that is where crisis is coming into place. >> alright, i think we have to have a fun time. john burbank commute to a minute. >> okay, sovereignty is about having choices. redoing a good job of paying so much. if this goes on much longer. at her choices made before 2012 i do think political motivation was there. it really is that there is bernanke paints prices. i wish you were here to let these -- this meeting. it matters a lot whether or not he actually. if he does not do that, prices will fall. as prices fall, everyone will ask restaurant in how we fix this? the pressure will be back on congress. congress has had a pretty easy since bernanke has taken these actions. you have to recognize the

connection. the markets right now assume -- pretty much assume it's going to have been. the question is when. they assume will happen sooner because that is bernanke's dna. i think if you are responsible, he with that asset prices fall and pressure would shift to congress. he's given a hall pass. there's one other problem that energy and food prices will rise and will have a different problem than they have no energy policy in this country unfortunately. >> look at the united states for this witness other countries for fiscal consolidation. i have one that is perhaps worth mentioning. i will mention two, perhaps three. first, quarters of growth. growth is paramount and fiscal

adjustment. there is a statue d. and trent gdp ratio of 1%. after 10 years, the jet to ddp relationship will be down 10%, 30%. but i fully agree one cannot feel the fiscal adjustment on the expectation that growth will increase because it will not. so one has to be cautious and then enjoy the benefits. second point comes out very clearly for the expansive fiscal consideration. you have to put every enough to table and be selective both on the revenue side and expense side. i'm not taking views of how much will be on the spending side. but i know that both on the spending side and the revenue side are good measures and bad measures. on the revenue side, they are

reducing taxes. on the spending side, again there is good spending and that spending. one is to avoid any made him sound like in canada, an approach of cutting across the board and then only in 1994 and 1995 they started having a select approach of the fiscal program worked. so one is to be selective. the last point i wanted to make, the last lesson is if we look at all these cases the fiscal adjustment in the past, we see the fiscal adjustment is implemented only after interface start increasing. and the challenge for the united states is to start implementing cisco adjustments because the right time to do it is when the economy is not suffering from any interface.

>> thank you. to use a military analogy, i think the debt ceiling issue is a live fire as we would say. it's not a trail. into the extent that we can impress upon the american people it is a live fire exercise, i think we've done a good day's work. secondly, people i don't think are aware that this is not a situational deficit. this is a structural deficit is going to have to go to the structure and the tax code and auditor things we talked about. the third thing i'd like to say very briefly as the 1960s to the case for my district in tennessee, where the united states supreme court said for the first time that apportionment of congressional seats this is just a civil issue and was a matter as due process. well, they turn it over to the

legislatures and it didn't take people in office in those days long to say this is a good deal. i give you my and were both happy. today, 49 years later they're only out of 435 in the house that are in the hypothetical margin of a 50/50 voting pattern. i was there from 1989 to january and i saw the metamorphosis occurred, which means members who are coming here now are crippled politically because they are let kadima party crime areas for the most partisan semblance reside. they are understandably responsive to that end they come crippled to come into what i believe i would call the sensible center and work on solutions to our country's problems. if they do, they are blasted by their voters for being ideologically untrue, and pure

or whatever. you brought it up, but that is a problem. we're going to see it again this year and is gerrymandering is going to accord for any public purpose, so to benefit one political party or the other. it is a system that is broken and we've had -- blue dogs have had it before congress, we do have a house-senate -- a senate sponsor. until you fix that, i don't know how the members can actually exercise good judgment to go south sunday american first, not as a democrat or republican. >> thank you. [applause] >> jim glassman, a buck and a to have tv needs a minute 30. >> you can time it. i want to associate with gene

sperling economics. deficit reduction is not a means to an end, but a component in a growth strategy. and absolutely is a critical component. that is when here. that's what i believe in the work of the committee for possible federal budget. it is not the icing on the cake. it is the case. a virtuous circle -- a virtuous cycle that can be established where, as we just heard, increased growth lures with that she ddp ratio, which lessens the headwind of the constraints on growth and on and on so all are merging. i just disagree with bob reischauer. we can change it overnight would have a huge effect on development of human capital in this country. there's lots of things we can do. i think this congress has been absolutely terrific, but i just

hope we don't lose sight of the context in which deficit reduction occurs. >> jim, i can't let you go. what is the right potential macros? >> it's an advertisement for man institute, which has had a conference two months ago. lee lindsey was there, which kicked off what we call the 4% project. some people consider 4% aspirational. maybe it's right to make history, maybe it's 3.5, but it's not 2.3. that is what the cbo same going forward. it'll be 2.3 of our policies don't change. >> so growth is discussed as an important part there. inflation is another important factor and one that many point to as a way out of this problem and everything is solved. the problem with that as well nominal gdp goes up, as we saw in the first quarter it doesn't mean much for growth at all.

it's a good economic policy. additionally, revenues may go up, but spending goes along with it. deficits don't actually improve under a high inflationary environment. than a look at inflation is an option of the layout. inflation is just not an option. >> ought to think panelist members of the round table. the responsible federal budget for bringing this together. [applause] it has been my pleasure to be here today. >> i'm just going to say a quick thank you doesn't want to thank all of our panelists who are here. it was a fascinating afternoon a depressing afternoon and encouraging. every time i hear members talk i think about how the country really is ready to hear the message of how we can move talk i think about how the country really is ready to hear the message of how we can move been i agree with gene's point that has to be shared sacrifice for the move forward policy move been i agree with gene's point that has to be shared sacrifice for the move forward policy lies in political ways and i think a

deal has to be big enough to fix the problem. i think the country is ready for the message. just excise, but if you're ready for a drink. waiver section across the way. thank you. carbonic [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] tarmac [inaudible conversations]

with

>> that >> former national security adviser >> former national security adviser >> former national security adviser dragged the black cat today about u.s. foreign policy in north africa and the middle east. his remarks came dragged the black talk today about u.s. foreign policy in north africa and the middle east. his remarks came after the presentation of pitcher out for presidential foundation journalism award. from the national press club, this is an hour. >> and with the foundation, which carries on his legacy. gerald ford spoke at the podium a record 18 times, appearing before, during and after his presidency. this is one example of how he enjoyed a cordial but appropriate relationship with the price. it is a tribute to president ford that many of you at this luncheon today have personal

recollections of his brief historic presidency, public service. he has been a loyal friend and associates, which says a great deal about the person he was. he also some special greetings to former first lady betty ford who we trust his theory in grandest events via c-span in california. reporters who knew president ford admired his dedication to a free and unfettered press. even though the press is not always kind to him, delete site covered presidents was a distinguished members of our club says ford was the only president he knew who genuinely liked reporters. apparently the other should state it. [laughter] former secretary of state, henry kissinger, member of the ford presidential foundation board of trustees has no nephew of president during his long career. he whistled as the gerald ford was probably the most normal person ever to assume the

office, perhaps because he did not seek that office in the first place. brewers being presented today were established for our free press and the vital role it plays in citizenry and pruning the sox c. stephen ford, one of the president signed in the trailer for presidential foundation will now make this year's awards presentation assisted by joe kolber riso executive derek of the foundation. mr. ford. [applause] >> well, if i have to be here. i want to thank the national press club in the ford presidential foundation. recent trustees here today. woodhill, jim cannon. as i read, and he was somewhere. a fine group of trustees. i want to thank the panel of judges that select are winners

and i had a chance to read all the articles and we've got some great, great winners here today. general, i want to thank you. thanks for coming in being our speaker. but as a young kid when dad was president. i was 18 years old and needs to go back and forth between the main residence in the oval office and i was told to advocate a pretty good government housing. last night i can remember going back, a lot of business going on in the corridors of the white house. one of the friendliest people to the kids and members of the family and general scowcroft, you always stopped, after a day was going and we appreciate that it's young people. it was a long time ago and now. [laughter] dad had a special relationship with the press. he looked surprised. he told all of us that we shouldn't go into politics if you have thin skin. he listened to what was right

about, what was said about him. he appreciated the job they performed. i can remember sitting at the dinner table and dad talking about why a good democracy worked so well because it had in educated public and the press played such a role in educating the citizens of the country. he felt very strongly about that. i had to laugh because when i've the articles i've written the bubble around the presidency. but we got the white house, the relationship for the press was different. when dad was vice president, we used to go to colorado in the wintertime. mom and dad had bought a small condominium there and we skied when he was a congressman. they became vice president,

death still wanted to do that. we would go out and her first christmas after he became president there was a young photographer, david kennelly at the time worked for "time" magazine. many of you in this room know dave kennerly. dave showed up in vail, colorado "time" magazine at christmas about a hotel reservation. that's something he would do, and somehow dad found out he didn't have a bad to sleep and. this is 1963. he invited us to come stay for the holiday. he slept on her couch literally. kirby cannot. i said he was the guy in the couch? that's the prize-winning photographer who ended up becoming like a member of our family. i don't think you'd see that sort of thing happened today in

the way the world is today. we were talking about the reception. i was saying, that encouraged us kids, thomas just to the readers and readers of newspapers. i can say whatever this is like every morning growing up as a kid. came down very quiet, everybody grab a section of the newspaper new study. you read in the morning. you might grab sports, check the scores so you can debate that night. breakfast was quiet because you wanted to observe your facts and figures that you could have good to be united defender position. that was how dad looked at it. even up to before he passed away at 93 years old, the image of him walking over to his office, u.s. at five, six, seven newspapers understand you agree that day. he read for five journals do know is that "the new york

times" and "the wall street journal," l.a. times and "washington post." the last paper you read everyday i think spoke great volumes about who he was. either the grand rapids press. his local newspaper, where he been a congressman for 25 years. he is to say to us, steve, policy and lies at the federal level are made in washington, but you have to read your local newspaper to find out if they get down to the people it really work on the local level. that was the importance of the local press as he could find out whether the policies they were done weather in the capitol or white house or congress guy down to the local level and grand rapids, michigan conservative people. so newspapers in the press were very important to him. we need to get on here and i went to just have the judging panel and i want to thank them for being judges.

we have two categories for the presidency in defense. our defense piano we have dad brad and oak still, eric peterson, david olive, karen scowcroft, rob holzer and if we could get them a round of applause. [applause] for the presidency, our fine trustee, jill mckinnon who is a great public servant himself. he chairs this committee and is the word and he is for the presidency of word. we have john connell, professor candy nelson, professor mark rozelle and hal bruno who couldn't be with us today. get a round of applause to them. [applause] we will hand out the awards in just a second. reading the stories on the bubble around the presidency in the white house.

to imagine how different it was. when dad became president, he had been vice president. we lived in the house across the river in alexandria, virginia. there is no vice president mention anything like that. we lived in the suburbs. when you assume the presidency on that day in august, 1974, you know, the helicopter left and dad got sworn into office. to the picture in the oval office. we didn't get to move in the white house. he got a chance to move in the white house and nixon had left so quickly, so unexpectedly that they were enabled to pack up their belongings. and so, it took six, seven days. after dad took the oval office, we went back to her three-bedroom house in alexandria, virginia. i'll never forget my mother standing over this does that make cooking, thinking, jerry,

something's wrong here. [laughter] you just became president of the united states and i am still cooking. so, the bubble around the president's place in 1974 was a little different than it is today. let me hand out the citations and awards and get onto our keynote speaker, general scowcroft. our first a word here is reporting on the presidency. this is gerald r. ford journalism on the presidency in 2010 steve thomma. the judges for the presidency had selected steve thomma of the newspapers of the winter of the gerald r. ford prize for distinguished reporting on the president. in his reporting, steve toma demonstrates a clear understanding that not the first year, but the second year in

office for a new president is more accurate measure of his leadership, management, complexities of the federal office. his exercise of constitutional powers, ways of communicating to the american people and standing in the public mind. thomma not only matched the important criteria of timeliness, clarity of presentation and site and concise writing, but he also made excellent use of expert sources to provide a layer of analysis that stood out among his competition. his writing is clear based on solid facts and enlightened with engaging and inventiveness. in every respect, the judges found thomas reporting on the presidency in 2010 outstanding. we have a citation here i would like to give you. but we also have a check.

[inaudible conversations] [applause] >> thank you. steve ford and i were talking before the lunch and a little bit about how much things have changed. i wrote extensively about the bubble growing up around the presidency in the white house and other things that have chewed. i want to talk a little bit about that, particularly changes in a relationship with the press. but he points out, sadr had a far different relationship with the press quite another presidents are politicians have had. what we see today is the white house increasingly and that is not just to this incumbent, but everyone since is trying to bypass us, using all the new technology at their disposal. digital media, their own video, or photographers try to tell their story directly to people and bypass the price. at the same time, technologies changing what we do.

we see these very short verse of information, treats of a few characters, quick internet. yet, i think the presidency is worth a lot more exploration than that and continues to be a vital and important thing for us to do to toe with the insiders are doing and thinking, but also to them that by outside experts, by people who have studied the presidency and put it through the critical i've internalized. on behalf of all of us who cover the white house, i think the ford foundation for honoring this kind of work. especially for my colleagues come a thank you for honoring us they share. thank you. [applause] >> our second award is the gerald r. ford prize distinguish on defense in 2010. our winner is shane harris are the judges for national defense has selected shane harris of the

washingtonian is one of the 24th annual gerald r. ford prize for distinguished reporting on national defense. the judges felt the body of works submitted by mr. harris showcased some of the most important crosscutting challenges of our times. often writing about issues with which the nation is still coming to grips. his story on the laws of war raise some important questions about standards of warfare and issued new technology. the judges noted that his article anticipated issues that are today being raised in the conflict in libya. and hacking the bad guys, he lighted america's struggle to cope with a new type of warfare that will impact the nationsecurity as well as its economic competitiveness. his gripping tale of waste and delay highlighted a decades long struggle to purchase a new generation of fuel tanker, noting that today's tanker

pilots are flying airplanes first flown by their grandfathers and the pilots who fly the next generation of tanker had been born yet. his article in the national counterterrorism described the nation struggled to manage the information needed to prevent future terrorist attacks. the judges were particularly impressed by his ability to eliminate contact policy issues while maintaining a fair and balanced approach on topics often highly polarized. if you come up, with like to present you with the word. and the chat. -- and a check. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for this

honor. this is truly in our profession one of the highest honors we can receive and it is just a thrill to standard. be included in such terrific company of previous winners, many who have had the great pleasure to work with over the years. i did not get too disappointed on the network to sort of take a moment to really think the editors and publishers that have the benefit of working with for the past 10 years. i've had the rare opportunity in this day and age to work at the magazines that continue to go tremendous resources and support to longform journalism, to narrative, investigative reporting, the kinds of stories that take weeks, sometimes months to really bring to life. if i were not for that kind of support, i would not have the resources and time to do this week and i wouldn't be standing here. just briefly, national journal have to think david bradley, john fox sullivan, charlie greene and my former editor,

patrick pexton of the "washington post," where he's doing terrific work. patrick was a partner with me for five years in reporting so many of these stories and this is a constant companion had to kick him as a thank you. .. >> this is a new thing we are doing this year and our panel on defense asked that we do this,

and it's kind of an honorable mention for a group that really stood out, and this year we want to just recognize and ask them to stand up and they did such of fine work. reporting on national defense in 2010 a special mention the judges for the national defence have selected an gerdemann and brendan's staff writers for the military times special mention for the 24th annual gerald r. ford prize for national defense. and i know one of them is in the room here. i don't know if brandon is -- if you could stand up we will give you a round of applause. [applause] >> thank you very much. mark? >> thank you come steve and congratulations again to this year's winners. the guest speaker served president ford's national security adviser former lieutenant general in the u.s.

air force has been a trusted adviser to presidents stretching from richard nixon to barack obama. he's a graduate of west point and earned his ph.d. at columbia university. brent scowcroft is willing to publicly oppose presidential policies with which he strongly disagrees. although he served as chairman of the foreign intelligence advisory board for president george w. bush, he openly opposed the president's plans to invade iraq in 2003. he predicted the u.s. would be seen as an occupying power and in a hostile environment. he served as military assistant to president nixon, deputy assistant for national security affairs for presidents nixon and ford and national security adviser for ford and george h. w. bush. during his long association with republican administrations, he was also attacked by president-elect obama to help select his national security team. our guest speaker keeps a close watch on international affairs and as an academic as well as an

international business consultant. he served on numerous advisory councils involved in military and national security issues. we look forward to hearing his unique perspective and ability to provide us with timely overview of difficult foreign policy challenges facing the nation today. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm national press club welcome to general brent scowcroft. [applause] thank you very much, mark. steve, it's very nice to be with you today, and it's great to see this heist turnout. i'm a little surprised since i said everything i know last year. but on the other hand, since my remarks were first listed as brent scowcroft to criticize

obama foreign policy challenges of the national press club media is why you are all here. [laughter] no red meat. i hesitate to say. i'd like to congratulate stephen thomma and shane harris since my daughter was one of the judges for shane, iowa well aware how distinguished the writing really is. i want to follow this bright with the press club, i want to follow steve's comments with just a few about president ford before i talk about foreign policy challenges. if he thinks president ford felt strongly about relative to our

current situation. it's not being dramatic to say that the current political debate especially here in washington is acrimonious. it's been ackerman is before as a matter of fact when president ford came to office he not only had around his neck a bitter debate about vietnam, but also the first resignation of a president. so, he really understood that sort of thing. but his personality was such that a little over two years later we have what we forgotten what he did for us in the short term he was president to heal the wound of the country. what one other thing president ford was i would call him an

apostle of cooperation and compromise, and those two words, i think some in washington now refused even to use as being denigrating from what they are supposed to do. president ford would have been shocked by that. he knew that those characteristics, cooperation and compromise is what made this country work. indeed, what was based on, our constitution is not a modern for efficient government. it's a model to protect the individual against a government that tries to overstep itself, and it does that by setting up checks and balances everywhere. so it's easy to keep something from happening.

to make it happen, you have to compromise and cooperate, you have to work together. and gerald ford knew that. i used to watch him when confronted with a new and complex problem he would sit there and dissect the problem. one of the elements absolutely crucial to making success, one of the elements we can offer to others who have different perspectives so that we end up all moving forward, maybe not 100% 60 prison or 70%. and the last thing i would like to talk about is for did and his pride in the federal full-service or federal bureaucracy. and we have had a number of presidents in recent years throw

rocks at washington and the bureaucracy as a bunch of self-serving diplomats who can't get a job anywhere or bureaucrats couldn't get a job anywhere else. our government is only as good as the people who work there. and i think we ought to be cheering them rather than pretending they are people who couldn't get a job anywhere else. by the way, i think following on what steve said, president ford was somebody we could certainly use right now. now let me turn to my assigned task. islamic let me say one other things in terms of compromise. the constitution itself is the basic of our system, fundamentally compromised.

how did we deal with giant states like new york and virginia and states like rhode island and delaware? we set up the senate where each state, big, small had two representatives and the house where each state had representatives proportional to the population. if that's not compromise, i don't know what is. that's what we are built on and where we should go. now let me focus -- how we might doing? for a few minutes on some of the securities alleges we face. the few minutes can't possibly cover all the challenges we face and don't really want to.

but let me begin with a sort of backdrop about what is going on in the world. the backdrop against which the challenges are being played out. we are sort of living through what i would call it is continuity of history, a change in historical patterns from one system to another. our president -- present system, the nation state system was formalized in the treaty of 1453. it set up the nation state as the independent sovereign unit of which the international community would be made. and that replaced the period when there were some monarchies were some individual power

holders who were religion all different sovereignty was obscure. the westphalian system reached i think probably its apogee in the 20th century with the two world wars. now we are entering a period for lack of a better word left ankle of the era of globalization that is an overused word in many respects. but it's true and it is happening. and what globalization is doing is reducing the freedom of action of the nation state and running the borders of a nation state because many of the problems that we all have to deal with what, with its financial movements, whether it's health, climate change,

information technology, all of these require reaching across borders to cooperate in order to solve problems. and that is changing the nature of what our system is. i like to compare it with a period 250 years ago of industrialization, which created the modern nation state because to harness these great corporations that were building of this economic power the nation state had to be more powerful. globalization is in the same but in the opposite direction industrialization in powers the nation state globalization is eroding the power of the nation state. and now the two points about this the financial crisis of 2008, certainly demonstrated so we have a single world economy.

the reaction to the crisis also demonstrated we don't have a single way to solve the problem. we fell back on the nation states in a sort of half-hearted g20 to try to deal with it. the other thing which illustrates it which puts the into the current situation is what we call the year of a spring -- arab spurring, this is an explosion of people, popular sentiment which sprang from the self immolation of a fruit peddler in to tunisia humiliated by the police. now this is something new, and it goes to the heart of globalization.

because what most of mankind's existence, the average person didn't know much about anything that was going on be on his village or maybe the next village. he lived like his father did. he expected his children to live like -- history was on the timeless, seamless continuity. now, virtually everyone in the world is within and earshot of radio, i site of television, and that politicized. the see what's happening outside. and they say why am i not like that? how can they say this about my country? they are energized by it. and that's what happened throughout the region. not only the region, around the world. what could the chinese reaction, one of acute concern that could reach a china. that's the first thing.

the second thing is when you do have discontent, one of the hardest things traditionally to do is to register that discontent by giving out demonstrating in the street because to organize a demonstration you have to go around and get people this, that and the other for the police. you push a button on twitter and whatever the others are. [laughter] and a million people immediately hear you say turned it into the square at 10:00 in the morning. it's easy. it's automatic. and that is what we are seeing. this presents enormous complication for policy-making. first of all, it is a challenge since it covers a whole region

of the world acutely between what i would call our interests and values. our interests are what value we have in a relationship that helps the united states and its problems. our values are our innate sympathy for democracy, modernization, for those kind of things, but fundamentally democracy. and those are under challenge. and how do you decide which ones we should pursue? we've done a little bit of both. and it makes it very, very difficult. not the foreign policy always has to be consistent, but it creates problems for us, almost whatever we do. and in addition, each one of the countries affected by heavy air

of -- arab spring has its own set of problems of what we call semi repressive dictatorships in the region. what they are partly to suppress the kind of internal struggles and divisions that other wise to the country apart. so it's been a very difficult time for us. and the president has been criticized from both sides about doing too much, doing too little and the outcome is not yet in sight but i think we should be cautious about interpreting what's going on in these countries as the upsurge of an innate instincts for democracy.

i think the urge is more basically as it was for the fruit peddler for dignity than for democracy as we know it. democracy represents -- is a very complicated notion, and to feel that filled thousands of people in cairo is probably an exaggeration. so i think it's fair to say the difficult job is ahead of us. how do you take what has happened and model it so it moves in the productive rather than destructive direction. we've taken first steps in what i would call the cornerstone country in the middle east. that is egypt the most populous country and certainly would at

the epicenter of what happened, and that is we are now pushing hard for an economic program for egypt, because if we cannot rescue egypt for the chaos and to which it has fallen economically, tourism is not existent in egypt now. remittances from egyptians working abroad are down to virtually zero. the direct investment has just about zero. egypt is and in desperate economic shape. what do you think will happen if the economy collapses to any hope for a system which will broaden participation? different countries have different problems. libya is a case of really almost entirely our values that interest we have in libya

1.5 million barrels of oil a day easily compensated for. gahafi is the guy that everybody loves to hate, and there certainly is a split in libya. it's not a new split. eastwood and west libya have a history of antagonism. to another extreme syria, injury complicated country where our interests are intense not only syria and its relationship to israel, but in its relationship to lebanon, syria and its relationship to iran on the one hand, hezbollah, intense interests, but what about syria? scirica is run by a tiny minority of the shiite form of

islam, but as a whole it is a majority semi country. it also has a tradition of the last four years of secularism being iran by the baathist party. so if meshaal gets overthrown, who replaces him? and is it a step forward or backward? it's hard to say. yemen is a very different case. yemen is a very tribal society. before the president managed to consolidate their was a north lebanon and south lebanon. the one time the soviet union supported south lebanon, i mean yemen, and we supported north yemen. so each one of these situations is different and complicated. let me move on just very

quickly. i've already talked 15 minutes. just for a little bit about afghanistan and pakistan, and if you cannot discuss them separately. we have a huge dilemma with growing pressure now. osama bin laden's dead, we have terrible budget pressures on the defense. it's time to cut our losses. well, it may be, but we should also worry about cutting our genes. it has been a difficult struggle in afghanistan. we have changed strategies at least once. we now are in a telling your where the surge in troops is beginning to show. we are beginning to reach out to

afghanistan's neighbors, the chinese, the russians, the iranians, to see if there is some help. we don't need in afghanistan, this is a highly centralized efficient nation state. we simply need and afghanistan that is not a breeding ground for attacks on the civilization. it is a very difficult issue for the president who i think very skillfully maneuvered his first declaration we are going to start drawing down in july of this year to pushing it gradually off to 2014. so i am optimistic there.

things i would have talked about if i were not to be dragged off the stage with a little bit about china, north korea, russia, iran, but understand we have a few moments for questions and i would be happy to deal with any of those the questioners are interested in. >> thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> if you will just let me scoot up. people are eager to tap your fast intellectual resources and also give you a chance to hydrate. so we are glad to have that opportunity. so there are several questions that are immediately upon the topics you're talking about, and on the issue of the nation state whether we should be in the business of helping build that. one person asked can the u.s.

continue to proclaim support for democracy, while also backing repressive regimes like that in saudi arabia? >> well, that's one of the president's real problems. there are few countries where the interest, few countries in the region where the interests are stronger than in saudi arabia. and yet saudi arabia has its own uniqueness, it is an alliance between the saudi family and the tribal war of the peninsula there with the wahhabi branch of islam that the wahhabi religions would bless the saudis to be the governance of the region, in return for which the monarchies

would support wahhabism. and that's really how saudi arabia got started today. when aquino to allow was crowned prince, she had the reputation of being in modernizer, and when he came in, he started a consultative council, which could easily have been the birthplace of the legislature. he did a lot in education, and he also made some changes in the succession from the end of the prerogative of the monarchs to the family council. that hasn't gone very far recently. but what do we do about saudi arabia? or the other monarchies? they do not suffer so watch in the arab spring partly because

of their wealth, but not economic deprivation which added to some of the others like and libya or what tunisian and egypt in particular. so these are the kind of problems we need to deal with. it's not just saudi arabia. it's bahrain run by a sunni markey with a strong majority of what shias for their citizenship. so each one of these countries has its own particular problems, and we need to say there's not necessarily one-size-fits-all, and we are not trying to impose an american solution. what we want is to help all of these countries to the extent we can work their way through the problems to the benefit of everyone. stomach the questioner asked what do you think about the expanded use of predator drones

to attack suspected terrorists and what restrictions should apply to those? >> i mentioned the strategy changes in afghanistan. and what we have had is a debate going back and forth between a strategy of counterterrorism and counter insurgency. the counterterrorism strategy is defined a bad guy, you take him out. if you happen to kill some civilians, it's too bad it's collateral damage. in counter insurgency, you say no, you have to build confidence in your security mission and in the local security around you so that you develop stability. so if you see the bad guy and he's surrounded by civilians you don't take him out because you do more damage to a strategy by

taking out the civilians then you get in a strategy. we've gone back and forth a little bit on that, and some people say we've gone too far in one direction for another. i think right now we have it about right. but it's a judgment. >> that's what we are here for. how would you define the victory in afghanistan and how sharp do you think the drawdown of the troops should be? >> if you look back at the house and the days of afghanistan if there ever were any, add the king and he sort of presided and everybody nodded to the king and then they went about and did their own business, tribal groups, ethnic groups, so long and so forth. that's the kind of afghanistan we could be a very comfortable with. and so could most of afghans

neighbors. it is the punitive change of afghanistan to the training place of al qaeda to attack the trade towers which transformed the whole thing. so we don't need to recreate afghanistan. all we need is some assurance that the old very informal structure can sustain itself. >> you said you'd like to talk about china as a question. you're referenced the concern about the arab uprising. what is the risk facing beijing and by the extension the u.s. relationship with it? >> well, i think i would venture to say the most successful american foreign policy the last 50 years or so has been a china policy. because starting with richard nixon from the position of total

hostility between the two powers, we've gone through eight presidents now, but both parties, some of them starting out with some pretty harsh views about china, and if all come to the conclusion that broadening and deepening our relationship with china is in the national interest of the united states, and we have made enormous progress. now there have been some rough spots recently and i think for understandable reasons. the chinese especially economic matters of international finance has tended to defer to the united states as being the experts. well who has it screwed up in 2008? it was the united states so the chinese say we don't have to pay attention to you anymore, and there is a certain amount of hubris that went with that. and they began to make some

changes which were at the very least irritative. i think what we have to remember we and the chinese are about as different as any two people could be in terms of our history, our culture, our religion, everything. for a simple, we back my remarks live in the world of the nation state system. the chinese still mentally live in the world of the central kingdom. we think anybody can be in america. anybody. the chinese -- if you're not chinese, you cannot become chinese. the central kingdom is not just one sovereign state, it's the center of everything. so, until 200 years ago when the nation state system came in and

ripped china in the eyes of the chinese. as we have very different outlooks. but, there isn't anything that i see that takes us to become enemies. we will have differences in opinion, different perspectives, and the chinese are grappling with an economic system which has been very, very successful, and a political system which has not evolved very significantly. so there is a lot of problems we need to help them reach. >> we will bring it back home for the last question, the last serious question perhaps, and that is to questions getting to the fact is a presidential campaign season and has already upon us given the fact that debates are being held, the customers ask and i will a piece together what are your thoughts on the state of the republican party, any predictions on the nomination so far out, and then

the other questioners is the current roster of the candidates have been relatively little national security experience how do you see the state of national security, should one of them be elected? >> i'm not politically sophisticated, but i'm not stupid. [laughter] [applause] >> i guess the folks here were hoping that you might take the bait nevertheless. [laughter] which u.s. president best anticipated his form foreign policy to the united people? >> that's a tough one. that's a tough one. our presidents have done pretty well. but it gets harder as our

reasons for some of the things we do get more complex and obscure. and, you know, harry truman had a pretty easy job with a victory in war because was pretty obvious. but so did boesh 43 in going into iraq, which was in retrospect not so obvious. i think that we come in this country if sometimes a tendency to get frustrated with the complexities of diplomacy and think what we just cut through all this with a little force and we will clean everything that? one of the problems with that is when we use force, it inevitably

changes the whole context of the world in which we use it, and it creates its own imperatives, so when you use force, it is no longer facing the world where he fought the force was the thing to use. and i think we need to be more aware of that. if we were not in afghanistan right now, we certainly wouldn't be talking about coming in. so, these are the kinds of things we need to be more thoughtful about. >> we are almost out of time that before we ask the last question a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you of the oncoming speakers on june 24 if the outgoing chairman of the fdic sheila bair will reflect on her tenure during a tumultuous time for the nation's financial sector. june 30 if after gary will announce the foundation rather the formation of his own foundation, the charity dedicated to raising funds for

charities supporting them of pottery, and on the first of july, the administrator charles bolden will speak about a week before the final schedule space shuttle launch. and second but not least important, we would like to present to the token of our appreciation and that is the traditional coffee mug. [applause] >> now i would like to ask the last question. typically if you will stay on here for a moment, general. >> i will try. [laughter] >> typically i like to end on something of a brain teaser or something like that. but given the fact we are here to celebrate the legacy of president ford, i just wonder if you can close with perhaps one of your favorite stories, your most cherished memories about him that he might be able to share with our audience whether it is a humorous moment or something that you found quite endearing about president ford.

>> well, one of the things i have most fun with the utmost difficulty coping with was his golf swing. [laughter] well, first of all president ford was a really good athlete. he had a reputation of stumbling. and every time he stumbled and the few times what was in front of the press the camera but he was a strongman and he had a powerful golf swing, but he had no idea where the ball was going to go. ..

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

>> in the senate today, members dated e limb enating a $6 million tax break promoting ethanol use. this was proposed by oklahoma senator tom coburn. we'll hear from the senator along with senators feinstein. this is 40 minutes. >> mr. president, i rise today in support of the ethanol

subsidy repeal agent which senator coburn offered and i have co-sponsoredded along with senators collins, corkers lieberman, tiewmy, and webb. i know that the fact that this amendment is on the floor scheduled to be voted on at 2:15 this afternoon caused deep consternation on my side of the aisle. there is objection to the procedures used. i am not going to get into that. i'm going to say a vote a is vote, and we are facing a vote at 2:15 unless something changes. now, to be candid, if there were an offer to bring to in the floor next week or the week after for a time specific in a commitment specific, i believe

that the author and myself and co-sponsors would certainly agree to that, but in the absence of that offer, it is important that the united states -- the united states senate takes a position on a program has become both gross and egregious, and i want to explain why i feel that way. madam president, no other product i know of has the triple crown of government support that corn ethanol een joys in the country -- enjoys in the country. its use is mandated by law. oil companies are paid by the federal government to use it, so there's a subsidy, and corn ethanol is protected by a rather high tariff. consequently, it's been very profitable for farmers. this amounts to almost $6 billion a year of taxpayer's money that goes to support the corn ethanol industry in this

country. put another way, that's 15 million each and every day spent on this subsidy at a time when candidly, madam president, we can want afford it. they say there's very few privileges left out there. this is one that is enormous, and i think we have to take a look at it, and i think if this bill passes, this amendment passes, nearly $3 billion is saved between july 1 and the end of the year. that's not up significant, and it goes into the general fund and helps abate the debt and deficit. since 2005, we have spent $22.6 billion on this subsidy, and it gets more expensive every year. in 2011, the government will spend $5.7 billion.

in 2012, $5.9 billion. in 2013, $6.2 billion, and can see since the program came into being in 2005, and i voted against it then, it was at $1.5 billion. next year, 2.6. next year, 3.3. next year 4.4. 2009, 6.7 million to go to people for using corn ethanol. it is wrong. on top of this subsidy, we have imposed a 54 per cent gallon tariff on ethanol products from brazil, india, and australia and others that could import it more cheaply than its grown here, and this then contributes to making

the united states more dependent on oil imports from opec. our amendment is simple. beginning july 1, we would repeal the 45 crept per gallon ethanol subsidy that goes overwhelmingly to large oil companies and eliminates the 54 cent on supported ethanol. we have to agent to repeal the subsidies before another 2.4 million which is $15 million a day that's wasted over the remaining six months of this year. let me describe the real world impact of these unwise subsidies and tariffs to our economy. last week, i was in the central valley at an event, and i would say anywhere from six to eight

farmers came up to me and said, thank you for trying to end the ethanol business. i can no longer afford feed, and i began to think, and so we took a look at what the situation is, and the fact is that this ethanol policy is inflating the price of corn and impacting other sectors of the economy. today, approximately 39% of our corn crop is now used to produce ethanol in this country. here's where it's gone, the percent of corn from 2000, 7%. 2005, 14%, and 2010, 37% of the entire corn crop goes to produce ethanol. corn futures have reached the record $7.99 is bushel on the

trade last week. prices are up 140% in the past 12 months and continue to rise. in 2006, prices were $2 a bushel so today they are $7.99 a bushel so this has been a real spike in the price of feed. if it continues, one can expect major price increases this grain and food as well. the average price of corn has risen 225% since 2006. here it is. 2005, 2006, here it goes, goes down slightly, and it has gone up. in california, the annual feed costs for foster farms, this is the largest poultry producer on the west coast, has tripled over

the past year increasing foster farm's cost for feed by more than $2 million, and this is more than the largest profit the company has ever made, and i hear similar stories from small producers, from co-ops, from dairymen and cattlemen throughout california. the price of feed is raising to such an extent that experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs and dairy cows this summer. in other words, it's becoming cheaper to slaughter the animals rather than to feed them. that's wrong. paul cameron recently wrote to me. as a cattle producer who has never asked for a subsidy of any kind, i only ask that ethanol production stand on its own aallow true supply and demand to dictate the real price of corn.

it seems to me, he is spot on, and it seems to me when you look at charts like this on grain prices, on the huge subsidy that oil companies get on the protective tariffs that one has to say enough is enough. the usda predicts that continued demand from the livestock, ethanol, and food industry will reduce corn reserves to the lowest level since the mid-1990s, and these low grain reserves will have repercussions globally. we know that rising food prices exacerbate global poverty and could intensify political unrest in some parts of the world, but the bottom line is diverting 39% of our crop towards ethanol is artificially driving up corn prices which, in turn, is strapping people and industries

-- straining people and industries that depend on affordable corn. in addition to impacting the price of corn, the $6 billion annual ethanol subsidy is fiscally irresponsible. if the current subsidy were to exist through 2014 as the industry has proposed, the treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the federal renewable fuel standard already requires them to use under the clean air act. the biggest recipient receiving money is bp, and it, according to reports, received $585 million. i know my time is running out. if i may just conclude in one minute? >> without objection. >> thank you very much. so we can't afford and should

not pay oil if anies such as exxon mobile. as the gao has found, the mandate for the use is due publictive in stimulating domestic production use of ethanol and can and is resulting in substantial loss of revenue to the treasury. let me just say one thing about the tariff. the tariff on low carbon sugar kane ethanol makes our nation dependent on foreign oil how? the combined tariffs are ethanol are 66 cents per gallon, 16 cents higher than the ethanol subsidies they supposedly offset so this is essentially a major trade barrier, so we have a real

problem with this triple crown. we mandate its use, pay people to use it, and then we set a large tariff barrier to prevent anybody from importing any ethanol whether it's corn or sugar that's cheaper. this is expensive -- $15 million a day, $6 billion as i've said a year. i know many of my colleagues agree with the sub staps of this -- substance of this legislation, and i appreciate very much that the amendment is being considered under somewhat up usual circumstances deny unusual circumstances and procedures. i hope we can have a fair vote. i hope that members will not disregard the impart of what we are doing. we are essentially saving the government nearly $6 billion a year by simply repealing the subsidy, repealing the mandate,

and repealing the tariff. i believe the time has come. thank you very much, madam president, i yield the floor. >> interesting days in our country. we find ourselves in a very deep hole, and it's not the american people's fault. it's congress' fault. we continue to spend money that bedon't have on things that we don't need, and when we do that permly, -- personally, we end up filing bankruptcy. pretty soon, we run out of new credit cards to take on, and we get to the point where we can't pay our debts, and that's the question that's in front of our country today as the economy is struggling. we have this massive debt, and we ought to be about every

small, medium, and large thing we can do to solve the problem, not to solve the problem to say that we can't pay our bills, but to solve the problem so we create a prosperous future for our kids and those that follow us. there's a lot of controversy over the amendment that i offered, and it's claimed by the majority leader inaccurately that this amendment was rule 14. it was not rule 14. according to the procedures of the senate, you can file cloture on any amendment at any time. that's a privilege that every senator has here. now, why would somebody file a cloture on an amendment? it's because over the first five and a half months of this year, through the leadership of the senate, we've been unable to have a free and open debate and free and open offering of amendments. because the procedure is rarely used doesn't mean it's not

ethical and accurate. as a matter of fact, it's there when your rights as a senator are being limited by the majority. that's why we have this rule because you can take 16 of your colleagues and file a cloture position, and therefore have a vote on your amendment. what we're hearing going on in the background today is the reason you shouldn't vote for the amendment even though you agree we should get rid and save $3 billion much as the senator from california goat lined, -- outlined, $3 billion to the very people receiving the money, their argument is because they don't like the way the amendment came to the floor. well, explain to the people at home when you have an opportunity to save this country $3 billion, and you know it's the right policy, but you're not going to vote for it because you don't like the way the amendment came to the floor, and i would remind my colleagues of the $3 billion we're going to save,

$1.2 billion we'll borrow from china if we go on and spend it and charge that $1.2 billion to our kids and grandchildren. the interesting thing is that we have grown over 0-some years to rely on ethanol for 7% of our fuel. it's been a very expensive process. it's expensive directly because when you go to buy gasoline today, it's not the price you pay at the pump that you're actually paying. take all the subsidies and all the tax credits and all the low interest loans, and all the nonrepayment of all the grants, and all the moneys put into this program, and when you buy that tank of gas, every gallon that you put into your car after you pay for it, you already paid a $1.72 through your taxes to have

that gallon there. we're not getting rid of the mandate on ethanol. it's helped us in some way. it's an up efficient fuel, causes us to use more fuel and produce more co2, but the fact is we have an amendment on the floor that is designed to take away a subsidy, and the only reason we take away the sub subsidy because in law you have to do it any way, and i would introduce for the record a letter from the refiners who state, this is the national pretroll yums refinders associate who represent 90% of the people who get this tax credit, all right, 97% of the $3 billion, they say they don't want the $3 billion.

the vote's going to come down really clear. we're going to get $3 billion to some of the most profitable companies in america or we're not. the interesting thing is they are saying please don't give it to us. please don't give us this money. think of a time when we borrow the money to give to them, and they say don't give it to us, there's a vote on the floor and very likely not wipe because of a procedure? because of parochial interests? the fact is every gallon of ethanol that's blended to gasoline, whoever does the bleeping gets -- blending gets 45 cents a gallon, and they don't need it because they're beginning to blend is anyway so the real question is will we continue to be ignorant this washington for the common sense that the american people

want us to have? the common sense is that if you're paying somebody to do something, and by law they do it anyway and write you a letter, why would we continue to send them the money? why continue to do that when 40% of us we borrow from the chinese? it makes no sense. there's no logic that you can come up with. the calculations from iowa state university on this $3 billion is that the amount of jobs that come out of this in the past cost $1 billion a year -- $14 million a year per job created out of this subsidy. no wonder we're broke, no wonder

we're failing financially, no wonder we're failing our children and our grandchildren because we continue to do things that don't have any correlation with logic or common sense. i know the arguments. i know the argument is well, we passed this as part of the extension. as a republican, i was a few that didn't vote for that extension. not only did we pass unsafe programs, but cut no spending to pay for it. we borrowed a bunch of money and not solve the issues that lie in front of our country. >> there's so much ethanol production, last year we shipped

400 million gallons overseas. that's great except when you take the time to think about that with that 400 million gallons, we sent $500 million worth of subsidy. now we're subsidizing ethanol that goes to europe with your tax dollars so they can have cheaper gasoline than we have because they are taking a $1.72 per gallon, and getting the benefit of our tax dollars to have cheaper ethanol in europe than they can get from other places, so there's nothing about this that makes sense other than if you are studying the politics and the procedures and the parochialism going on inside the political body. that's what got us in trouble. we're more interested in power and position and party. i'm sick of both parties.

we better start focusing on the real problems in the country. we'll have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and the way to get rid of it is one or two or three billion at a time. this makes absolutely no sense. here's something that has no true demand for it, something that's $3 billion the people paid who say they don't want the $3 billion, and we're not going to take them up on it? what part of stupid are we? i mean, you know, this -- it doesn't make sense. it's comedic. we've had a lot of debate -- let me talk for a minute about what's going on in the agriculture community throughout

the country if your a poultry, milk, or livestock producer. you can't bring your cattle to feed lots because corn is too expensive. $7.75 bushel. you can't fatten your cattle. we're slaughtering dairy cows because 70% of the cost of the cows is the corn that you feed them. we'll get all sorts of interruptions and price increases in the food if we continue this silly policy. 70% of the cost for chickens is feed. we're having processes close and go into bankruptcy and chicken raisers, the chicken farms, a lot in oklahoma, arkansas, throughout the south, even over in delaware and in virginia.

they can't afford to feed the chickens. what's going to happen because we have this false subsidy? the fact is 15% right now of the food increases in this country that you've seen in the last year are directly associated with this policy, directly associated with this policy, and that doesn't have any effect on the fact that what can we do by sending $7 corn out of the country to the balance of payments which would help our trade imbalance. instead, we're burning it, and it's a highly inefficient fuel. it's a highly up efficient -- inefficient fuel. everybody knows when they fill up with ethanol, they get poor gas milage. they know that. in oklahoma it says ethanol is free. why do people pay more a gallon? because they win on milage.

they actually get better performance when they don't have ethanol in their fuel. we know that, but in some states you don't have that option. we can still buy real gas. we're fortunate. i understand there's three minutes left and i'll close with the following statement. this is going to be a historic vote, not about ethanol, not about subsidies. it's going to be a historic vote that sends a signal to the american people. either the washington people get it and will stop wasting money on programs that they don't need to waste on and their going to start acting in the best long term interest of the country. they are going to do that, or they are not, and so when we seed the results of this vote -- see the results of this vote, you'll have a hard time explaning i voted against that because i don't like the way the

amendment came up. the fact is is here's $3 billion that we don't have to spend in the next six months, and if we don't, that's $3 billion we don't have to borrow from our children, and they won't pay interest on it for the next 30 years. this comes down to the point in time, does the senate recognize the amount of trouble we're in, and are they willing to give up parochial interests, proceed churl interests, are they willing to do what's necessary to put this country back on course? my hope and prayer is that they are. madam president, i yield the floor. >> madam president? >> the senator from north dakota. >> thank you. i rise this morning to talk about america's energy future. the reality is we need a diversified energy future. what i mean by that is we need to develop our energy resources. in my home state of north

carolina, we're doing that. we have coal and developing clean coal technologies. we have oil and gas, hydro, biofuels and ethanol, diesel, solar, wind, biomas, and we're working aggressively to work them all, traditional sources of energy and renewable sources of energy. ten years ago in 2000 when i started as governor of north dakota, we set a course to develop a comprehensive energy plan to develop all of our energy resources both traditional and renewability to do it in tandem by encouraging private investment to spur the development of new technologies, new technologies to develop traditional sources of energy, renewable sources of energy and create new and exciting partnerships that would both diversify the energy mix, help

us produce more energy more cost effectively, create good quality jobs, and improve environmental stewardship, and that's exactly what's happening, what's happening in our state, and that's exactly what we need to do as a nation. let me give you some examples from our state. oil and gas. oil and gas development took off in north dakota. we're the fourth largest oil producing state in the union. we passed up oklahoma and louisiana producing more oil and we're producing it from new formations like the shale and we're doing it with new technologies, directional and hoer horizontal drilling, and we know how to use the technologies like directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing in knew ways to produce new energy with good environmental stewardship. for example, in the case of hydroic traction, we recycle the

water. go down two miles underwater, it's a smaller foot print. one well produces what 10-12 wells used to produce, and the water we force the oil to the surface, we send it back down and reuse it and put it back ultimately where we drilled it out of the first place. in the case of coal, we take coal and we produce natural gas. we put it in pipelines and send it to other areas in the country. at the same time, we recan capturing cor bon dioxide, compressing it, and sending it to oil fields. those are the new developments that we're undertaking. as we do that with things like oil, gas, and coal, we're also

developing renewables as well. for example, wind. our state is now the 9th largest wind energy state of all 50. we continue to move up the ranks, and up vest billion -- invest billions of dollars for the country creating good jobs in process and think how important it is to create jobs at a time when there's more than 9% unemployment, 15-plus million people out of work, an economy that needs to get going and growing, and energy development represents an opportunity to make that happen, but when we talk about energy development, we need all of the different sources of energy, and each has strengths, and each has weaknesses, and that's why we need the mix. in our state, we also produce by yo fuels -- biofuels. the discussion today is how do

we best create that environment to continue the development, the production, and the growth of ethanol in a way that is cost effective, that serves the taxpayers the country and continues to develop the vital industry for our country at a time when we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, when we need more domestically produced energy, when we need quality jobs, when we need a growing economy? we can do it. we can do it with the right kind of energy policy, with the right energy policy, and that's what we're talking about today. think about ethanol. it helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil. for every gallon of ethanol we use part of the fuel mix, that's one less gallon of gasoline we bring in from the middle east, and by increasing supply, we help reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump for our consumers. in addition to that, we're

creating good paying american jobs. in 2010, the ethanol industry employed 400,000 workers in good jobs throughout the united states, 400,000 jobs. it provided an important market for american farmers throughout our country. it displaced the need for 445 million barrels of foreign oil. it displaced the need for 445 million barrels of foreign oil and reduced the price of gasoline at the pump by 80 crepts a gal -- cents a gallon for the american consumer. in addition to all of that, the industry paid $11 billion in federal taxes in 2010. i want to emphasize that point. in 2010, the ethanol industry paid $11 billion in federal tax, so it is an important industry to our country, and we need to continue it.

the point of the discussion today, though, is how best to do that, and so for this discussion today is how do we create the right environment to stimulate private up vestment, stimlit private investment to have a growing economy, more job, more energies, more tax revenues without government spending, get the economy going, create a better energy future for the young people, and young people all over our great country. well, that's why i've sponsored legislation along with senator thiewn to reform the credit, provide deficit reduction in our country for the long run. it's called ethanol tax reform and reduction plan, and it's the

right way to transsession for the -- transition from the current credit rather than the amendment today to simply do away with v-tech. this is the right transition for us to make to creating the right environment to stimulate investment in biofuels for the future. the et name tax reform and reduction plan provides $1 billion in deficit reduction right away, provides $1 billion in deficit reduction and provides the right transition by providing the right kind of energy policy, specifically, we provide incentives for things like blender pumps that often consumers choice, and we provide the right kind of inventives for research and deployment for second generation ethanol so

that instead of making ethanol from good products, we're making it from wheat straw and other sources. by combining blender pumps, flex fuel vehicles, and common sense regulation on the part of the epa that encourages higher fuel blends, we create the business environment that will foster growth in the ethanol industry. what does that mean? that means number one, we avoid the ongoing cost of subsidies like the v-tech. second, we set the ethanol industry up for a long term growth. third, we gain jobs. we gain jobs at a time when we badly need them. we produce more energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gain tax revenues, we gain tax revenues to reduce the deficit. we not only spend less directly,

but grow our economy, and that growing economy builds on the $11 billion that the industry is already paying in federal taxes, and we grow that base. that's the right way to move forward, to move out of our deficit situation in the economy, to get our economy going, and also to produce more energy. this is a market based approach that will give customers more choice and reduce their fuel costs. for example, you go into the station, there's a blender pump there, you dial in whatever blend you choose from 0% biofuels up to 85%, whatever works best for you, whatever works best for your pocketbook, whatever works best for your vehicle. we have blender pumps in my state, and as a result, we have more blender pumps than any other state in the country, and

the reality is today, if you by fuel in north dakota, almost all the fuel you buy will have ethanol in it, and you don't even realize it. why? because at a 90/10% blend, every vehicle can use it, and it's the lowest priced gasoline at the pump so dealers want to sell it, consumers buy it, and they buy it because they pick the lowest cost fuel at the pump, and it's a 90/10 blend, and that's where we go with it, a market-based approach, and that's how it can work for the benefit of our economy, for the benefit of our energy future, for the benefit of reducing spending, and for the benefit of growing our tax revenues. that's the choice that we have today, that's the right way to approach job creation and energy development in our country. we are reducing spending. we are improving and creating an

environment for private sector investment that will help us build a probusiness climate for energy growth and economic growth in our economy, and i urgely fell loy senator -- fellow snorts to make that pro-growth choice. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

>> the head of the security transportation system says rail funding should be a higher priority and discussed threats against passenger rails and subways. at a senate transportation hearing, john talked about actions tsa took in response to the os psalm ma bin laden operation that uncovered a potential plot to derail american trains. democrat frank lawsuitenberg of new jersey -- lautenberg chairs the hearing. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> it's hard to believe we had that misunderstanding. [laughter] anyway, i know each one of you has worked hard to get the information we're hear to hear today, and so again, my

apologies, and the lack of presence here by no way and no way suggests a lack of interest, but we did have a fairly difficult discussion that took place before the vote so that's why there's some delays here, but we are pleased to see you, and i didn't think i have to strike the gavel to get order in the room. looks like an orderly group. it counts. anyway, i thank you all for being here. six weeks after the american military's courageous and daring raid on osama been lad p's -- bin laden's come popped, one thing is clear. the ruthless killer is dead and gone, but al-qaeda, as we know,

remains determined to strike the u.s. again. according to reports, documents recovered from bin laden's compound shows that he wanted to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by attacks trains, surface transportation in the country. this sends tremors down our spines, but it shouldn't surprise us. the choices they make for targets are those that have lots of people in the area and where they can inflict damage that will be felt throughout the area, throughout the country that even though it's a relatively small bit of geography. terrorists have been focused on trains for years, and we've seen

attacks overseas including bombings in london, mumbai, moscow, terrorists attack trains and busses 1700 times. hard to imagine worldwide since 9/11, and the attacks unfortunately took lives, 3700 that were killed. trains have been targeted here in our country. since 9/11, we foiled several attacks on our public transportation network incoming one last fall when the fbi arrested a man who was plotting to blow up four stations in the washington, d.c.'s own metro system, and we have to recognize that our surface transportation network is enormous, heavily traveled, and is therefore an attractive target. americans take more trips on trains and other public transportation than they do on

commercial airliners. the public takes 700 million flights a year, but compared to 10 billion trips aboard subways, busses, trains, and other forms of public transportation. it shows you a relationship that should not and cannot be ignored. consider amtrak's success. last year, nearly 29 million passengers traveled aboard amtrak, an all-time high, and the number amtrak has this year, and i can verify that. i use amtrak regularly, and i came down yesterday, forgive a light moment, but last week while someone tried to get a couple bags aboard, legitimate, the cabin -- the tenant in the train was left standing on the

platform when the train left so the bags were in, but the person working in the train, on the train itself was left behind. it was, i think there was a little bit of imbalance in terms of what was required. amtrak's passengers traveled on 21,000 miles of track through 500 train stations. the rail network is as vast as it is open making trains appealing targets for terrorists. simply put, rail offers easy access with a chance to strike with high casualties. make no mistake,s threat to america's rail network is real, and we have to do whatever we can to keep it secure. at the federal level, this responsibility largely rests with tsa transportation security administration. when we think of tsa, many only

consider its worth to secure aviation, but this vital agency has to protect the entire transportation system including trains. despite this, 98% of tsa's budget is dedicated to aviation security leaving less than 2% for rail security, so for years i've been sounding the alarm that our attention has been too lopsided, too one-sided rather, and we can't only focus on aviation security. the government accountability office agrees and issued multiple recommendations in recent years calling on tsa to do more, safeguard rail and other surface transportation networks. tsa is taking steps to strengthen rail security, but the agency and department of homeland security still vice

president carried out -- haven't carried out the many requirements outlined in the 9/11 agent that became low in 2007. i'm committed to helping the agencies get the resources they need, but it's no surprise it's an uphill fight now. the house majority, the house republicans recently voted to slash homeland security grant funding including funding for public transportation security grants, a move that would seriously undermind our efforts to keep americans safe when they travel. i want to be clear, we're going to do what we can to defeat those cuts, but we also need to know what tsa is doing to improve rail security now including training employees, improving technology, and infrastructure. i look forward to hearing from amtrak about what they and other train operators are doing to keep their passengers safe and

secure, but i want to be sure that we cannot stand to take large cuts in resource, reductions in funding, and tell the american public honestly that we're doing whatever we can to protect them, and that's a fight we all have to be engaged in. cuts are interesting, but if they are cuts to your body, to your operation, to the things that you do, they hurt, and we have to fearing out a way not -- figure out a way not just to do that, cuts, but to do more to reduce our deficit and not contribute more to debt so that's a subject i take a great deal of interest in, and i'm going to work to see what we can do about making certain we have the resources available to provide the quality and kind of

security that's necessary, and i know all of you agree, and so i look forward to hearing, as i said, from amtrak today and other operators that are going to do or are doing presently to keep their passengers safe and secure, and timely arrival of our distinguished colleague, senator hutchenson, and i would ask if you have an opening statement, please offer that now, and we'll continue our process. ..

in addition to the aviation we have freight so there is a big challenge which we a understand. but i am very concerned that we not leave it to chance, and certainly the we put the effort into it, and especially i hope that you will address the issue of the dhs inspector general recommended that the surface

inspectors report to the responsibilities as opposed to the aviation% so there are differences and the management certainly ought to be able to focus more efforts on the specific needs of surface in this case. senator udall, in your opening statement? >> we will put the opening statement in the record and let's get to the witnesses. >> now we acknowledge the presence of the witness each one bringing expertise to the issue of security. mr. john kissell, administrator of tsa as a transportation security administration and he

will update us on the security efforts. the director of homeland security and justice issues for the gao, the government accountability office, and we will listen with interest to your recommendations. mr. o'connor, john o'connor, amtrak chief of police acting vice president of the office of security and special operations he will discuss the challenges facing amtrak and the steps it's taking in the emerging threats i think all of you for being here and mr. pistol if he would please began and we would ask you to try to keep your remarks to five minutes. thank you for your strong support with our partners as we try to address the surface trepidation issues we are also aware of and so i am pleased to

appear before the committee today to discuss the efforts of the tsa in partnership with dhs, and amtrak and other leaders to provide mass-transit and passenger security. last month the president announced the operation resulted in the death of osama bin laden and the effort market town to the counterterrorism success for the country and of the world has recently announced kashmiri in pakistan and of course we believe kashmiri being responsible for most of the western operations for al qaeda core the leader of the 1998 embassy bombings in east africa and much of the al qaeda and east africa work. our efforts to combat terrorism go beyond any one individual which is why we remain focused on the critical mission it will

provide particles on the intelligence and continue to share information and stakeholders to enable them to enhance protective measures and surge resources as appropriate and to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity to the police so i'm honored to appear with chief o'connor to focus on mass transit systems and passenger railroads which includes subways, bus transit systems from amtrak, commuter railroads all of which as you noted accounted for more than 10 billion trips for americans last year alone. a theory critical part of the network and work with our partners to protect. they also remain a target as you noted for terrorist groups and have been the subject of numerous plots in the u.s. unsuccessful but as follows the successful attacks you to overseas in spain, the committee, moscow and elsewhere and the ground infrastructure,

bridges, transportation in the areas or hubs which can also be attacked and of course the consequences of an attack on any one of these systems in our country could be devastating. a critical component of the tsa security efforts in passenger rail is our partnership with industry and local and regional stakeholders. the dhs comprehensive transit security grant program is the primary vehicle for the assistance and hansel to eligible transit agencies supporting the state and local government initiative to improve security. the work to fund projects that most effectively mitigate risk at the highest systems for example in 2010 the award nearly $274 million to the transit passenger rail industry bringing the total since to those of six to nearly $1.6 billion. in addition to grant funding tsa supports the mass transit systems by deploying visible prevention response teams or

fiber teams to augment local security efforts and as you know we've 25 dedicated fifer to assume operations and the 12th budget requests include funding for additional 12 teams they perform a baseline of collaborative cites specific risk assessments for the mass transit and passenger rail system engaging in the partners on how to reduce the vulnerabilities, assess risk and improve security efforts. these assessments are conducted with instances on the 100 largest man -- mass-transit systems and passenger volume which collectively account for over 80% of all of the users of public transportation. and of course among the assessment is the baseline assessment for the security enhancement or base which is a comprehensive security assessment program designed to evaluate 17 security and emergency management action items to form the foundation of an effective security program.

we also work with our partners to assess risk, vulnerability and a number of other venues. we also work with the federal transit authority's and federal railroad administration trade groups representing mass transit and passenger real interest and the agencies to improve security. in closing, i would like to stress again the collaboration is crucial for the success of mass transit passenger operations. tsa will continue to partner with law enforcement industry to local and tribal officials and emergency responders and federal agencies to foster regional security called operation to integrate resources for enhance deterrence and response capabilities. mr. chairman, ranking member hutcheson, think you for the opportunity to be here today. >> thanks very much, mr. passel and now your opportunity, please. >> thank you, chairman lautenberg, ranking member hutcheson and senator udall. i am pleased to be today to discuss the efforts to enhance

security. this is an important issue given the recent intelligence recovered from the bin laden compound and the prior on a successful plots to bomb the new york transit and the metro system. as you know, the systems are vulnerable to attack because they rely on the open architecture that is difficult to monitor and secured. today i would like to discuss three issues. first, the dhs chris assessment process used to focus its security efforts. second, the status of the tse efforts to provide security training for public transportation on front-line employees. third, tsa efforts to streamline the vast amount of security information it provides to stakeholders regarding the first point as we've reported today in the statement tsa made steady progress and improving the risk assessment across all modes of transportation including a real. for example, last june in

response to the prior recommendation, tsa completed a comprehensive assessment of security risks across the entire transportation sector including the passenger freight rail mode and also tsa's assessment excluded some important types of threats such as of the lone wolf attack, this was a good first step. and tsa will issue an updated assessment later this year the will reportedly address some of the limitations we noted. tsa is also expanded efforts to assess the risk of the mass transit passenger rail freight rail systems. for the simple, they have completed additional assessments come a potential security threats to the bridges and tunnels in response to one of our prior report recommendations. and as of june, 2011, this agency reported and completed assessments of 77 bridges and 29 freight tunnels.

these are positive steps. i would now like to discuss tsa's efforts to develop security training programs for public transportation and rail employees. this is an important issue because in 2007, tsa identified the need for more consistent systematic security training and mass transit and passenger rail personnel. the 9/11 act also mandated that tsa develop regulations for providing training to public transportation and front-line employees. during our recent discussions with tsa about actions to meet the mandate the agency reported it would issue a notice proposed rule making for public comment by november of this year. while that is a positive step it is also worth noting this is over four years past to the original mandate deadline. this trading is important because it's designed to improve the consistency of the training

and the quality of the training provided to these personnel including training and coordination of communications and evacuation procedures. i would like to address the information sharing. the past work has identified a significant streamlining opportunities in this area. for example, our september, 2010 report identified potential overlap among three key federal mechanisms used to share security information with public transit agencies. and to help improve information sharing, tsa and industry groups have developed the so-called transit and rail intelligence awareness daily report. we think this is a positive development to streamline the exchange of intelligence and security information. our ongoing work also indicates the freight rail agency's still

of concerns about federal information sharing efforts. the analytical content of the report and action ability of the information provided. for example, security officials at the railroads we interviewed recently raised significant concerns about the action of devotee of the provided information. tsa officials agree improvements are needed in this area and are taking steps to address them, and we are going to report, issued a report on this issue later this year. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i look for to questions you and the committee may have. >> thank you very much. now we will hear from the chief, please. >> thank you mr. chairman, senator udall, senator wicker. my testimony today is in

response to the emerging threat to the real in this country the was recently highlighted by information obtained from the osama bin laden compound. during a prior appearance before the committee i testified that the threat against real was real and i discussed the matter in which amtrak had responded by focusing threats related to interest explosive devices and stations on board a train or by an act of shooter scenario. the recent events after the death of bin laden serve as a reminder these threats continue to be viable and in a new twist was added to her wrists are considering derailing trains. this is a particular concern to amtrak operates high-speed trains with catastrophic losses could occur. this begs the question are we doing enough to detour the terrorist acts on the surface

transportation and can we do more to prevent a terrorist tragedy from happening? upon receipt of the intelligence information from the compound a meeting was held with the officials to discuss what was uncovered and evaluate how to proceed regarding the threats to the right of we and the derailment of trains. amtrak also collaborated with other federal state and local regencies and initiated a response that headrest right away threats. these steps included increasing patrols focusing on the bridge and tunnel infrastructure. shifting operation a program called reach the alliance including the state and federal efforts strategy to include the right of way patrols requesting law enforcement of air and marine support for the critical one for structure, ensuring the current capital security planning including right of way risk assessments.

to the special operations personnel to the right of way in coordinating with other amtrak departments. last, employees and reinforcing security programs and vigilance messages. while amtrak was undertaking these countermeasures, it still remained committed to existing programs such as explosive canine detection programs. we currently have 46 explosive teams but last year did more than 11,000 to train rides and more than 25 weekly surges across the nation. our security inspection program we conducted more than 3,000 random baggage screening operations. active shooter training or support personnel have been trained in active shooter

training and we train more than agencies and refining to the environment. corporate security. amtrak is leveraged funding to improve protection for passengers employees and critical infrastructures including cctv, fincen and other secured and provides mostly with a grant funding from the tsa. in collaboration with tsa, amtrak continues to work closely with tsa and some highlights are we conducted more than 800 viper programs to the protection response deployment. we also conducted joint screening operations. continued improvement of security efforts to suspicious activity reporting programs and the baseline assessment security enhancement program. in the northeast corridor we continued to work with major law enforcement and dhs officials from the northeast corridor in a collaborative way to enhance public safety on the surface

transportation. i mentioned before this effort is a grassroots effort that is now included hundreds of agencies across the country helping to protect rail and the last major operation on may 19th more than 155 u.s. agencies as well as several canadian across 34 states and 100,000 law enforcement personnel deployed to over 200 stations. the key to the security front line employee training. amtrak has been active in providing security training for front-line employees and in 2011, 8300 frontline transportation employees are receiving classroom training by way of interactive simulated cost including active issues tend situation. the technology is also a big part of our efforts. in conclusion, we are very

concerned about the recent events and we will continue to work with the federal government to do all we can to protect america's real. we will work with the hs, tsa and the committee to identify funding sources for the front line training and advanced technology to address these threats. the security of the system is our top priority and will look for what to working with the committee in the coming months to make sure we of the people, the training, technology and the intelligence we need to keep the system safe and secure. thank you. >> thank you very much. i would note now that we are joined by senator wicker, senator wicker is not new to the surface transportation subcommittee, but he is now a ranking member of the subcommittee and i welcome him and i look forward to working with him and what we will do is

have some degree short and you can do it now otherwise use the time when the questions -- >> i would prefer the latter. thank you very much. i'm glad to be joining you in that position. >> we know you have a serious interest in the safety and we want to pursue that interest you. i just got a news report that came out today, and it talks about tampering on the system in idaho, iowa, i'm sorry, and it says on a recent sunday morning

and observed audio interstate railroad crew member westbound spot something that didn't look right as a switch just west of the town called menlo and the stopped traffic there and were able to deal with the problem as they saw it was designed to be an attack in the was interrupted by the heightened interest of the rail employees and was turned over to the federal authorities to pursue what was intended and helped us in registered in more concern and these can get things even as we talk on this very day. as, i would start by asking

administrator pistol the tsa budget request continues to designate 98% of the funds to aviation, and we want that to continue, but it leaves a relatively small percentage of the funds for the surface transportation security. and as i mentioned in my country, 700 million passengers fly on air lines each year and to the 10 billion the public transportation and news reports indicate that al qaeda has been plotting an attack on a u.s. rail line. so how does the tsa budget request reflect our concern and actions against the system

mr. pistole? >> thank you mr. chairman. obviously we would be very much interested in applying more resources to the surface transportation in particular in the security aspects. we try to be risk-based intelligence driven in our process of recognizing with al qaeda and arabian peninsula interest in particular as the effects as we saw from both of the attempted bombing on christmas day 2009 and the cargo plots we've salles cost al qaeda $4,200 to the printers devices and the shipping of the packages and we saw bin ladens's statements about that in the arabian peninsula statement about the economic impact and recognizing that at least two of bin laden's's laws the concern the economic impact that's not to say that there's not an

economic impact as a train is the railed or anything along those lines where we try to do is recognize exceptional efforts with the amtrak police and those in the state and local law enforcement that in the industry have taken efforts and measures on their own and simply terms of risk mitigation to do those things they know are prudent in terms of whether it is the additional police officers came line as the chief o'connor testified to whether it is augmenting with transportation security funds which i mentioned in terms of operational deterrence, training and then other things as the program that we mentioned so we try to do those things recognizing we cannot be all places all so how can we leverage the federal government resources with state and local and and track to provide the best possible security posture?

>> the question is raised in the past year of the law enforcement has uncovered a plot against the new york city subway and the d.c. metro, and yet the house sent over recommended funding that's carelessly established to support public transportation security grand by 55% recommended below this year's's level. now, but what an impact like that do to transportation security that we have to have for the safety and security of the travelling public? >> mr. chairman, it has a serious and a sycophant in practice that were to go forward

in terms of several areas one would be the training that we would be able to do. for example, we recently had a conference call with the chief of police from many of the metro police department's and a policy of fraser group including chief o'connor. one of the things has the request of the bin laden rate was some video training, basically videotape that could be provided that we could produce and provide to flexible the engineers, those who work on the lines that a deal with some caution and particularly what can be done in terms of trying to take preventive steps to prevent sabotage and in the event that there is what steps can be taken to avoid the impact of that so that would be one area. the operational deterrence, another area that a critical infrastructure would be another area. as you know, the port authority transit and the lines between new jersey and new york has some

issues we talked about previously. some of that may affect some of the continued risk mitigation efforts being done in those areas and there may be reduced funding for example the operational efforts that amtrak and others would have additional k-9 teams or uniform officers that to the random unpredictable controls. >> i'm extending the time that i have for asking questions and i'm going to come back to mr. pistole. because there are many things we could do and the question is what is missing from the abdication of these ideas that leaves us with more risk than i think we ought to be accepting?

with that, i would ask senator hutchinson to take -- >> well, thank you. we understand the stretch you have a crest transportation modes, so i'm not going to real on you on how much of your budget url will kidding, but i am going to rail on you to this extent, and that is what, for instance, are you doing about hiring the inspectors you have in this area with some mass transit order rail experience which hadn't been done in april april 2010 when we have a hearing like this? secondly, what about the 400 inspectors? could you give them training as you just mentioned you might be

given to the employees which i think is a good step, but what about the fra inspectors, could they also -- they are doing safety but what about adding security to their portfolio and coordinating with the federal rail administration? and last, i would ask this of you, mr. pistole, what is the association and cooperation between the tsa and the d.o.t.? how would you agree to that, and can you do more with what you have that would help the situation? and you mentioned about osama bin laden information on the computers that we found because clearly as they saw that there was a void of interest in this area so, we are now four board. >> thank you, senator. the first question on the ins duty to inspectors we are

looking for the best qualified, and there are things we can do and are doing to always recruit and retain those with exceptional backrub experience. so there's more we can do in terms of specializing in to your point that will address those issues that have been raised in the past. i wasn't present for the april hearing but some of the issues that were raised. >> do you think we are doing that? >> i think we are but we can do more. on the second point in terms of the fra 400 inspectors, i will take that back. i don't see a reason we can get the training that we are providing whether this court amtrak or other passenger and freight rail providers to add the security aspect to the safety issues we will take that back and look at that. and then on dhaka last issue, i didn't write that one down. i apologize. >> the d.o.t.. right. i think it's good secateurs

napolitano and chief o'connor and by had a meeting with secretary lahood last month i guess it was to talk about some of the issues involving particularly passenger rail. i think there's a lot of things we're doing well. i think that we could probably streamline and leverage some of the relationships in a more effective way so that something interested in looking at basically to get the best return on our u.s. taxpayers investments in freight and passenger rail security. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks. senator wicker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service and your testimony. let me ask about the incident that happened yesterday. here in the washington area, and by what reference a story in "the washington post." i've been on the television and

radio also in the last 24 hours a 52 year old woman is being held at an undisclosed mental health facility after she allegedly made bomb threats on the red line train monday morning passengers fled the train and some evacuate on the bed according to the witnesses. the station was closed about two hours and a search no explosives were found apparently this woman was more of an emotional case than a terrorist threat, but she reportedly got down on her knees and said you killed my family and now i'm going to kill you all. and in sood passengers press the call button and one called the transit police and a number of people dropped off and ran and

at a place that was not a station, passengers used the emergency release leverage to open the trend towards manually, jumped on the track and then began walking towards the nearest station. have any of you looked at this? do you have an opinion about what worked well and what didn't work well and are we -- can the committee learning lessons from the incident that occurred yesterday? >> i am familiar with the incident. i haven't seen the official reports, but the -- what is described doesn't surprise me. in a previous career we dealt with an incident on a gunman on board a train on the deck in

1993 who killed the husband of a member of congress, and the response by the passengers on board the train were certainly very similar to what you are describing now. it appears the woman was very credible and believable and those people truly believe their lives were eminently in danger and they took what action they thought was going to save their lives. one of the things we do have amtrak is actually try to teach passengers evacuation plans both in stations and on board of the trans. i think probably all agencies should take a look at their programs and see whether or not we need to reinforce that and put additional training out there for the passengers. in today's world we effective shooter situations, we have situations that rapidly required

responses on the part of the public and the need to be part of the solution and we need to provide the training for them. >> i would agree with mr. konar. i.t. the entire incident underscores the importance of providing additional training on the emergency response and the evacuation procedures to read a lot of time and attention is focused on deterring attack, preventing the attack once an attack happens it appears imminent triet i think their needs to be increased focus in that area and that's one of the issues the we highlighted. the tsa efforts has been introduced new regulations that would set up programs for the training of the front line real employees. we think that's important because the program requirements stipulates the requirements one of which is training and evacuation procedures.

>> do either of you have an opinion as to what would have been the best response of the alarmed passengers at this incident? did they in danger themselves and risky electrocution by jumping off at that particular spot? >> it would have been preferable if they could escape to the platform if that were possible but when there is a mad dash to the door sometimes that's not possible. clearly in a panic situation like that, you want to try to do what ever you can to quote the panic and direct people to a safe evacuation. 64. i think i will take another round leader on.

>> welcome. >> you have the opportunity to ask any questions you have. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. pistole, i would like to follow up just a little bit on what senator hutcheson asked, and in terms of the responsibilities of tsa versus others, i know that there's been some statements that tsa stated they are not to believe and we understand that. are we clear on those lines of who does what? can you perhaps tell us a little bit more? >> sure, senator. so i think that there is a clear understanding of those in the government and industry in terms

of the tea is a responsibility as it relates to security, and then for a simple, transportation d.o.t. responsibilities in the area of safety similar to what the faa has in the aviation side of safety and the tsa for security. so there is a clear understanding and in most respects. part of what i was referring to is some of the streamlining is for civil the training facilities that the dot has for example of an outstanding trading facility for the rail safety and security and response to a freight rail for the toxic immolation hazard and it runs and harbors ferry. there may be efficiencies achieved by that. that's more on the training

site. >> can i ask about that and if you establish that there were the case, is that something that you all could work out or would you need our help in fixing that or is that an administrative think? >> the would be worked out in the head of ministration just to say the question is are we providing services to different audiences so there's one more focus and i visited if not west virginia i just don't have all that information right now. >> okay. very good. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator. i want to ask a question about mr. o'connor as well as mr. lord. one of the primary benefits of the truffle is the ability to move easily come efficiently, get on the train, get moving to your destination. how is it going to be as

efficient as rapid or for us to people to balance the need, the security needs, with a more detailed review of who was sporting the trains. mr. o'connor, let me ask you first because you've got the voice out there. >> sure, senator. it's critical to systems remain open and free. it's part of who we are as americans. that being said, there are ways of security that can be applied in the environment that reduce the vulnerability, and we're doing that by treating the police forces and behavioral assessment by trimming employees and suspicious behavior and activity. and also the random screening of

bags, canines both in the station and on board the train as well as the use of technology is improving all the time and we are working with the tsa on the new technology. i think it's important we keep the system open and free and clear these random unpredictable security as to disrupt anybody who might be planning something on to it. >> i may be stretching your responsibility here, but we know enough about the systems that are -- if you're not familiar with this, please, feel free to say so. with the systems that are available, the technology that

is around, how do you apply that to the millions of people who daily get on a train? and in a very short period of time as the day moves across the country, the most basic, we are talking about billions of people moving, so i would love to have an answer that mr. o'connor suggested can be applicable, but you do have the time factor on the other side. >> given the multiple access points and open architecture of the system, it would be extremely difficult to screen all passengers against i believe you are referring to the terrorism watch list comes something analogous to what is being done in the aviation >> we find this erratic person that's challenged the system

just the other day. how do you prevent people who would bring harm to get in the train come get on the train and the mayhem. is their anything that you see that wouldn't violate the security that we all have here at of the problems when you have got millions of people moving that would allow you to provide the kind of risk aversion we would like to see. >> the answer as you know is very difficult and problematic. what we do try to focus on our the points of the vulnerability as chief o'connor mentioned using the canine random unpredictable control, undercover officers who may be

looking for suspicious activity, and then recognizing at least from the perspective part of your job is to promote the free moving goods and people the best possible security so is a balance between that commerce moving, people living with security, so the idea come and we talked about this last year in your office about trying to do individual screening just does not make sense from our perspective on the rail. >> and you have to walk away with one conclusion that i think is very a diaz, and that is the presence of security apparatus and putting people has to be obvious. they have to know there are people who are watching. the problem i found that is that the dogs get more tired than the officers handling them and i see a dog stretched out there and i

want to pick him up and give him a little hug and water to get him going again. but the fact of the matter is i think it has to be obvious tsa has a program see something come see something, but there has to be reminders that there are people looking out for our interest and the fact that it's randomized i think has a value of its own. senator wicker? >> i would yield to ms. klobuchar for questions and she has any. disconnect thank you. i appreciate that. thank you all of you for being here for this hearing and mr. chair for having this hearing. i think it's incredibly important.

we are jury focused on air safety but i think as the chairman knows we have to be very diligent with our system it's so critical of goods and the flow of people across the nation and an attack could cause not only high casualties but also severe disruption to the interstate commerce so i appreciate hearing from you on this today. i have a question for us to police to be a prosecutor, director pistole, very focused on coordination with local law enforcement, and i know you discussed several of the initiatives pistole has taken to streamline the coordination of local law enforcement and could you expand on that and discuss more in detail to what extent does pistole not direct local enforcement and to greet their expertise to its own oversight and assistance programs. >> thank you, senator klobuchar pbr i would describe it in three ways. one is on information sharing

what can we provide on a timely basis to state and local law enforcement and rail security such as we did monday, literally within 12 hours of president obama's announcement about the killing of bin laden. so we convene a conference call with the major stakeholders in the local law enforcement and the metropolitan police to say here's what has happened, be aware of a possible retaliatory action that may take place in the specific intelligence and then on wednesday of that week when we received the information about the plot on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 we provided that information so that's one area, information sharing. the second is recognizing the state and locals just my experience as an fbi agent steve and local usually have the best resources locally and information intelligence connection with the community

they can do the best possible job if we in the federal government can enable them with your it is through grants such as the transportation security grant program or specific training that can augment or it might be through the viper team we can engage with state and local law enforcement as the years operational deterrence. the west as the third area of the critical infrastructure so there are critical structures in the particular locale how can we be informed by state and local police and transit authorities to say here's what the essence as vulnerable points, how can we work collectively to shore up those four of devotees? >> and also when a that tsa works with the stakeholders in the private-sector and according to the gao, many of them don't have the computer access to receive the security of states and they don't quite know what to do with them. can you discuss your understanding on the current

state with those stickers? i remember from the aviation issues working with both i wish shall the hub in minnesota when things came up that at the beginning at least change in the aviation security standards there were some issues there's if you could comment. >> we have taken a number of steps and identified some of the areas we could improve upon the last several years, and i think we made some good improvement recognizing we can do better but there is an inter dependency as you know with st clippers on their ability to receive the information especially if there's classified information we want to provide, but it comes down to several things i actually brought a folder of intelligence bulletin's we share with both stakeholders and state and local transit police. different bulletins, whether it is the mumbai attack, the shooter scenario for the moscow

at that both a subway attack and at the airport. we have a bulletin which steve mentioned it's a daily report that we are developing but what we are really looking for is input from industry and stakeholders as to the actual intelligence what they are looking for and of recognizing that there is dirty little actionable intelligence mostly the strategic intelligence but okay al qaeda wants to hurt us, the arabian peninsula in particular, here's what they may do but other than this ninth or tenth anniversary of 9/11, that's the only actual intelligence specific plot of for them those the chairman mentioned earlier of new york city or the individuals here in d.c. for the metro which is an aspirational plot as opposed to something that was operational. >> one last question i know during your nomination hearing you and i talked in my office as

well as the hearing about the worker morale and i have to tell you which taught at the thank you i've seen some improvement talking with people and it's just anecdotal some of it has to do the to do when you stood and defended the whole pat-down controversy when they were just doing other jobs but i wondered about geoff morrell, thus rail security workers and if you have some thoughts on that? >> i have a perspective from the transportation to the inspector of the employees who work with industry i would defer in terms of what they have received, but i believe overall lead for raúl is improving and there's a number of initiatives we have the way and i think we have a lot of good things people are proud of doing. i'm glad to hear your and a total information even with your particular situation mant -- >> even the fact that -- >> yes, i'm glad that --

>> it's not just hanging out there in particular situation. >> i'm glad to know that there's been positive and counters, and -- senator. estimate that tsa sends us screeners to work in multiple cities across the nation, and they are well trained and enjoy the break from the airport working with us so a little bit more interactive. they don't have to go through the whole pat-down routine, but they do help with the detection, behavioral detection and work very good and the environment. >> thank you. >> senator klobuchar, cementer worker? >> thank you. mr. pistole, dalia understand you to say that the zazi plot of new york city was more aspirational than --

>> no, i'm sorry, senator. the was a real plot. the one instructed here locally in washington, d.c., the metro to last fall -- >> it was through comment. >> get from the standpoint of interested in doing something but with an undercover fbi agent, and so he did not have the means of doing it where zazi had the means, the motive, the average funded the but because of the information intelligence sharing the plot was disrupted. >> yes, sir. he had homemade bombs, but cereals with the attempt to detonate them right there in manhattan. what can you tell us in the public hearing about how we've detected these plots? speaking in general terms? >> i can say that there was because of very good

intelligence sharing in the case of course i was with the fbi at the time and helped oversee the investigation, and it was a very collaborative work between the task force in denver and and larocco he and relatives had been bodying peroxide from several beauty supply stores and so there was actually some tripwires in place to have that identified as somebody by teeing suspicious amounts of peroxide, for example. that did not work as effectively as it should have. but then because of the information sharing with state police and actually tracking him as he drove through the night from colorado to new york city and in working with nypd there were some issues that could have been improved in that regard in terms of how that was action but the bottom line was seeing the co-conspirators disruptive

before they were able to carry out their plots with backpacks there were nine backpacks and the apartment they were staying in and we believe they were going to put the devices, the peroxide bombs in the backpacks and go in the new york city subways. >> do you view that as an attack that actually could have been brought to fruition? >> absolutely. absolutely. he was clearly intent on doing that and he had built a device at a hotel in the denver suburbs and he was prepared to go. he had been trained in afghanistan so yes, he was ready to go. pakistan, and sorry. >> thank you very much. let me shift in the remaining moments to the requirements contained in the implementing recommendations of the 9/11 commission act of 2007. and i informed correctly that

mandated security training requirements are still not final, and that the background and immigration checks, front line public transportation rail and police are still not finalized? am i correct in that information? >> you are. >> why is it taking so long? 2007 come here it is, 2011 and the training requirements are not in place and the background immigration checks are not in place. stand for some context, senator, out of the 118 provisions of the 9/11 act con 74 have been complete. 14 are overdue and you mentioned two of those. the training is actually taking place, but the proposed rule making which was mentioned earlier has taken much longer than it should have come and

that is in the process of the substance has actually taken place, a process for this has not been finalized so that is still in progress and as you know, that is a several year process. the other one that we should have out by the end of this year is what i understand but again i agree it has taken too long. we did focus on the top priorities and those have been addressed and successfully completed. training is a top priority but it is just not done on a timely basis as it should have. >> do i understand the rulemaking process for something of a national security issues such as this is really the same as the process for the implementation of a rule in solving the labor law or the environmental? >> yes it is generally the same process. >> would you advocate in the

cases of national security legislation, would you advocate a streamlined rulemaking process? >> absolutely. and i would appreciate support on that. >> are you aware of any proposal coming from the administration in that regard? >> malkoff the top of my head. i can look at that and get back with you, senator. >> it seems to me when we have our allies suffering from a tax in london and madrid and pc 400 plus, 40 plus it devotees in moscow, 200 plus fatalities in india, and there is a national security issue rulemaking should be different than the rule making with regard to the

construction of a toys or a new way of looking at the labor law. >> in conclusion let me just observe, mr. chairman, that somebody must be doing something right, and the fact that we've not had these incidents as i mentioned in the other four locations is something to be proud of. it's not to say something will happen this afternoon or tomorrow because the threat is ongoing but we are very fortunate in that we have the state delete to escape to this type of attack as long as we have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks very much. i see it's fair to say that we have been diligent, that we've intercepted many plans for people who want to bring destruction to the system, and i