorism at the cia between 2004 and 2006. professor hoffman also previously held the corporate chair and counterterrorism insurgency at the rand corporation. finally, professor daniel byman also at georgetown university. we have some great professors at georgetown it sounds like. and research director and senior fellow at the southern center for middle east policy for the brookings institution from 2005 to 2010 dr. byman was a director for the center for peace and security stays also with georgetown. he worked as a professional staff member for the national commission on terrorist attacks, on the united states and the

joint 9/11 inquiries house and senate intelligence committees. thank you for being here today. the chair now recognizes mr. coll for his opening statement. >> randy weber clark and members of the opportunity thank you for the opportunity to testify. almost a decade after the september 11th attacks the threat to the united states and the related groups is diminishing but remains a persistent. most encouraging the al qaeda field politically and by doing so isolated itself, its violence in the absence of constructive ideas and programs caused populations to turn away on the degette potential when the recruitment of fund-raising the death of some of the mud and will challenge them to the leadership succession crisis in al qaeda history. group's claims on the grievances and imaginations of disenfranchised muslims is waning. yet no terrorist organization requires the following to inflict substantial disruptive

damage. al qaeda remains capable from time to time of killing dozens and hundreds of citizens at once including on american soil as evidence from recent plotting makes clear. it's already been made of the zazi case and the near miss on northwest flight 253. both of these involve safe havens abroad with pakistan, afghanistan border in the case of zazi in yemen and the christmas day bombing attempt. ..

>> brought relations already

troubled. this deterioration will have an impact on military activity in pakistan. the obvious interest of pakistan success to revenue kill their arsenal or those targets that are likely to be stabilized in the years ahead. the level of violence and pressure them pakistan caused primarily by the pakistani taliban is very disturbing. ultimate late on the disabled economically growing prolific pakistan is a civilian leadership and healthy relations with the civil defense policy could sustain them from remaining a terrorist haven. more successful practice down only a marriage in affiliate's decide on the country's national interest to cooperate particular way

that is a greater economic integration. full peace is not necessary to produce economic growth that has altered similar patterns of internal violence and terrorism in countries such as indonesia columbia the philippines and turkey for pro another reset is on the horizon and in the security rolm what seems required is a more focused and manageable effort to identify the act on the shared interest against a al qaeda and in the tradition ahead. both countries may benefit now from a period of transformative ambitions and a clear focus on shared venture is. of the same time it is helpful for the united states to reset long-term planning to promote regional integration of south asia as those pakistani growth. thank you for the opportunity to participate. >> the chair recognizes

professor hof man. >> they give for the opportunity to justify. this is shown outcry it is nothing without a physical sanctuary. that is why it invested so much energy into the capabilities of the facilities and pakistani jimenez malia. it has traded in network in order to ensure its survival. instead of having a single monolithic entity there are several but not just one each is different capabilities to present unique challenges. that they gates a one-size-fits-all strategy. countermeasures up three tailored to each place where they have taken root and have flourished. it has fabricated on a

consolidation in both south asia and beyond. the greatest successes and pakistan but at indeed since 2004 every major terrorist attack from the u.s. a european allies has affiliated from al qaeda or affiliate's. most of those of originated in pakistan. although there is the international owned jihadi contingents along with the indigenous allies plan local and regional and international terrorist operations of a global scale. of the field the thoughts originated from yemen and the peninsula is no less serious were more ambitious. mouse surprisingly eighth section have expressed

concern from international terrorism even a greater threat to u.s. security. american and european intelligence officials from the global ambitions and the radicalization recruitment capabilities, all the incidents represent the fruition of the strategy on multiple fronts. according to the campaigns of critical operational fear where they provide new opportunities for are excited to extend the reach. countries such as pakistan in somalia and yemen figure prominently within the category. of al qaeda deliberately seeks out citizens of any

country can be having safe-haven. again pakistan and yemen figure prominently. almost certainly give our greta momentum in greater freedom as it expands requires both a continued u.s. mattel it -- military and intelligence operations as well as countered -- countering the presence to prevent the expansion of the failing states also with the tactical elements to systematically destroy and weekend capability was a strategic appear imperative of recruitment and replenishment that sustained the al qaeda and fuel the allies as well. better coordinated information is a critical element of the approach also

pose nation capabilities to a more sustained extent it would be dangerously precipitous to declare a total victory. zero al qaeda hopes of renewal and regeneration in the aftermath left on its continued access of the safe haven and historical a has used the basis from which to plot international terrorist strikes. made by depriving al qaeda of this thing sure is to destroy the it organization disrupt the residents of the message will al qaeda be defeated. thank you very much. >> we now recognize the professor for his statement. >> members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to present my views today. let me briefly summarize my written testimony as we all

agree on the panel and the al qaeda core has operational as well as strategic role to help inspire jihadist around the globe. we have recovered from the low point* of 2002 now has a base in pakistan from which it can work. maintaining pressure is vital to keep it on balance. core operators try to attract the attention of affiliate groups. they pose a range of changes to the united states and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula based in yemen is increasingly important of near successes in the united states. some of it is another concern given the radicalization of a small number of somali americans. affiliate groups have different relationships. they often do not fully

embrace the objective. the death of bin laden is a serious blow to of credit for pro to the image of strength as he was a charismatic and capable leader. in addition, recruitment of fund-raising may suffer. these problems may make al qaeda less able to influence of soviet troops. with the court says it will surprise volvo be eight years to have a techs. the churn campaign is extremely important for striking the border. the netted states gives few alternatives to the acting in the remote parts to pakistan and al qaeda has a finite number of skilled leaders and the loss is a tremendous blow. the drawn attacks force the organization to communicate less and reduce the number

seven sessions and the leaders much -- must spend time in hiding. this difficult for any organization but especially difficult if they have to do within major leadership transition. also requiring fundamental changes, the changes sweeping well undermine the message. but at the same time it is far more operational freedom. the medicis states must exploit the message in addition to the best ever is a broad officials must consider foreign policy could lead to domestic radicalization. that case as a molly americans is instructive as the operation overseas to have a dangerous problem at home. also the fbi officials

should double the efforts to gain their trust. in the and it is difficult to separate. u.s. intelligence should focus attention on rare the united states attacks outside the soil such as airplanes to airports in the united states but the figure for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you professor byman let me start as a personal experience i have a couple years ago in afghanistan pakistan and i went to afghanistan to visit ever trips around the fourth of july of the border of pakistan. at that time they told me three of the soldiers had been killed the day before we arrived and they are very

burr barracks the way they kill our soldiers but said that it said there covering over here to kill us. i remember coming back hearings have talking to president bush talked about the tribal area in the fata that they were breathing there and training in the travel area and he recognized that was a serious concern and i think not too long after that end that is a high-value targets. and the command-and-control structure has been greatly damage. the question of what to ask

before that issue, pakistan in general, you're all experts but in particular, when i visited they would steadied the battle plans that continues to be a troubling issue for congress in this sense they've play both sides of the fence. on one hand cooperating on a high-value target but on the other hand, to protect extremist when it is in their best interest like in the kashmir area like the issue with india that goes a long ways. the doubled game came to a head when we saw the killing of bin laden and saw for

quite a few years is troubling to me because talk about the compound or the location less than a mile away which is half the distance between here and the washington monument with the west point academy if you have isi agents in the area, this is not the normal house. it was a large compound very heavily fortified and suspicious looking in a military area. it leaves me to the question of pakistan. where do go from here? in my chair is meant it is hard for anybody to believe he days they didn't know he

was there but to what level this the pakistan government know about this? i believe favor either complicity or incompetent. said to provide support by providing a safe haven what is your assessment of this picture? how does this affect the relationship with a very dicey country of pakistan who has been known to proliferate nuclear weapons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first your observations and analysis described it well. the circumstantial evidence

about the house raises disturbing questions about the knowledge almost certainly must have been president at least some sections with the unusual compound for pro i hope over time we will discover more about how far of the chain such knowledge could have gone but so quick observations pakistan has won the lowest participation in the world the reason why eight if you both a million-dollar house someday knocks on the jurors and says i have no way for you to avoid taxes to put me on the payroll. they're almost the official government salaries is the question if isi would not be involved in iraq it. it is understood as a criminal enterprise but it

is important to realize the ambiguity and the nature of the haven bin laden found is not by itself unusual. from india's perspective there are 546 listed terrorists living in the country under circumstances sometimes there fugitives are difficult to find but many heavy their embedded two or have been charged with mass killings on indian soil. the pattern is a look at rages to the united states but but circumstance by themselves are not unusual but would this by way of challenging?

it is a useful wake-up call. the fundamental problem is but five partner or buy phone, is difficult to hold accountable by halting direct those questions. >> but this is an opportunity to work with the effective group that the united states and pakistan to not see that mcorp and security questions the same way and to try to hold the military at a greater account although acknowledging the sacrifices they have made with their own war on terror. >> it also calls into question as we go into the appropriations cycle the billions of dollars be

provide for a. they have played the game for quite some time and i like to believe they need to be held accountable and we need the answers as to whether they were composite or not. professor hoffman, professor byman to have any observations? >> i agree. maybe a third explanation that goes beyond complicity or incompetence or willful ignorance. is it not a preferable to ask but it extends whatever may have been ordered to osama bin laden. right now is a federal district court in chicago and testimony is being made as the head of the isi to the effect that they not only knew of a mum buy plots

that made no effort to stop the plans. but yet we have not seen convincing denials of any investigations and this is another area we need to hold pakistan accountable. >> that is a great point*. how many other terrorists are provided by a safe haven by pakistan who read provide aid to reporting eight working together? >> two briefly add pakistan had our strategic interest in afghanistan and india in terms of ensuring to prevent kashmir from becoming a normal part of the union and

as a result in arranges with the tint groups of course, to think of it as a terrorist group put an organization to put a tremendous amount of energy and in this capacity it is hard to see where it begins in the components of the network began in the components are extremely useful so it is hard to make progress without kashmir which makes it difficult. >> you raise the same issue and that is a good point*. my time has been expired. >> non to think you. the greatest concern that we

have right now is a possibility of terrorists getting a hold of nuclear weapons that brings pakistan front and center in that regard. the way we perceive pakistan clearly the issues about weak government and those that exist the limited ability we have to monitor the programs the president has said he will call now to measure accountability and metrics and real metrics for the entire panel. do know what kind of metrics this could be measured in? how could this be tangibly monitored and how can recall pakistan accountable?

it is more of what you do, not what you say. it seems senator kerry is on the same page as they look for tangible metrics prefer if you could comment on how what those projects should consist of would be appreciated. >> that is an excellent question and an important direction the u.s. policy. you can start with the observations as chairman made about these compounds in pakistan the first metric is under is a lot of listed terrorists. there is a substantial body of evidence so it doesn't have to be something coming directly from the united states. confused or unsatisfactory

budget with the people have a capacity to monitor the conduct in the there is always a debate about their true capacity of the pakistani state uses its own accountabilities but there are some where the state's capacity 22 tall activity is clear and one of those is in the cross-border movements the border is essentially of the tiers unknown nobody moves without the permission but the indians have been watching sending armed young men across the border for years. the united states has now been a priority to who pakistan into account.

is an unreasonable to say to the zero infiltration but those rates suggest a policy ai's emilie on the afghan border where security interests are more erred directive, shirley there are metrics to monitor the actual conduct of pakistani security services to prevent cross-border infiltration to apply a rule of reason as to the state's capacity then holding the state to that account. >> i completely agree and only added think some of the metrics now publicly is changing the number of trainers have decrease cia operatives also decrease of

there so it is strange. of the metrics could be publicly stated that they may have to remain classified. medicis lusted good degree and the cooperation against terrorism. >> i just have a few seconds so how do suggest more what is the benefits are dangers of linking foreign aid to the metrics? is there a way to do that? is there a danger to do that too closely? >> i don't think we have much choice. of the problem is from the pakistani prospective is they believe that we require cooperation but it is the blank check so it is the

only leverage. >> host: do any of you think it could be mick shared for accountability for their own actions? >> there has always been some sources of conditionality attached to u.s. data of pakistan but often has been the executive branch prerogative to judge the criteria of general or abstract. whenever the decree of the automatic trigger it might involve, it would be a helpful change to attach specific metrics even is the executive branch has discretion we should be held accountable to the specific

issues rather than generalizing that things are good enough. >> i could doubt agree more. some countries use their own weaknesses as an excuse. >> i did agree that this is excellent testimony as we go into the foreign aid appropriations cycle to use the metrics because clearly the location of the bin laden compound calls into serious question the pakistan cooperation with the united states. but i recognize the gentlemen from missouri. >> although we have heard the american supporters are on an noble quest to bring