to say to people, you know, basically it is like a baseball team. we might be a manager the

manager is not out in the field while the play is going on saying to the shortstop with f third baseman cover the position. when you are doing is training and establishing the play up front and then allowing the team to take the field and use that information to operate in a coordinated fashion so the third challenges dealing with that set expectations people have about homeland security. the concept of homeland security was a new concept. i grew up in a world where the defense department and the justice department had completely separate and distinct areas of authority to deal with security threats. you basically looked at a security issue and if it was a denominated military issue of war making them and you had a set of entities that dealt with of the authorities and legal

rules and policies and it was a criminal issue or law enforcement or a different group of people and friends of the 40's and law goes forced to to deal with threats and which tools we use in particular situations, so we can have someone like bin laden who is an indicted defendant and a military target and we need to bring together a department that embodies the new doctrine and one that stands what used to fall neatly within the jurisdiction of the different federal organizations was a challenge in and of itself and one of the things we went through with any admiral was to try to build a strategy and a doctor and that takes account of

a very different men u.s. threats one in which you can be dealing with medical threats and biological threats natural disasters, transnational criminal groups, smugly border zakaria terrorism and sometimes the line isn't clear about one ends and the begins and these are the next stage of building after the framework laid out by thomas and i do believe we matured over 40 years certainly have some bumps in the road not the process -- >> thank you, sir. generally when there is a transitional authorities in this country presidential transition this a party that's been out of power and there's a court but academia recess a consulting or someplace waiting for their turn for that to happen again the transition between the bush and

then attrition and obama administration was a new party or the court did not exist outside in this different areas as we move into this enterprise and the homeland security maybe you can comment on the challenges associated with a party coming in that didn't have the alumni group already out there. >> first of all, you were among those and we went through some fairly large matters together and agree to leadership and council and i think to my predecessor, so i want to just say thank you for that. and i was also very lucky in my two predecessors because i knew governor ridge a little bit and i knew mike from our days as former u.s. attorneys so we had some prior knowledge, and we did have a challenge in front of us.

why? because this department so new it's never had a transition before. it had to be designed out of the full cloth. the department executed at but i began to get a glimmer of what i had gotten myself into when these people start arriving in phoenix where i was still serving as the governor with 3-inch binders of things i need to absorb, and more acronym's than you can possibly name, and they finally gave me a glossary of the acronyms and was 94 single spaced pages. i am pleased to say after the fact i know virtually every acronym that was on the list which is a little scary in and of itself. but it has been and continues to be a process of building and maturing and adapting. building the department still

coming together as what we call one dhs with some items that are common culture and expectations,, and business practices among the different agencies, adaptation deciding what initiatives we need to pursue looking at them from a variety of angles and a question can involve issues that implicate the coast guard and customs and i.c.e. and fema and the science and technology directorate at the national directorate said taking a look back and looking at the tools in the department to adapt to and deal with newly emerging threats, and then continuing to identify what the threats out there or that are real.

there's lots of speculative threats, and we all do some of the what ifs but there is enough that crosses over desk on a daily basis that teaches us really with our adversaries are and maybe thinking about technology that they have at their command and what do we need to do to enlarge or maximize our ability and to respond and recover as quickly as possible. so, those things all are happening simultaneously. last, i think one of the things -- the department of homeland security has been the largest organization of the federal government since the creation of the department of defense. it has been immense and i think it is not until you are in it that you realize how intense it actually is. but as the organization has occurred, it in impacts other

participants in the agency because, for example, the department of homeland security actually has a huge international footprint and we are actually negotiating international agreements all the time and we have people stationed in 75 countries around the world today. and so that culture which is relatively post-9/11 where the home secretaries, ministers of the interior have their international pathways, communiques and relationships that is a new and evolving set of international relationships that grow more robust as time goes on to it conversely, now we have the situation where as the department of homeland security matures and there's a greater

realization about its role and its responsibility, its statutory mandate that means adjustments and other members of the federal family as well. it can be the dod, the state department, the justice department, it can be members of the internal community, but all of those departments now are having to make changes and a good way but in a good way that really works with dhs so that the assets are leveraged one with the other appropriately. i think it is still the process of adaptation that's underway. >> to 90 quick observation to the secretaries credit and it's still the transition because i remember calling secretary napolitano the night before she was going to be announced acknowledging take the liberty of speaking to my successor and secretary chertoff there's only to people in washington that know what you are getting into.

the range of challenges and complexity there's only to people that know it all and the identity as well but we need to be very comfortable calling us both. the secretary from time to time we get calls heads of this is what we're doing that will affect the change and what do you think about it and then the transition continues and its far beyond what i can't most people normally associate from one administration to the next. >> if i could extend the discussion a little bit further and write off the top is to a bunch of discussions out of this. it's over here from everybody's head but we've had this discussion back stage and for a number of years in washington across-the-board cuts in the words of secretary robert gates perpetuate mediocrity. there has to be a better way to have the discussion of the risks assumed the of trade-offs that have to be taken and in the context of the homeland security enterprise and the points you all have made about the

evolution of the department if you could maybe add what you think is germane right now in the eve of a threat environment and what are the types of criteria that we need to be focusing on as we are going to a half to make tough choices these ought to be informed choices that are made based on our best understanding of the vulnerabilities and threats that are not there and having the ability to have that conversation separate from some kind of mandatory budget i think is important and i think we will start with you on this one. >> thank you. [laughter] >> lesslisten one of the thingss the department was building, it was originally shown getting big budget increases every year as its needs became more manifest and the like so if you actually trace the appropriations process involving the department coming to get 6% increase a year and in some it was actually 7% over the

prior year and we are not in that environment now. we are in the environment of something equating to a freeze or percentage point above that and the five percentage points below that. it's put a premium on evaluating if he activity that we do and how can we do it cheaply and effectively it has met getting the control over our acquisitions process. some of you with the views are interested in this but making sure that we are sending good money after bad. when we try a long time to say you've either got something or you don't but making hard decisions about when to cut expenditures also that we can conserve the resources for other

activities it means we need to look at what is the right mix of manpower to technology and there are some things technologically speaking the will be forced multipliers for our manpower even though that may be down the road so it continues to make sense to invest, and then again, this whole business of the enterprise. the sharing with the state, the local, the private sector, the nonprofit. part of that is because homeland security is not neatly described in an organizational box it does involve a lot of things but part of it is because you need to be able to share the division of responsibility. share the work so that everybody isn't doing all the same thing all the time that you are

actually doing and sometimes it is as an intentional as well as intentional but what you are trying to aim for is a mix so that the mix the budget is used to its maximum effectiveness. there is a complicated process because when you go through your own department appropriations and budget process it doesn't necessarily take into account impacts of others who may be in the enterprise. how we grow and acknowledge that aspect, but a complication i think is still ahead of last. >> i think it is very true and first of all i would like to say i completely agree with you that the idea of the across-the-board cut is a way of doing everything in a half-baked fashion. when you decide you what to do you should do well and when you decide is not worth doing well you shouldn't do at all and where i saw this in homeland security in my tenure is in a

period of the rising budgets and there was a tendency for everybody to feel the government ought to be for all the security and why aren't you covering the and one or into doing that and in some ways to a degree a period of budget austerity can actually be a good thing from the standpoint of the department because it allows me to say no to people. that is a difficult responsibility even protecting the country now there is a more powerful response which is we can't afford to what we have a limited government to make places, so it can be a healthy environment. that being said what is required is to think about not just what are the core missions of the department, but where are the best locations for the level of the responsibilities. the host of things that can be

done on the security standpoint of the state and local level and those of to be done of the state and local level and they ought not to be done by the federal agents or with federal money. now we understand that it's the state and local level and they have a budget issue and this is the moment we need more help from washington, but what i would suggest is to the people that have their hands on fox siskel pipeline is it ought not to be who screams the loudest. it ought to be about something all three of us have been committed to which is to look at the risks, figure out what is the right level of investment to manage, not eliminate but managed the risk and most important, who is best situated to actually execute on that risk mitigation? sometimes it is the private sector and sometimes you have to say they give you information but they are not going to give you money. so there can be a useful

exercise here provided that it doesn't get overwhelmed by the tendency of a lot of loud voices but to overwhelm the decision making process. >> secretary ridge, you've been in the marketplace of ideas. you do consulting, you have your own firm and you also do work with state and local governments. having been a governor can you give a counterpoint to that on how you council of the authorities to respond to that? >> we all agree one of the challenges of the homeland security is to get the people on the hill, the political class to know homeland security is about risk-management not risk elimination because you can't eliminate all risks. as both secretaries have said under the austerity measures we have now prayer ties and the determine not only with the risks are but who is situated to deal with the risks. when i was governor you used to walk in my budget secretaries office and see a sign and it's

unavoidable before you talk to him use of a sign that says nothing stimulates the imagination of the budget cut. think about that right now presently i think the secretary would say beefed up in terms of the manpower in that personnel so as you are thinking about these difficult times the burden would be on the department and then getting pushed back from the hill that's what you need to understand this is where we believe the resources are and it's great to be a battle for the secretary once they've made those difficult decisions on a case by case basis to preserve the funding in those areas. i think secretary chertoff's notion about identifying who is the best equipped to deal with the elements of the rest some of us need to back down to the locals that has always been a certain body as i have as

governor. you can't secure the country from inside of the beltway. you have to start trusting the private sector so i think we need an assignment that perhaps real signs some of the responsibilities whether or not it remains to be seen on those responsibilities. i also think we need to move to the neighboring legislation you need commercial off-the-shelf technology, no more petrie dishes or experimental technology. there's a lot of stuff out there that can be ended if you believe in risk-management. this idea we can eliminate all the risk. it's someplace else. manage the risk here and finally i think the technology is probably the place that there's going to be additional revenue perhaps on the overall budget plan but if you're going to be focusing on the technology and you might have to take a

haircut, okay? you might have to take a haircut. professional services in the last couple of years in dealing with the government and one another to reduce their feel that. i hope you don't mind, secretary of if i would throw it out there for you. [laughter] >> thank you very much. [laughter] stat well this is really getting interesting. maybe the next evolution and the conversation might be to pick out a couple of technologies related to the problems we know exist out there and try to talk about how you get to a solution and sometimes will be policy solution and state and local but sooner or later we have to transfer these requirements i should put out a solicitation to actually require things once we decide they are important and when we think the changes in technology that are going on with the virtual position and cloud computing ability to deal with the data sets and some of the realities associated with that maybe you can apply for us on the difficult problems that

might be susceptible to the private sector solution and discussing how we might want to move forward on that environment. i will start in the middle this time to read estimate we can talk about this in a lot of different contexts. a spend my time on the issue of cybersecurity and in my consulting as well and i thought for awhile there is a challenge in cybersecurity in that most of the assets are in private hands and we are dealing with an area where there is a lot of sensitivity because we are talking about how people communicate with each other. there are countries in the world where the model is to have the government said on the internet and kunkel and goes back and forth. of course there is a security and we think about it in a different kind of security, but it suggests to me the model with having the government said on the internet and watch everything that goes back and forth and intervene to prevent bad things from happening is probably not going to receive a

hospitable reception in the united states. that being said the government has an incredible set to the police that are valuable and important so to the this is a great example of where the private sector has a place to go. the ability to create trusted agencies or entities in the private sector that have the capability of working with enterprises in the sector on security, how to work with the government and able to handle classified information so they can interface with the government in terms of the sensitive information that actually wind up executing with the controls and this creates the kind of dispersion of power that reduces the risk the government can abused its position on the internet and yet because you have people that live in that world that have an opportunity to see what is going on in a way that makes them more capable of managing the network security than a company in the

business the only see is what comes into its own domain so that is just one example of a place where i think the private sector actually has a lot of capability not necessarily that it itself as a government but other parts of the private sector but to work with of the government in producing that result. >> madame secretary? >> well, when you think about cyber and that each holding area, first of all in terms of homeland security, it's probably the most rapidly evolves in the area and it is an area there are no international rules, there is no legal framework on which to hang things where things by their very nature crossed national boundaries of time. we know the internet is an excellent of certain types of recruitment activities.

there is good and bad and we know that there are attacks on the internet and there is a lot of economic sets in the country that are being stolen by the internet so there is just a lot of work that needs to happen in this arena. we also know that 85% or so in the nation's critical infrastructure is in private sector hands and is dependent on a site for network of some sort or another and so one of the things, one of the more interesting things i think is going to happen in the congress now is they are going to be taking of legislation to try to find some roles and responsibilities and statutory jurisdiction primero lead the division between what is in the department of defense and what is in the department of homeland security. the basic issue that i think

defines the two major bills depending is what degree the private sector will be mandated to do certain things, to what degree they will be incentivize to do certain things or to what degree will we just assumed the market will somehow take care of an issue or a problem, and that issue as it will be encapsulated in the debate on cyber legislation will go to the security arena to what degree do we think the private sector has a security concept as part of its core competency that they will take on voluntarily or to what degree because they do control the critical infrastructure that everyone is dependent on is the government will interest that needs to be taken strongly into account services all underway right now.

>> when i think of cybersecurity i to issues come attribution and accountability. technology is pretty good now. it is generally able to attribute an attack to a particular source but i'm skeptical that the global community spring to come in to accountability standards if you do this to us. maybe that will happen in time and we need to do everything possible to make sure they don't gain access and we learn more about accountability and as the secretary pointed out if there is a space, if there's an area or a dimension within which you absolutely need the public prosector partnership this is it. to the point where i think the congress and the executive

branch should look at their regulations that really and had it the ability of the private sector to come in and sit and work closely with the talented people we have in the government sector but they still don't have the death in my judgment that is available throughout the digital community in the united states, so i think they are hitting on something that would be the highest priority. the private sector backbone if it goes down the government suffers, financial institutions, so it's there and this is a classic. if there is one place, one dimension where the public sector relationship for the national security reason is absolutely imperative, this is a. >> i had the opportunity several weeks ago to have a conversation with the technical officer for john holder an adviser to

president and he postulated there was an opportunity to have a public conversation with some leading from the private sector and the folks having to grapple with these problems inside government and he longed for a metaphorical switch over where you could go and sit down and say what are the rules inhibiting us and what do we want to do with this in terms of the regulatory requirements it is placing on the private sector and to have that and the kind of principles the would come out of that it could govern the way forward so let me ask you all to get to the hard part i think that there is a consensus on the stage right now on this particular issue what needs to be done the issue is when we have to the congress that hasn't been reformed pursuant to the 9/11 recommendations we have the tyranny of the president we talked about how do you constructively move this forward? >> well i think first of all we

begin with the president's review of server security how to organize a government itself because realize the government itself has overlapping jurisdiction and responsibility and when you boil letdown it is the dod will let responsibility and the dhs will have responsibility in the.gov universe and the primary responsibility for the intersection with the private sector and the beau de tecum -- doj and others but the basic decision is there. then the question is who gets to use the nsa the greatest technological resources the country has. we've to build one for civilian and one for military, or you have to somehow figure out how they can utilize the resource. psychiatry gates and i were able

to negotiate with basically identified how a civilian agency can tap into and use the nsa. but that is in and of itself an evil thing relationship. -- he evolving relationship. then you get to the question how do you bring that private sector tabare all of those cio's and what have you. quite frankly i don't see the lack of a metaphorical. i think the key question is who gets to come? we say here is our metaphorical switch and they say i should be there. i should be there. so i think what we need to do is not only work with critical infrastructure players but again, think about moving

forward what is it that we need to have as an end product do we need to have a regime for example where the financial institutions must tell you, must inform the department when they have had an intrusion, something that many are reluctant to do right now. do we have a regime that can create some kind of intellectual lockbox where information can be deposited so that it can be exchanged in some fashion house what do we do that? what things are so critical and impact will the government mandates are the most appropriate way to ensure public safety? those questions i think are still not answered. these are questions that are all going to be debated in the context of legislation but even afterwards i suspect. >> this is a challenging. because there isn't one problem. there is a whole set of

problems, and frankly the problems are of different consequences as they present themselves in different ways and have different solutions. we are past the point that people believe that there is one magic bullet to solve the issue. we are talking about sometimes what is called a cyber fraud which to be honest is pretty much the same as fraud that we have seen in the past against people for financial purposes where there are technical issues but frankly it isn't terribly different from what we have seen before. there's the theft of intellectual property on a massive scale some of it for criminal purposes and some of the nation's thank you competitors. there is the conservative attacks concerned about now where to disrupt or destroy critical systems including control systems. these are different problems, the consequences are different. some of the implicate interest

or largely private. some of them implicate consequence of the what he have a huge public effect. some of them probably can be dealt with from a market standpoint because people want to protect their own assets. some of them because of the collateral consequences are areas of market failure because companies are not going to invest more than the value of the asset is protecting to protect the asset yet in many cases it will have a huge impact that is external to the enterprise itself. to me what you do is you look at all of this stuff and then figure out how do you treat the different kind of threats, which ev was the private sector and is principally public concern? and then what is the role of the government versus private sector or the government will agencies dealing with these issues and that requires hard choices. when do we regard an attack as

an act of the war? when do we regard it as something that isn't an act of war? i think it is a very laborious and challenging intellectual process i think it is possible to look at the set of tools we have come incentives, information sharing rules, mandates and regulations that perhaps direct government action and others and we can overly those on whatever doctrine is and the site is situated to carry out the mission of dealing with that particular challenge. the one thing i would say it's been my experience however many years i've been in and out of the government and i can say this because i used to be a judge so i can trash lawyers. [laughter] the biggest problem is the lawyers. i find the lawyers coming to a problem set with the concept you have to figure out how to make

this work with that concept. i would argue something different. i would say take the constitution that is the boundary that is the one thing that is in the restriction. within that, everything else is a matter of statute or regulation. those things can be changed. we ought to put together a doctrine and a strategy that is based on serious policy decisions about the not only way to deal with the challenges. once we have agreed on that, in the congress ought to make the law fit what we think the doctrine and the strategy ought to be rather than fit the doctrine and the strategy into a set of rules that are actually built in the 20th century before we had a robust internet so that is my one big a suggestion for how we go about this process. >> would you add to the blueprint? >> just a couple things. it's a skepticism the congress is moving as fast as the technology. [laughter]

>> i just have a feeling that's why i think it is even more important for the kind of collaboration my colleagues have talked about before the private sector and the government itself. second, i suspect given the fact you have invested as tax payers billions of dollars in the cyber research across the board there's probably some capabilities in the somme in digital capabilities that for the national defense and security reasons can be shared publicly. i suspect that's true and i have to understand that because homeland security is about risk-management in terms of national security and the capability that the nsa or the dod may require in order to protect what they say may be great in the private sector but frankly once we signed on the public domain and it's accessible to the enemies we have to access to keep these

internally, so it is incumbent therefore the congress will move to the agility and foresight as quickly as the technology with immigration speed technology is changing every day you accepted the notion that there are some risks and probably some digital kid with these within the government that will never see the light of day unless they can go to 3.0 and finally the final word is trust. i like the notion my judgment is not who you in fight i think for the past to have the sea to the table but at some point in time to go back to the battle we had earlier on in the homeland security you have to create a culture of sharing information and there's always the reluctance to share with the governors and the big city mayors to share with the police chiefs to can't trust americans to share, you don't trust and if you don't trust the digital sector to come in as patriots

men and women want to help the government to deal with the threats of the incursion, organized crime and the people who've given ubiquity to the internet to be an attack on multiple sources and multiple times for multiple reasons, so i think again i will put an exclamation of what my colleagues have said, this is the place to have a really robust collaboration between the public and private sector. >> if i could roll that back to the original conversations we had when we start to the panel this evening. it puts that in the context of the dhs enterprise and the larger effort we are trying to do nationally and with the government response would be three worked several issues particularly as the chairman of the committee working for the information sharing and chongging to migrate to the technologies to successfully use to the southwest border to be able to take advantage of the pattern recognition and some of

the cloud computing. for those who are not in the military background, the joint command is the speed and the person responsible for the i.t. security i remember sitting around the table talking with everybody saying i wish that there was a cosmic j6 that stood up and provide over site or construction or lead the conversation so i guess let me go back one more time in the city in the context of the evolution of the homeland security enterprise is there a logical role or broad role were clearly defined role for the homeland security and is there a limit to that role if we are going to move across the boundaries and some of the other areas how do you construct a model where if you have the right seat to the table you could actually convene the meeting? >> the creation has an opportunity to model itself in a different way. it's all about networks now and that means you don't control things that you cooperate with

things and to work together in a collaborative way. that sounds a little too new age but if you think about it practically even the president doesn't have the power to control state and local government or private sector. one of the reasons for the purpose of time that the dhs is a recognition part of how you do that is get people together to plan to identify the problem jointly to plan a joint lee and treen jointly and exercised jointly and that gives you a running start in to how things work. i give you a concrete six sable. in 2008 we had a couple of hurricanes one in louisiana, gustav which was hurricane ike and because after katrina's part of the reform, we spent a lot of time and effort doing a detailed

planning with state and local government in the gulf including doing things like a census of everybody in nursing homes and had a very detailed and evacuation plans and backup plans for those who remember a lot of this having been part of it. when hurricane gustav was about to hit the head of capability to evacuate everybody from new orleans who needed to be evacuated in putting something like 30,000 people who were in hospitals who were at the last minute the administrators believed had to be moved and the was a consequence not as a factor that will result in the president of the power to order the state and locals to do things that has a joint planning and treating pay off in terms of cooperation. so to me, part of the government issuance for the homeland security enterprise is about using collaboration and coordination as the tools to move a lot of different independent bodies playing off

the same sheet of music and producing a unified term. spinnaker would make a comment and this is my own observation just watching from my television at home i felt the performance of the local governments and the governors during hurricane i -- irene believes their role in -- >> i think at the end of the day we have to start with if we hand out cards i would like your definition on cybersecurity. speed i don't think will be unanimous in switzerland it could be dhs, the white house practitioners from the grid from the financial services, from the mfg. links etc and the dod and everybody and so on based on experience.

what you see the greatest threat? is it access? is it encryption? what is it? i would suspect out of a meeting of like that since the dhs is overseeing the private sector in the house not a bad place to start, and from that convening then you could probably hand out the task and secretary chertoff has identified the problem and come back it's fascinating that and i've asked this question many times depending on where you are and the problems you have encountered and what you look at over the horizon you come up with a different set of priorities, so as a country we need to build on those pre-release. it's just risk-management and then based on what we collectively agreed the priorities are we might go out and find individual capabilities with the private sector can help build and respond to those risks we see that exist in the digital

world to use >> to remind every body, we are taking questions from the audience. if you can pass this to the outside will be collected and i do have one to pose to the panel giving your sense of political background i will throw this one to you and start with secretary chertoff. does the governor negatively impact the national security? >> that's a huge question. the answer to that is actually no. i'm a believer in the system that we had it works well but has certain challenges like the system in great britain and canada where someone comes in and has essentially you are giving the range of power and the majority they can pretty much take it as far as they can go to our system does work well. that being said, there is actually a surprising degree

across party lines of the kind of score requirements of security that doesn't always get manifest in what you read or see on the media where the media tends to gravitate to the reporters of the room tends to gravitate to the extreme but i think it's the working level it does actually reflect the reality. the challenge we have is not a challenge of the government it is a challenge of the world power. we do have to make decisions. they will not be popular. i remember when we did the western hemisphere challenge which requires a much more secure document to cross the border with canada than was the case prior to 9/11. the 9/11 commission recommended it. it was passed into the legislation. we began the process of making that transition. there were some members of congress from the border of the districts that were adamantly opposed because they thought it was going to hurt the economics of the local communities.

in our view it was necessary to protect the country and not just those districts but those that were on the interior which might well feel the blood of the attack if someone is not a cross in canada and there was a concerted effort to push back. we got a substantial way down the road and then secretary napolitano got across the finish line. to me that was agreed to civil of the world power there was a consensus view one was a republican and one was democrat but you have to be willing to take a certain amount of flak to make it happen. there's a broad comment in the security. in the end, they're comes a point you have to look -- i've never run for office and never will you have to go to look yourself in the mirror and say what am i here for? if i'm here to occupy the position that's one thing to define him here to do the job and i figured out what the priorities are to have to make the decisions and drive the

results even if it is going to wind up with a certain amount of personal popularity and unpleasantness so that is to be with the solution is. >> psychiatry rich? >> if we are going to talk about the national security reform foreign policy that involves critiquing some of the things, not an to do that. it's important if you are talking about national security, through the homeland security and the role that the department is playing and how it is played out in the international arena with our friends and allies i would be more interested in secretary napolitano but one of the first things we did is try to convince the state department we do not have a presence there and thanks to psychiatry chertoff and 63 napolitano we have the presence in 75 in the seas and that is very important. and from our point of view ever since my 11 come from the law enforcement point of view and

from the intelligence gathering and sharing a point of view we are probably as good today as we were ever before. and again, i think secretary napolitano is up to push that even more in the state department sharing responsibility, so i think the divided government in washington about foreign policy and domestic policy i think it in peace both branches as effectively as they could. having said that from the homeland security perspective looking at the global arena i think it is working pretty well but it needs -- you have to push the border up. push the border out and the only reason you can push the border route is to get allies and friends who buy into some of the things you want to do. we had a tough time getting a little information from the european union about travellers coming in the united states. secretary chertoff said it's a continuous improvement deal.

he went back and said it's not a bad foundation but we have these algorithms and technology we need more information and after a couple of years they got it. secretary napolitano said pushing that even further. i would reserve my time. >> well, i think one of the problems if we think of the divided government like the separation of power, i do think that the inability of the congress to reorganize to along to the creation of the department has been a problem and it's a problem for a number of reasons. one is the sheer number of committees and oversight panel's hearing reports and things the department has to undergo takes a lot of time and effort and resources away from other work and in the era we are talking

about flat or decrease in budgets and maximizing and squeezing out of every dollar of best use i will share with you there are a number of reports we are required by statute to prepare and submit in writing, not online to buy seriously believe are not ever read by anyone and so that's a problem, the resource demand that puts on the department. and second, the fragmentary notion of the actual oversight itself. we have the homeland security committees and the to the good job. we have a good relationship with both of them but beyond that you have a committee that all it is looking at is this issue or that issue and what you miss is that

overall strategic overall guidance one what want out of the congress and so i keep hearing we can't take of that reorganization. only congress can reorganize itself and i would say that is a given but a certain point in time i would hope there would be the opportunity for self reflection and the congress and for some reorganization of its own terms to meet this new department that it has now created. >> really quick and i think that all of us are in agreement that one of the recall you miss you submit a report requires the report the secretary is allowed to give them a testy and if they pass the test on the report they are about to ask for another one and the are fired from asking for a report for a long time. [laughter] >> we saw this all the time i

remember testifying we had a lot going on in afghanistan the and i was on the hill were often than he was and that's the way that it works. by the house and the senate to the two or three weeks before the next congress and i think all three of us and certainly secretary chertoff may be willing to find a way to work with it that we are going to reorganize now. that is what we have to do. and as a member of the house for 12 years i can remember my colleagues day after day walking to the floor among some of the committees and subcommittees if you try to take it away from them it is just it doesn't happen. if the will to be the strategic partner the secretary needs and

the future secretary, the really neat -- of 2100 plus committees. >> its 108. espinel on this line of inquiry seeing that i am retired i would suppose it is time to enter the oversight. i appreciate it. >> i think we are going to a lightning round. maybe we will take this one on. you all talked about cooperation of the state and local level and sector in the public, from our home state there have been local legislative initiatives that posture the officers in the role love the enforcement of immigration policy that can be presumed to be a federal responsibility to read any insight into how you build this vertically integrated enterprise what's the best way to move forward and have a discussion

about the enforcement. >> iowa gave a speech last week at the american university that online and it talks about immigration enforcement now and what makes for the smart and effective enforcement with a statutory scheme that is more and more out of kilter but it's a combination of the enforcement stratagems that allow us to prayer ties those we seek to remove from the country. estimate in the lightning run for secretary chertoff i remember having some wonderful discussions about this topic. in light of the decrease in budget do you have any thoughts about the homeland security grant program and how best to

move forward on that and give the biggest return for the money available including looking at leveraging the academic institutions policies think tanks and so forth and i remember standing behind you or with you taking those skiers to adjust the program. >> anyone is going to give money you gave it to somebody else and the funny thing is there were some communities that would go out in the run-up to the announcement of the would-be formatting themselves and dangerous really unsafe here and in the chamber of commerce would be going what are you doing so there is always a little bit of a kind of schizophrenic attitude. this is an area during my term in the new budget the president would submit a budget and we want to give you more money for

grants. i don't remember doing any of the budgets i was involved with the congress said we are happy with it. we are going to cut the budget. and it is a very popular part of what the dhs does for congress. that being said the purchase of the grant program was to invest, making essentially capital investments, invest in the capability that would allow building up a foundation that the state and local government would then operate. it wasn't meant to be a payroll subsidy for state and local governments, and i think that is the right approach. there are frankly some communities where literally hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions have been spent and there is a point at which you would say you have gotten a lot of money. you felt the basic capabilities you now have to be engaged in the process of maintaining those. now, the one publication i would give is there are some areas and some communities where the

vulnerability and the threat is enhanced because of the pact was being served by the community is not just the community itself but all the surrounding areas and so again it's the externalities' problem so it is fair for its symbol is uncertain big cities particularly towards the airports where there is an economic foundation for an entire region it is clear perhaps to have the federal government chipped in something to recognize the fact of the benefits to the city itself but the whole region. that being said. it's time to look of what has been spent and to begin to talk about how you win some of these communities how they treated as an entitlement. >> secretary bridge, this gets back to managing risk as you

talk to the earlier with a lot of focus on the discussion on terrorism but as this enterprise has evolved we would agree to the course of the conversation is not clearly a diplomatic or law enforcement issue it's going to come into the homeland security enterprise. can you comment on the role of the perceived threat of terrorism as it relates to managing the entire portfolio? >> i think obviously the profile of the terrorist sanctuaries of the terrorist, the number of terrorists it's all changed in the past ten years. the threat of terrorist attack is not and i look back over the last ten years we've proven ourselves to be undeniably resilient country and we would always prepared for a big even

on the strategic attack like 9/11 and to send more interdictions and arrests of the citizen of the naturalist citizen people may be here so the scenario really hasn't changed. i feel we've demonstrated resilience, the professionals have added every day are of no longer cringes as we were about it and we got it in the right perspective so even though bin laden is dead and al-zawahiri is number two with a lot about how we go in and deliver the message of al-zawahiri the good news is the number two to number one and the bad news is you are in the crosshairs of the special forces so good looks and they will do what ever they want to do over there but al qaeda and the arabian peninsula and somalia and yemen in the heart of africa and the fact we are going to have -- we are against the belief system and a theology

that is in the interpretation of a historic and profoundly desire religion so we are always going to be at war. terrorism is a tactic that we are not against the tactic we are against those who engage in the tactic to take their preferred to the interpretation to kill innocents and to advance with a further cause is. ..

within the department in the u.s. at mexico. with the recent paramilitary killings and issues from time to time. despite ghost away. as you note the ubiquitous problem on the border. 20 give us an update on your current thinking? >> well, i think we've been engaged in very vigorous efforts that the administration to deal with particularly the cartels in mexico and that's a homeland security issue in part because those cartels all have fingers that reach into virtually every state of the united states. it is also important because you don't want the rule of law last in particularly the northern states of mexico.

there have been some danger of that over the past couple of years. progress is being made. some of the leaders have now been captured or killed, but i think our relationships at mexico are heading into their presidential election cycle. this is why homeland security is such a complex field because you've got to do with managing that relationship, keep in the border secured and at the same time making sure the posts are open and covers is flowing freely between mexico and the united states because they were literally hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on it. striking that balance, getting it right and working with the government of mexico all has to be done simultaneously. >> by making a call for participation. let me close with one comment

because we were talking about the role of the private sector and how he saw these large complex problems going forward. we had in-depth robust discussion going on and it's pretty clear there's a consensus in the panel about a preferred way forward if maybe we'll just go to each one of you and talk about another problem, not really the cybersecurity work there may be a budding technology that's unnecessarily residing in government to consider is the basis beyond cybersecurity with another tough problem we are working to require the private sector's help. >> i think one area is in the whole area of diet nonstate and the ability to be able to monitor and diagnosed if, for example, there is a biologic agent into the atmosphere very quickly with appropriate mitigation processes and things

available. so i think the whole area of diagnostics is very important. >> the issue of aid data and analytics. we collect a huge amount of data, video, we get stuff now on facebook and open source networking. there is information we collect at the borders, all kinds of things. and the unified bring you to gather, manage it and do so in real time i think is a huge challenge now and one in which the private sector has a lot of interesting capabilities to bring together. >> technology i think covers both political analytics based on the data you have, also the technology are these pathogens we had to worry about. are they contagious? radiological detection. i think technology and detection

covers in many areas and i think that's what the air, whether it and political peace based on that information and that kind of algorithm and how you write that such a tech knowledge he of detection and secretary napolitano is a great place for the private sector. >> thanks. that's a curry to close come especially with the folks who are represented in the audience today. let me restate what i said at the beginning. it has been a journey in evolution and maturation of the department having had to start up the transition team and work for all three of you would spend taint honor and pleasure in my personal and professional life in argentina call for leadership not only you display now, that secretary chertoff and secretary ridge you continue to do in your private practice and everything there is a great model for the country and we thank you for being here this evening. >> on behalf of all of us, we thank you for your service. you've not only been a superb confidant and coast guard later,

but in the department standpoint, at the hub of standing up in building the department which bears a lot of your dna. i think i speak for all of us. >> thank you for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> to meet current and future threats our military must remain the finest in the world. msp and agile and deployable full spectrum source that can deter conflict, project power and win wars. now that's a great challenge in that challenge will bring about difficult times and difficult decisions, but i would tell you as well, it's also an opportunity, an opportunity to shape, change, transfer and the, not just to come to terms with the fiscal constraints are today, but to better meet the challenges that we know somewhere, sometime we will face tomorrow.

>> house lawmakers have proposed a bill that would limit lawsuits against the government found by environmental groups. the judiciary subcommittee on courts held this hearing on the proposed law. in her from independent groups, post and in favor. carolina commerce and howard coble chairs this hour 15 minute hearing. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. the subcommittee will come to order. i will recognize the distinguished gentleman from michigan. we are a mitigates the society.

one tack tick often used by some plaintiffs the teeth pockets, to sue anyway and then check out the litigation as long as possible. sooner or later many defendants will realize that it is cheaper of ethics than live to settle rather than enjoy the victory of winning the court by breaking the bank and no one has deeper pockets than the federal government if he runs out of money, and simply print more. the federal government has thousands of attorneys permanently on staff, so no person or corporation can never have such overwhelming resources. recognizing this in 1980 that congress adopted the equal access to justice to help small businesses and ordinary people indicate their rights and litigation against the federal government. what the government loses in court equal access justifies a court order to order the the government tpd at the state

attorney see the cause for the government legal claim was not substantially justified. for this reason that dha has been called the anti-bully law. experience over the past 40 years is revealing shortcomings in the pag, which is what we are here to discuss today. our colleague from wyoming has been pursuing this issue not to help knowledge her efforts in this regard. her bill h.r. 1996, the government litigation savings that proposes several reforms to the e.j. first is lack of transparency. formally require chairman of the administrative conference of the united states and the attorney general to file annual reports with congress stating how much the federal government was paying now. but the conference law says funding in 1995 is only just now getting back on its feet. and the attorney general's reporting requirement was

repealed altogether in 1995. the bottom line is there's been no governmentwide accounting a eaj payments. we don't know if eaj is helping those for whom it was created to help. that is ordinary americans and small businesses. fixing this lack of transparency is something i hope we can agree upon. related to the question of who is benefiting from eaj is the exception for nonprofit five o. one c. three organizations is not only going to clear why this exemption -- by this exception was included, but from the recent gao audit that it does benefit certain well-heeled environmental groups who use litigation as a strategy to advance their ideological agenda. whether a multimillion dollar's organization the dirtiest tax exempt should have the added benefit of being able to collect

a chinese season cost of the federal government, which are from the american taxpayers because it doesn't issue which eyewitnesses i'm sure will address. h.r. 1996 also would reform the special exception, that is $125 per hour cap on attorney's fees. because of the lack of a new report income and, this evidence is in it total but it appears that the sub courts interpreted this exception very loosely. if the exception has become so large that it follows the rule, why bother capping attorney's fees at all? h.r. 1996 would abolish the special fact very exception. finally many parts of the country come a good lawyer, the kind you would hire the federal government was on the other side cost in excess of $125 per hour. h.r. 1996 proposes to fix this by raising the cap to 175 per

hour and allowing it to be adjusted annually based upon the consumer price index. in closing, i want to thank ms. lilith for her dedication to the issue. h.r. 19 infix deserves careful and consideration i look forward to the witness' testimony reserve the balance of my time. i am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. john conyers for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am happy to be with you to form a quorum so that we can hold this hearing this afternoon and they wanted to just go over some materials here to make sure i understand what it is we are doing because according to the author, she did not intend to

affect the enjoyment of the present law -- to affect veterans, social security claimants and small businesses. and maybe i am wrong here, but i i -- but we have information that the pro bono provision that would prove a disaster for social security claimants in the

nonprofit legal service organizations in the private bar, who often provide pro bono services would be in many if not most instances precluding from any legal recovery. so i hope that this becomes clarified in the course of our hearing today. now, the equal access to justice at is more than 30 years old. and it has helped seniors, veterans, social security

claimants indicate their rights against inaccurate or unreasonable or sometimes illegal government action. so the first thing i want to indicate that according to our reading of the bill this proposal for securing legal representation at a senior citizens. that is veterans. that is disabled individuals so

many of them would never get to court who would take the case pro bono, but would recover legal fees if they prevail. so what i really honestly horrendous disservice to disabled veterans. some several thousand who retired fees during fiscal year 2010 when they successfully appeal veteran administration decisions that denied them disability benefit.

i know the committee is very well-intentioned, but why we would be doing something like this is something i will remain to have our distinguished panel of witnesses explained to me. so i thank you very much, mr. chairman and ask unanimous consent to submit the rest of my statement for the record. >> without objection. thank you, mr. conyers. for i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, ms. loomis, the author of the bill is not allowed to participate, but without objection will permit her to sit on the docks. ms. loomis, good to have you with us. and i would like to introduce to that objection her statement for the record as well. i am now pleased to recognize mr. cohen, the gentleman from memphis with his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> what the distinguished ranking member yield to me for just a quick theory to the committee? >> the distinguished ranking member you to the distinguished member of the full committee and congressman to represent the detroit tigers. >> mr. chairman, is it possible that the author of the bill would be able to be a witness to the hearing? >> everything now, mr. chairman. i would say no. >> why is that? you don't let the office of those testified? >> no, sir. >> pardon me. >> overruled. >> that is contrary to everything i thought i'd learned about the way the process works,

but its authors of the bill can't testify -- but they can sit on the committee, i guess that's second-best. >> no doubt. you are right. thank you. >> mr. cohen is recognized for five minutes. >> i am recognized for being the ranking member. could i get my time to distinguished lady from wyoming and let her give her statement? >> while i tried. during this congress come instead of focusing on michigan job creation opportunity for me as loomis to her statement gave bush broad regulatory messages and typed up a small business. jbuilder her 1996 to government savings litigation iker seems to discourage actions including small businesses and nonprofit organizations. specifically the bill would amend the peace equal access to prohibit small businesses and others have successfully

prevailed against the government from preparing legal fees. such this sham legislation is to have the effect has been pro-government outreach and persuading small businesses from having the opportunity to go to court and get attorneys fees paid. that's what the majority is talked about many times about the reasons i want to distinguish the bright lady from wyoming took springerville. under the ea ja, small businesses request the prevailing party in the collection. the lord is not a mandate. if the government chose actions were substantially justified, that's the test, then the word is denied. the substantial justification prevents many wars to discourage frivolous or marginal cases filed based solely on the hope of recovering attorney's fees. the train to also catch the theory that blow the market raised except that a judge may reward fees above the $125 cab

at the specialist skills necessary for litigation. so the prevailing party mesh of the legal representation could not have been obtained at that rate, before possibility of obtaining a higher rate. this below-market cap rate minimizes litigation and discourages frivolous or marginal cases. i have heard is $125 in a dozen years. ensure no minister and consider such a thing. the eaja strikes the right balance for small entities the opportunity to challenge government. but i guess that guy. still, even with a slim chance their astronomical and to comment. they're based on your estimate of rewards and pure conjecture as there is a new comprehensive governmental studies since 1998. and that it is today to reflect the current situation rather than 13 years of age he beat a

given a measure. the bill requires a report that is laudable. unfortunates only reasonable provision of this bill. h.r. 1996 should concern all of us. the negative impact veterans, seniors, public health and businesses. in 1998 chia reports on 1994, 98% of the applications submitted 87% of dollars rewarded when social security disability cases and veterans disability cases. two of our favorite constituencies. based on those numbers come in this bill would prevent the awarding of fees disproportionately in cases brought by nonprofit veterans groups challenging the va for systematic delay. this discourages kind of the cases and leads to individual veterans to bring the cases at most veterans cannot afford to do so. likewise the bill also discourages the delete programs from cases on behalf of senior citizens. further because nature 1996 bars recovery of these are most nonprofits and citizens will discourage environmental groups bringing actions to its

environmental laws that protect our public health and lands. in light of the impact on our veterans, seniors and public health and land in many other concerns, various groups express opposition include the national organizations of that are in social security claimants representatives, national resources defense council which of course includes robert redford will ensure the sponsor of this bill likes in the national defender association, center for auto safety and the center for food safety are dozens more. i think i witnesses for their patient in today's hearing for two testimony and the memphis east carolina football game this saturday and hope you won't beat up on us too badly. >> thanks to last week starting against houston, i do think you have much to worry about. >> where worse, believe me. >> can i submit these without the record?

>> thank you comest appear the gentleman from michigan, congratulations to the tigers. are they up now are leading? >> not at all. >> that they're going home. >> your team is over texas? >> good to see all of you. i have detailed introductions to give, but i think we need to know the background of our distinguished witnesses said he will bear with me. good to have each of you with us. george washington university school of law. mr. axelrod said the justice department for more than 35 years and is actively involved in policy and development as well as litigation. pure test record department of justice toward branch of 1977 to 2003. he also served as a trial attorney for eight years earning the civil division's highest honor as stanley d. rose memorial award. he also received the civilian award, commanders were for public service, presidential meritorious executive award and the office of management and

budget should councils award. mr. axelrad, thank you rashad of the subcommittee today. mr. lowell baier is the nation's oldest conservation work is nation, the club was founded by teddy roosevelt in 1887 to promote wildlife conservation and was instrumental in establishing federal lands, conservation laws and agencies in several other national confirmation groups. mr. maher is currently leading the club an extensive study of the role of litigation and conservation. is also founding director of the national conservation leadership in acute and executive education programs for professionals. for these and other accomplished during the year as a small-business owner, mr. baier was named by field and stream magazine. mr. baier commode glad to have

you have with us today. ms. jennifer ellison is a cattle rancher and hay farmer from blackfoot, idaho. she chairs the western legacy alliance and volunteer organization focused on preserving working man's lifestyle than the american west. recently ms. ellis was president of the idaho cattle association and chairman of the idaho committee. she also chaired idaho's depredations committee as she is director on the board of the idaho agriculture cricket association and the former chairman of the blackfoot holthouse project. through these experiences, ms. ellis has acquired much firsthand knowledge of environmental litigation, more than she ever wanted to know i would dare to reach her. ms. ellis, thank you for coming from idaho to do with us today. we appreciate that. finally, mr. said six served as codirector for the school's

institute for public representation. pair to joining the joint staff, mr. wolfman spent 20 years as the national -- at the national public interest law firm public citizen litigation group where he served the last five years as director. prior to that, he also conducted trial litigation as a staff lawyer at a world poverty about programs in arkansas. he has a broad range of litigation and argued five cases before the supreme court. he is taught appellate litigation courses at his alma mater, harvard school of law and also served as an adjunct professor at stanford and america university. mr. wolfman current thank you for being with us. facing gentleman and lady, good to have you with us. we try to go by the five-minute rule, so if you keep your eyes peeled on the penalty for use when the light is green, then

indicate you are alive and well. but the light will turn and her and that is short notice that a one minute delay is about to be resolved. we will not keep any of you for violating the five-minute rule, but if you think of pi, we would appreciate it. >> and you will see the panel? can you? can you see the green light now mr. wolfman, happy to have used her testimony. >> thank you. i would appreciate a entire statement being placed in the record. >> without objection. >> i'm here to share my views on h.r. 1996, the government litigation act. this would give visions of equal access to justice, commonly know as eaja that will discuss specific improvements this bill makes to eaja. payment of costs and attorneys fees as a transfer of money, pure and simple.

our constitutions appropriations caused bars payments from the public treasury absent a congressional appropriation. this clause stands for the bulwark ensuring insuring that the congress decides whether and under what conditions treasuries should be utilized. support types of key provisions. first the united states has made susceptible in award of attorney fees under certain circumstances in a private party would otherwise he responsible for pain and attorney fees after receiving an award in a judicial proceeding. this regime applies to settlements as well. second, eaja out the rest of attorney fees at the nongovernment party prevails in the government's underlying conduct was not substantially justified as the special circumstance. this is one way loser pay provisions that create different law against the american. egypt has the federal government in a unique and largely disfavored position. nature 1996 includes needed amendments to more precisely

specify a means of determining aboard. third, standards for recovering attorney's fees including the underlying conduct was not essentially justified and when the nongovernment party is considered the prevailing party. terms like these can make to protect his site for vacation and manipulation. h.r. 1996 seeks to avoid abuse and clarify provisions. fourth, eaja also penalizes government if it is not sufficiently successful in seeking review of agency adjudication or civil action commenced by the united states. there is no such provision against demands for the private party come, which can disadvantage government civil actions and enforcement proceedings. h.r. 1996 makes several needed amendments to eaja substantive award provisions and as requirements to collect and assemble precise data permitting insight into eaja's results in practical terms.

nature 1996 raises maximum rate attainment for attorneys from $125 per hour to $175 per hour and substitutes precise means of determining cost-of-living increase. in return for raising the fee, these amendments eliminate exception to the sea limit for attorney who asserts a special factor, such as limited availability of qualified attorneys or agents for the preceding justifies a higher fee. supreme court attempted to them it the ability to evade application of the cab, but his decision did not end litigation whether the cat can be pierced. far from it. the federal courts decisions are in disarray. h.r. 1996 places a limit a cap with a limited exception on the aggregate amount, public fiscal page to individual entity for attorneys fees or expenses and complains eaja to parties who have direct and personal monetary interest in the proceedings. these amendments can find eaja

to its legitimate purpose. h.r. 1996 sharpens the language of the fee reduction provisions by requiring reductions that the parties engage in specified misconduct. the ability to congress to perform its oversight of eaja depends on availability of information concerning agency payments predicated on the act. currently, this information is largely unavailable. agencies have no obligation to collect and assemble data and even if some agencies to collect data, there is no central authority to organize and report the data in a sensible format both to the congress and the public. h.r. 1996 remedies this lack of information, specifically h.r. 1996 requires chairman of the administrative conference of the united states to the congress and make to report publicly available online. nature 1996 also requires gao to conduct a one-time moderate of

implementation during recent years starting with 1995. h.r. 1996 the syntax the basic structure of serving to correct unintended consequences and clarify vague terminology that has resulted in substantial ways for collateral litigation. h.r. 1996 also requires that the congress receive information that is may determine how effectively eaja works in practice and the cost associated with eaja. this will permit congress to provide more expected oversight and enhance ability of citizens to hold government accountable for the actions of government agencies. in my opinion, h.r. 1996 are present they move towards enhancing the ability of eaja to best serve its intended purposes. i will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. said three. mr. baier come your recognizer for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. represent aucoin, representative conyers, members of the committee, i represent the boone and crockett club of america's oldest conservation organization founded in 187 by theodore roosevelt and i follow him as the club's 20th president and now president emeritus. we support this bill because it will be mentioning conservation of our nation's fish, wildlife and natural resource is. we also support vehicle access to justice facts historic i'm a purpose for, veterans and small business small citizens, day must be to her mistakes and overzealous federal agencies. these are citizens that we can least afford -- you can least afford to protect themselves and we are resolute that we do not tread on the historic purpose of eaja. under this bill, individuals will remain eligible to use eaja

after network does not exceed 2 million, just as they do today. likewise, small business will remain eligible provided net worth does not exceed 7 million. the bill extends the same eligibility requirements to large interest groups. today, these groups can recoup legal fees under eaja regardless of their net worth. unlimited eligibility has helped make litigation commonplace in the conservation arena. this was roundly understood that even the inspector general of the department of the interior to designate said quote, as it now stands, lawsuits are driving nearly everything the fish and wildlife service does in the endangered species arena. >> host: . just last month a new settlement agreement was imposed -- a new settlement agreement imposed abusive to aggressive interest groups on the entire endangered

species listing program through 2017. the settlement resulted from litigation on procedural -- procedural rather than substantive grounds. this is the type of litigation for which egypt provides a perverse incentives. we want to put equal back into the equal access to justice act by requiring everyone to meet the same eligibility standards. to be clear, litigation will continue. but the taxpayer will no longer pay the legal bills of large interest groups. capping eligibility on five o. one c. threes will c. threes will also make egypt consistent with the other 205 fee shifting statute. 205 p. shifting statutes, not one of which expands from the eligibility requirements that apply to private citizens or

businesses. senior counsel henry cohen from the congressional research in 2009 determined that egypt was an anomaly in this regard. it is the clearing privilege that is the antithesis of equality and fairness, the antithesis of equality and fairness. along with fairness, this bill will restore accountability and transparency going forward. when eaja was enacted in a tv required and reported the number of cases processed until attorneys fees reimbursed. that reported ended in 1995. since then, the congress and the country have been in the dark in the cost of egypt, which is why this building states reporting requirement beginning with an audit of prior unreported years. iran targeted research, based on

gao reports, tax returns, court records and data from agencies shows cost of egypt is at least $50 million per year from litigation by the top 20 in environmental litigants. what are the total cost? we don't know. that is why reinstating the audit costs since 1995 are critical. in conclusion, the actual payout of legal fees is just the tip of the iceberg. we estimate that it represents one fifth of the total cost. the hidden costs or the personnel time spent by the agency is reviewing procedures, defending procedures and often redoing the entire process. then there are the costs of the justice department attorneys defending cases. mr. chairman, members of the committee, this will is about the historic purpose of egypt,

america's conservation community urges you to put equal back into the equal access to justice act in the interest of fairness, sound management of our natural resources and fiscal responsibility. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you, mr. baier. ms. ellis. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i appreciate the ability to come before you today and i've come to see why it is they asked me today. i'm going to this conversation down a lot. i hope you appreciate my efforts there. more than 20 years ago i was a rancher in idaho when the environmental group declared that he was host to put myself in other ranchers out of business. other conservation is to care for the land had a better pool of how ranchers could change to be their businesses. this made sense to me, even though we didn't agree on the outcome of the time, we did agree to sit down at the table.

our self-appointed enemies brought a new and more aggressive campaign of lawsuits than we had ever seen before. we form the western legacy alliance to allow ranchers, farmers, sportsmen and local communities to defend their livelihoods. i started out four years ago when we started on this project. i thought that eaja is how environmentalists got the money to file the lawsuits, but it's not. they have other much better sources of money. i've had eaja was the law that gave them access to the courts, but it's not. the major environmental laws give them access to the court for standing in to pay their fees. endangered species that come the clean water act and clean air act are all examples of that. eaja seemed to be written for the environmental groups, but it wasn't. it was written for people like me as congressman conyers and congressman cohen had made examples of small businesses, i am a small business and also people like my dad who were social security recipients. i've no idea there were 205 was

on the the books that allowed fee shifts to occur or groups to gain standing in recoup their fees that they did prove the government was wrong and that these 205 laws extend 5013c's organizations. if we repeal eaja or problems at all be solved. having spent years learning about eaja i see doing good work for retirees, veterans and small businesses. but it's also being used by groups that do not need it and used in ways that make the controversies in the west and in tennessee much more difficult than everybody involved that they need to be. passing h.r. 1996 to make things better while protecting proper use of eaja. any case out west in the yellowstone park is a good example. maybe you've heard of the snowmobile debacle. two or businesses overturned the first ban on snowmobiles.

after the park service each any decision the environmentalists erred the park service and one. the back-and-forth in court was disputing nobody the park service is breaking any laws, but whether it had considered all of the options. it wasn't about justice. it was about policy choices. i've always understood that people can push their agendas in court. i disagree with using my tax dollars to do it. i support the gls glsa even though it can tribute in the future. there's other reasons i i support the glsa. the bill improves eaja for users is shipping duly noted. it brings transparency and accountability to the cost of lawsuits. it separates eaja from environmental policy, which is a completely separate issue. glsa does these things by increasing allowable fees,

focusing eaja undirected personal cost to people instead of two organizations and reported the amounts distributed in preventing repeat claims by the same organization over and over. eaja is different from the clean air and clean water act and the esa. environmental laws and lawsuits about whether government has done with what the law says they must do, eaja pays for environment of cases of you can show the government paperwork, which say pretty easy thing to do a thing if you have seen the geneva documents in the epa documents. it's a really easy way to block decisions that you just don't like. i urge the committee to fix this by passing h.r. 1996 so that tax-exempt organizations have to pay their own way when they take on taxpaying businesses over differences of opinion. and i am actually on the receiving end of the collateral damage done by the

misapplication of eaja awards. with that, i will stand for any questions. thank you here it's been a thank you. i believe you came the greatest distance to cs and i commend you for that. mr. wolfman, good to have you with us. your recognize commissary. >> chairman smith and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today in opposition of h.r. 1996. in almost every particular h.r. 1996 would undermine the purpose of eaja to provide court access to citizens, citizen groups and small businesses subjected to unreasonable and unlawful government to conduct. i'll focus on two provisions of h.r. h. 96 the cosmos harm come up first on to explain claims that eaja is being abused are dead wrong. in fact, eaja is less favorable to each pc can party than virtually any of the other more than 200 federal eaja statues.

first under eaja, to obtain a fee is not enough for the plaintiff to prevail litigation as it is under virtually all other statutes. rather the government can defeat a fee entirely if we can show that despite having lost the case, its position on the merits of the case was substantially justified. the supreme court says this means even when the government takes unlawful action against citizens, it does not have to pay a fee unless the positions they took in court were in reasonable. this is a powerful defense in dozens upon dozens of cases deny feeds on this ground. so no rational litigant or layered or frivolous or marginal case in the hope of obtaining a fee. second, under eaja, prevailing parties cannot recover fees at market rates. under other fee shifting statutes, prevailing parties are at market rates, which mdc and other major cities can range up to $600 per hour or more. but eaja limits feaster $180 per

hour. these enhanced about that read-only when the supreme court has said -- in which supreme court says mira circumstances involving specialized areas of the law and even then the fee is not peter parker rates. in light of eaja is below market rates, neither litigants are lawyers with a marginal cases in the hope of receiving fees. let me turn to h.r. 1996's two most concerning provisions. under h.r. 1996 to obtain a eaja fee, the applicant must have a direct and personal monetary interest, unquote. this would eliminate eaja and the very most important cases, those that challenge awful governmental regulations and conduct that affect the public generally. take for example cases for service organizations and members of the private board how people who serve our country obtain needed disability benefits from department of

veterans affairs. eaja is vitally important to the individual veteran whose benefits have been unlawfully denied, but eaja may be even more important to the thousands or tens of the veterans whose benefits requests are mishandled because the department of veterans affairs has systematically delayed issuing benefit rulings are misapplied disability regulations. h.r. 1996 would make it impossible to obtain fees in cases filed by nonprofit veterans groups challenging such illegal conduct. i said at a number of examples in my written testimony. h.r. 1996 would discourage these important cases and unfairly requires citizens to bear out their legal costs when these types of cases are brought. the next section i want to talk about is that h.r. 1996 would amend eaja to reduce or deny feeds quote commiserate with pro

bono hours and call. pro bono refers to were performed by attorneys free of charge for people for charitable organizations unable to afford market resurfaces. the no pro bono provision is a very bad idea because citizens and citizen groups at higher pro bono lawyers are exactly the parties for whom eaja was designed. they cannot pay for legal services and they only hired lawyers that there is a chance the fee down the road if they show the government acted unreasonably. hundreds if not thousands of members of the private part provide their services, for instance, social security and veterans disclaim if it trained to summon monetary inducement to take on these cases, nearly 10 years ago i worked with the private lawyer in north carolina with the case in the supreme court. a veteran himself who wanted to give back to those in uniform represented another veteran who had been denied service connected disability benefit. ultimately after years of litigation, the court of appeals found that the government's position was wrong and not

reasonably debatable. the government got us over the eaja fee itself, which would ultimately won in supreme court. under h.r. 1996, there would be no fight, no fee because the time of the north carolina lawyer was provided pro bono. here you have a man who served his country, serving another man he served his country, who wed its h.r. 1996 becomes five you think twice about taking on another veteran's disability case. it's hard to think of a more unfair result, result that make it difficult if not impossible for people victimized by unreasonable government actions to attract counsel. i would welcome any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wolfman. we try to comply with a five-minute rule as well, so if you all want to keep your answers we can move along.

mr. axelrad, one night and affect adversely affect people are seeking social security benefits and veterans benefits to collect what the government does sound? your mic is not on. >> excuse me. h.r. 1996 would not affect the right of the individual to recover the award that the court or administrative tribunal provides to the social security beneficiary. the difference is that eaja as of now has a special incentive depending on where the attorney is located actually the courts are divided on this to pay attorneys more. and so, the cat that is written

into eaja is often honored in the breach so the money will go to an attorney doesn't affect the rights of the individual to actually get the benefits of the awards that the court determines. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. baier, how does the eaja in its current form to start the balance is he saying written testimony in the environment till and controversial policymaking? >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman. i'm having trouble hearing in this room. >> all repeated. how does the eaja in its current form disrupt the balance as you indicated your big testimony and environmental and conservation policymaking? >> it encourages them incentivizes lawsuits over

procedural issues. and by procedural issues, what i mean are missing deadlines. that's the primary challenge to the way it works. these are procedural deadlines that are imposed primarily under the endangered species act, which are physically and humanly impossible for the fish and wildlife service to at times we. and the litigation that we are concerned about that is created this imbalance is primarily over procedural issues that relate to missing deadlines and paperwork issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. ellis, when environmental group sues the federal government, you discussed how your organization and debt paying three times the same litigation elaborate on that a few well. >> yes, mr. chairman, the reference is collateral damage. prints up eaja was enacted so

there'd be no peripheral damage outside the government, the only hits a pocket book was going to be to the government. when in actuality now, i hold permits on federal land that i'm allowed to under the taylor grazing act. when environmentalists bring challenges to those permits, they don't challenge me personally. they challenged the agency. we'll use blm is the example. when they do that, and dlm attorneys cannot actually represent the losses that would have been to make the change being requested by the plaintiff were enacted. and so, i have to hire an intervening attorney that usually cause for a good right now $400 an hour. so in order to have my interest represented when this lawsuit comes forward, i have to hire that attorney. i am from the ninth circuit and usually they will not allow

intervening attorneys and on the merits phase of the case, only on the remedies phase. so i pay for my intervene attorney, enter my tax dollars i am paying for the agency attorney, doj attorney, all of the staff time involved from the blm conservation officers in preparing for the case and my tax dollars pay the eaja award if they are found to be the winner in the complaint. >> a thank you. then they try to be definite tie. for your written testimony seems he basically support reporting provisions of h.r. 1990s eggs but that the bill puts the cart before the horse. what evidence did then he could convince you to support eliminating the exception to the eaja for multimillion dollar's organizations. >> well, i don't know that there is any, but i'd like to see -- >> popa mike a little closer to

you. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman. >> that's okay. >> i don't know. i'd like to see the evidence. i said in my testimony some offer transparency can i do agree after 1995 did not have been a report. i myself used it frequently. there's nothing wrong with that. i think what everything in the testimonies i find it odd that was a prophecy of data, but they are changing about having data. >> the red light appears. we've been joined by the distinguished element from south carolina. good to have you with us. mr. colin, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. axelrad, people getting their benefits and i think was veterans. is that kind of what he said?

>> what i meant to say -- i can't exactly quote myself, is that the individual that receives the entire award insert the issue and changes in the terminology go to the com station for the attorney, not the individual who receives the award. >> where you from? >> were made from? originally from pennsylvania. other tier for quite some time. >> about what to do to indian dell come pennsylvania and said i had to what their company would make it a lot harder to get to uniontown. if your attorney can't get an expectation of a fee come you're not going to get an attorney. if you can't get an attorney come you're not going to get a fee.

let's take a social security example that you propose. there actually is a fee provision for social security benefits. what eaja does is provides suspenders. that i am not suggesting that eaja not apply to social security cases. all i'm suggesting is that the provisions of eaja has been broadened so that the exception has almost become the rule. the cap appears -- >> one and a quarter in our? the cap of the dollar amount? >> right now it is $125 an hour. >> right from the ms. ellis said you can't get a lawyer and i go for $400. i do get a good lawyer in washington for 126-point >> social security decisions for example are based on the record. i'm sure there are under h.r. 1996 would be $175 an hour.

i don't think i've it would be difficult to whatsoever. >> are you a lawyer, circlet >> yes. >> but she don't practice? >> i don't litigate. >> even in poor memphis, tennessee, most poverty-stricken , you can't alert to go to traffic court for you for $175. ..

whether the supreme court's comment at the kind of specialty it would want is something like patent law. some courts have said litigating social security cases is a specialty that sometimes warrants. other courts have disagreed so the courts get into litigation. when congress enacted the cap it

was clear they thought the cap would would limit the amount paid by the tax payers in the run of the cases. it turns out because even though the supreme court tried to reduce of the degree ability to litigate exceptions to the cap it didn't work and despite of the supreme court decision, there are lots and lots of cases going every which way which the attorneys have been able to succeed in getting a greater attorney's fee and fighting over -- >> we've got into the red light. yes, thank you. >> the gentleman from south carolina five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman.

professor, who decides whether the government position was substantially justified? >> the court or the agency adjudicator depending whether it is an administrative case or court case. >> who has the burden of proof? >> to show it was not substantially justified that makes no difference because there is no factual determination so burdens only matter when facts are at stake. >> what is the standard approved by which it must be proven? >> ponder as of the evidence like any other matter. >> you mentioned a few moments ago the importance of having data so i am hopeful you have the data for this because i don't. the percentage of cases where the plaintiffs prevailed, but the court said the government position was substantially justified. >> that's an interesting question and in the area of social security and veterans' cases particularly veterans cases it is very high it usually doesn't even go to court. >> what about environmental

cases. >> and then on social security and veterans' cases, and i haven't done the studies of just based on my experience, the government wins often. i cited -- this is what i did in my testimony, i just said i'm looking for cases in recent years in the courts of appeal where the court found -- >> i think you did a good job with anecdotal evidence. >> i don't know of any study on that. >> you do not know what percentage of time they prevailed but still were not allowed to recoup the fees because -- >> i don't know that anyone knows that. would be interesting study but i do know this for fact and then on social security veterans area it's much higher than in those areas. islamic you want and believe and i don't want to characterize your position because i didn't know you in '94 but you want i believe supported the notion of doing away with the special

factor exemption. do you still support that? >> what i said was at that time to look back that if we chose a more reasonable rate that could go up with fees', actual fees and the market as opposed to what has occurred >> we go to $175 would do away with it. >> that could not be the case because stephen just asking if you said it to reduce the macdill was $175 in 1994. >> to 50. >> that is correct what if we went up to 250. >> if we were at $250 an hour and we have a reasonable inflation adjustment -- >> we just adjusted for inflation from 175 to 50. >> if you have a mandatory reasonable inflation of jester i see it that would be reasonable

rather than necessarily what we have now not to appreciate that in the vast majority of the cases, the vast majority of the cases what the attorneys and the clients get is the basic need to avoid plus the inflation adjustment except at the agencies which largely don't do any adjustment to reduce the glut me ask you this because i'm running out of time quickly. >> i think you said there are 203 instances where we have something other damn the american rule with respect to the litigation. >> i know it costs approximately 200. >> are you an advocate for abolishing the american role in the litigation and letting them decide whether or not -- >> absolutely not. >> you haven't heard my idea yet. why don't we let it decide whether it was frivolous -- >> i can answer the question of you will allow me. >> having the rule in great

britain would deny -- >> what i leave out is great britain's rule. i said the finder of the fact, the cement group we've let decided capital cases, the same group we let decide whether there is life devotee in the medical malpractice case were the product case let the finder of the fact decide whether or not lawsuit was frivolous or vexatious. that's not the british rule, agreed? spaight that's what you're saying and i will say to things about that. first of all, that is already the law -- >> how many times when judgment is granted or the motion to dismiss is granted does the judge the no word attorney for the filing lawsuit in what percentage of the cases? >> very small. >> then we don't have that rule. >> we do have that rule. with all due respect we do have

that rule applies in every piece of litigation. >> how many times has it been enforced. just for the viewer that is where there is no dispute over the fact, just in the law what percentage found themselves in the cases are sanctions administered for frivolous lawsuits? >> not often but with all due respect i don't think that proves anything because all that means is there isn't that many frivolous cases. you can laugh with -- >> and we don't need rule e. levin. we must not need rule and 11 if there are no frivolous lawsuits. >> i didn't say there were none. 11 provides importance. another reason there would be a poor idea of you assist the to see the fee at the back end, the volatility of the backend only and didn't have the 200 at the front end, you wouldn't have the encouragement that these shifters that come up the front

end are intended to give litigants to enforce. you lose the incentive to litigate to bring bill lawsuit because there may be a penalty on the back end. >> this is a debate people can have. they've decided that it's important in the front in the instances to provide the incentive. islamic i am asking if it's important in the rest of the category of cases if it does well in these 200. >> in my judgment it makes sense for the congress to decide which litigation it wants to incentivize and not to put on across-the-board basis. >> my time is expired. thank you mr. chairman. >> the giblin from michigan mr. conyers. >> thank you, chairman. i would like to start with mrs. ellis please. have you ever used legal services provided by a

nonprofit? >> no sir. >> said the new never had the opportunity to to get advantage of the equal access to justice the provision. >> no, sir. >> thank you. now for mr. daremblum that sent you a list of groups that send notice they strongly oppose government litigants -- litigation savings act h.r. 1996. do you have that in front of you? >> i do, yes. >> look on these three or four

pages i think he will find that there are 46 -- 64 come 65 organizations that are conservation organizations. i started noticing them. the first i put a number one by alaska wilderness and number to the big blackfoot river keeper and number three environmental council. see those numbers? >> i do. >> out of this 100, 65 of them are environmental organizations. now take a look do you recognize

any of those organizations? >> yes, i recognize a few of these, yes. they have a position of opposition to this bill. is there a possible rationale you could suggest for this many people that work in the same field that you do or did work in having so different a view from you about the bill that we are discussing today? >> i do, sir. >> please tell me what it is. >> i note that some of our larger and well recognizable environmental groups in the country are on this list such as the environmental defense fund.

the environmental defense fund defenders of wildlife are not here as well defenders of wildlife have a net worth of $23.7 million. >> that's terrible. >> that would make them ineligible under this bill. others fall into the same category for its civil courage to justice. >> but we've got 65. >> i would have to analyze its to respond. >> i will give you that list to take home with you and you send it back to me the once you recognize and if you think -- i assume you are saying because they have so much money they can afford to be against the bill.

is that the inference i am to draw from your explaining to me how enriched the group is? >> if understand the question, sir, some of the larger ones on this list have net worths for example the humane society of the united states has the net worth of $160 million. >> excuse me, i'm sorry. >> i said so what. estimate as islanders and the question you are wondering why they would oppose the bill and i don't suggest because the bill would disqualify them from utilizing egypt on procedural litigation. >> but they were disqualified before this bill, they are disqualified now, aren't they?

could i get one minutes, chairman? thank you. i just want to get one question into the professor if i can. is it not true that on pages three and eight in the first section on page three the top section on page eight that both of these amounts -- this is the only build the we've got. aren't these the two places that the nine pro bono fees' to lawyers and specifically in this bill on page three, the top, and

page eight? >> you're referring to page three of the will. >> ibm. you're citations' appear to be correct to me. >> thank you. in the u.s. agree that this is the way you would want to go even though there are over 100 groups and not all environmental, some just nonprofit that think this is a bill that should not advance beyond this committee. >> i support the entire bill. i did not in my statement expressed the particular provision it you are addressing now. i see the overall purpose of the bill as in keeping with egypt is

an exception, it is a one-way lose or pay provision in the relevant part that doesn't bother with six assists to lead a person that makes a claim for money or a non-monetary relief from the government and loses the claimant, it doesn't matter whether the person had substantial to mystification or not because the american public can't recover its cost in defending against that on substantial claim, where as egypt provides the opposite. >> do you know that you have to win the case. you can lose the case and claim start-ups. >> many do not work on a contingency basis. the pro bono cases you can't work on the contingency.

the client doesn't have any money. spec if they're working with mix kono basis they are working on compensation that to me with the term pro bono means. >> but that's exactly why we have this provision into law if they take the case and prevail, the court can award him legal fees. >> i think that the exceptions to the american rule that congress created in egypt shall be narrowly confined. i have not specifically addressed this but i favor of the general principles of the to 96. >> but mr. sherman, given the time one minute more to ask the of the witness >> without objection.

specs before. kennett, you help us serve about who gets spolkeo and who doesn't and in the general practice of law and in the united states. >> one of the things i think thankfully that has occurred in this country when lawyers are able to do it is they provide in their services, the poorest amount has been the needed and the and difficult substantial basis. it's always been the case that if there is a fee shifting statute involved and a free person prevails in the case also the government's position is not substantially justified. estimates always been the case that the pro bono lawyer catafalque least some prospect in the fi in that circumstance. >> but this provision -- mittal leedy you have to win but in egypt you have to effectively show the position the government is not reasonable, but the among

others is specifically says the court shall reduce or deny all fees to the extent commensurate with pro bono hours several years many of whom are in this very city was named to take on a veteran's case, social security case or other cases i can use this to example it's not on a pro bonus basis. can't get used on the reject. i'm not making this up. that's what the bill says. smith by turning off the chairman for his of the witnesses here for the testimony today. without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit to the chair, additional questions which we will borrow and ask what is it the you respond as quickly as the cancer that it may be made it part of the record. though japan and the scope objection of the members they have five days to submit any

material inclusion. with that again i think the witnesses and the hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

from the three c-span television networks. and some exclusives like the rearing of the sunday news programs from the major networks. if you are in washington, d.c., listen to us at 90.1 fm. across the country on xm satellite radio channel 119 and on our iphone and blackberry gap. c-span radio, another public service created by the nation's cable television industry. and now in our 15th year. >> president obama met with his counsel on jobs and competitiveness in pittsburgh by

providing opening remarks. the president's right is general electric ceo the chairman of the president's jobs council. the council has called for greater spending on infrastructure, less restrictive regulation and a more business president's remarks are ten up front and i want to hear from k.

businesses across-the-board and make sure that they handle this

jobs council the situation. we categories. on anything that's a sign that

which means come on time lower and you could the long term products and

need the infrastructure we have the permit the process has effective model for being able that across-the-board and the impact than what we've

immigration area, that is not something we can necessarily to one her own. is better ready in place and try we may need some legislative

had to meet with secretary of in the united states in job with respect to regulatory identified billions of dollars

jobs department as well as their others are working aggressively know this quickly through rtain ideas that

in the election is 14 months away or 13 months away. another ideas. award and our hope is we are able to get those passed in the congress. chastain advisers who were sitting around recommendations implemented, but

for congress because the american people can afford to wait. they need help right now. >> earlier today, senate considered a version of the press is shot though. it felt on a procedural vote. here are some of the debate that happened before the vote. we'll hear from senators up corker and dick durbin. this is 20 minutes.bout >> i race to talk a little about the conversation we just sat ont the floor.he there is no question in the state of tennessee and acrossnd the country to pick a side am i met on everyone's our economy s and people having jobs in eachta

mr. president, i still believe that the very best thing we canr do to create a sound economy in this country as for then committee to do the things it needs to do in november and december and to show the american people that they haveua the ability tot deal with the al basic structural issues that our country faces. tod i believe that with all my heare and there isn't a business in our country today that itl thatl itoking for some sugary stimuluw though that will be here and det gone and leaving us with lot of. increased taxes down the road. i i believe that and i guess we'ri mr. president, have disappointee we are in a situation just like we were last there is a night t solve problems. neither side candidly. we are here to have soment take political stunt tape placed itoe on to say to my friends on both sides of the outcome in numbers of people here have worked hardd to get the free trade agreements in place that they need to be tm and we expect them to pass andrt

all of us who support these free languishingcl for 995 days. and by the way, then include thought senators on both sides of the aisle.e i think what we just heard thes later say is if we were to get on this jobs bill that we actuay advocate to get on today, the likelihood of us actually taking up the free trade agreement and passing them tomorrow is almost not going to happen.reements,nd we know there are people who oppose the free trade agreements and i doubt very seriously we are going to the unanimouseeim s then to move off a jobs bill for show onto something that is ople seriously free trade agreements that some people h opposed. so i have lots of conversationse the senators on thursday as thes aisle over the course of the deo last 72 hours regarding the nees for us to have a reaoml debate n jobs and i hope it some point wa

will rea actually have a real de on aan real jobs bill that peopt really want to pass. i would say that to make thatean happen, that would actually meae that the republican nader and democrat leader would actually have to sit down and craft a piece of legislation that doesnw common ground. that is not what's happening and we know that. and for all of the coolestroducv things that we've done in lifee better protect and we've chosen to come serve our country in this way, we have the ability tp be productive in other ways. coi for all of us to come here and i watch this continual charade taking place i in this body, itt disappointing.eople. it brings up a lot of time and we accomplish nothing for american people. job candidly, mr. president, i want to have a debate on jobs.ht i know again moving to the jobsy bill tonight would negate the opportunity for the only thingoa

we could do recently to actually create jobs with the free trade agreement with what they will do is enhance american manufacturers ability to make and sell, things overseas and enhance farmers across our a country and their ability to s sell goods overseas is a one-way positive press because these countries have low trade -- loww tariffer barriers in our countr. it lowers barriers for us into their country.residenti am ro. president, i'm going to vote against proceeding to the jobs bill. i am disappointed that we will continue to do things. we have a republican house know family knows to pass some thing that is good for this country that requires a negotiation the between all the players. and so each time we bring the p belt that that are totallyng

crafted in part a thin, we know all we are doing is wasting d that time. i do have one glimmer of hope c. and that is the deficit the fact is this committee was x put together with six republicans and six democrats.o so this committee has the ability to do some things that al one can blame.ot we are talking about something totally split. this committee was put together solely conceived by leadership.s in the united states senate andr the house, so we more people,ivd who conceived of this super committee.ed and they are the ones that appointed the members to this mf super committee. it they decided at the members of this committee were going to be. they cited that purposefully so it was equally balanced six and six. so candidly, the success of this

committee is totally, totally in the hands of our leadership. and so it appears to me for the first time in a long time, we actually have within the leadership's hands, totally the ability something great for a country to pass. anything short of getting to the trillion and a half dollars related to legislation is totally a failure.hing i s mr. president, and that since this is totally set up in and bipartisan way by leadership under republican and democratice side in both the house and senate and they chose themy mind members, and there's no question in my mind that this is going to be successful for candidly be f, viewed as many as a failure, to

failure of leadership, candidly. i am certain they are going to get to the trillion and a half.h and i am hopeful as our numberkl of republicans and democrats iny the senate we have a list of over 40 that were actually going to get3 to $3 trillion reductig in a deficitoi that will cope wh great sadness that i'm a wee ens up some thing that is tryin qualitatively.t $3 triin sav many of us know that trying to get $3 trillion in savings or retainer. happe maybe typical.nk it i so hope it happens.his this body that have worked to make this happen, but some people said maybe we can get aor major reforms to medicare and te other programs and may be qualitatively that is equally aa good. mr. president, and certainly willing to let out all of those things. but despite the fact that iaste think it is just a waste of time

to be bringing up totally to b partisan bills on this ecbody, knowing that to t become law wei have to pass the house of representatives, which means anyone brings up some a totally, partisan knows that in advance. that's discouraging to me i'm we discouraging to waste time talking about something that we know was never going to become law for campaigns, for house a members, senate members and the president to campaign on. hopefl but at least i am hopeful in der november and december, we are going to have something bigf happening. because again, this is totally in the hands of bipartisan t leadership who totally appointed the members, who totally are working with this group. me that again, mr. president, that is the best, the best stimulus weui

can possibly create for this country is for small businesses and big businesses, for republicans and democrats all across this country to see d actually has the ability to do s sound vain to create stability in this country and actually tackle the number one issue that will continue to dissipate our country standard of living and d that is our inability to deal with that. to me that is the greatest jobjo stimulus we can deal with hereuy there's all kinds of regulatory issues and american energy issues and other kinds of things that to me we could take out the nature jobs bill and i hope to we'll do that soon. but all i had to do today in addition to knowing this is a partisan effort, which i hate th use the ever taking place on this glorious fact is that foreo any senator, for any senator who wants to see the three free

trade agreements that has been iccrat languishing. any senator on the democratic s, side, any senator on the see republican side that wants to see the three free trade agreements passed into law tomorrow as has been planned, anybody that wants to see that happen must vote no on the jobs bill being debated because as the majority leader has stated today, if we begin the jobs we bill, that means that we unanimou cannot -- we cannot without unanimous sense, which we know will not happen in this body, w. cannot get it and go to trade agreement.'d mr. president, in addition to tc the fact this is not a serious effort although i'd love to debate jobs, the fact i know if we get on this bill we cannoto pass the free trade agreements in time, i certainly plan toope pass no one proceeding to them e

really want to take a picture jobs bill, will have a vigorous debate in this body and actually have the ability to pass something that will create jobs. >> estermr president comes afte, an interpublic leader came ton talk about a vote later thisotee afternoon. thi it's a vote which has since been asked starkly important. we all know the state of ourit economy. where to position out 14 million americans out of m work. privatr 9.1% unemployment. private sector jobs are going gu up, so slowly that it really isn't getting us back into the kind of economic progress that we need. and we are for this amount is unemployment statistics come out and we areur reminded the weakness of ouro economy. we have to do something. the choices are to allow this economy to languish or to decline or to step up and dosomn

something. president obama has to cited neo that he needs to lead on this issue and bring together democrats and republicans for this purpose.e he spoke to a joint session of congress that was widelyeas reported. i put my best ideas and require republicans to do the same. by we can't stand idly by and do hs nothing. the president put his proposal forward. do.were he reminded republicans that many of the things he proposed were actually ideas they'd endorsed in the past. we waited and we waited and at the end of the day i'm afraid when the vote is taken, we will find a few fannies will support any effort to create jobs in the united states as president obama has her pose. the of the president has made his the position clear. have those of us who voted supportedo the president's plan has made ournsth position clear, but the position on the other side of the audio is increasingly clear as well.

it really comes down to two repb things. first, the republicans will notr dollar more in taxes for the wealthiest people in america.oti forng them that is unacceptable. it's better to do nothing than impose more and million dollars the year. every level of the republicanic. party, 59% of them believe the a presidents right. it's not unfair tosk ask those million dollars the year ofdepel living the economy forward. independents feel strongly and obviously democrat do as well.io tell the republicans who don't e share that police have to serve more i in the united states senate and they believe that 1 dollar more in taxes to pay for the presidentsen jobs program if itg came from the accounts of people making over a million dollars at year is haunfair.

so we know it very clear on that position. equal but there's a second position republicans have taken that it's equally clear. they are prepared to propose ane ideas coming from the obama administration. even ideas they'd conceivedstaf about it for the past. i asked my staff to take a look at some of the proposals theidet president obama and his jobs wil they'll, also, this afternoon and see what the record was on the republican side. it's intriguing. senator mcconnell and 32 of his republican colleagues supported president bush's economic stimulus act of 2008. it included tax rebate for tax individuals, which will find in the obama plan, tax cuts for small businesses, which we found in the obama plan and the offse. into that way. it for. give us added to the deficit.led they voted for that because president bush's name associated with it.obama broug

president obama is forward. republicans consistently in the past. here's what, said in january ofd 2009. i if you want a quick answers theo question about what i do, i'd have a payroll tax holiday senator mcconnell said for year two to pay taxes in the hands of everybody who has a jot whether they pay income taxes or not. as mrs. pay the payroll taxes. so would be both a business taxt cut and an individual tax cut centerpiec immediately.n. mr. president, that's theon t ft centerpiece of president obama's jobs plan. it's a plan criticized on the pi floor this morning by senatorde mcconnell. whe the approach the president is taken is exactly what senator mcconnell said when he wasng ofe speaking in the bosom of theox latch of fox news in january of- 2009. the federal help to states ill-equipped reservists.

incidentally, it used to be camo dogmatic but it came to building infrastructure in america, roadt and highways and ports and airports is a bipartisan issue. when his jobs bill comments rejected. the notice says about thew w presidene'ts jobs bill? retitle this before and it les not didn't work, so let's not trade again. so they are summarily reject for being payroll tax cuts for suppt past. they are rejecting tax cuts for r businesses to hire the unemployed, even unemployed veterans which they have past.ted in the frastructu they are rejecting the notion we our need to build america's infrastructure for the future oi our economy and is basically said when it comes to trying to ike this economyar move forwar, the only thing they want to do is to pass the trade agreement.a we will consider the trade agreements tomorrow, at least maybe all of them are likely tom pass.

how quickly do republicans think there'll be a turnaround in the economy if we start increasing our trade with korea, columbia or panama? not in may increased trade, but noto certainly not in the near term i and certainly not to the benefit of 14 millionon americans, 14 million americans currently d unemployed.ow so mr. president, it comes down to-t this. we'll have a vote later this afternoon. it's going to be president ofcly him as shown through postal.s. he has spoken to include in a to joint session of congress. repub he is taking its case to the hist american people and included provisions which the republicans i'm afraid they're going to waln away from this. the republican approach to this is to do nothing, absolutely nothing. protect millionaires and tax president obama a victory. well i'll tell you, this is not about a victory for president abbas. it's a victory for unemployed people across america that we would do something specific,t in something direct, something will

have a measurable impact inat creating jobs. i've traveled the republican reproach is one of just say no. that is the republican answer tc the week is of our economy. is n he talked about the tax hike included in our bill. the tax hike is a surtax on those making over ath millionito dollars income of 5.6%. it's not too much sacrifice to. ask from those most well-off inr america. while senator from kentucky tells a steely stimulus bill ovr failed, i would say to him, remember, only 40% of that bill, something most republicans usually support.l it also invested in america in ways that will pay off for yearp to come. for example comes in this bill international airport to create jobs and will serve for decadesa

to come through the same as those led to creation of intermodal funner. in bloomington in downstate create jobs now for construction and built for transportation in that community for decades to come. for that thing is to beonnell dismissed as not treating a results. i'm afraid senator mcconnell needs to journey north of illin the united states. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> the senate later defeated the jobs bill and 58 to 40 procedural vote. it needed 60 votes to move forward. we'll have more live coverage of the senate on c-span two limit n. at at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. up next on c-span 2, home run security secretary janet napolitano discusses her

department >> of course i am delighted, but not surprised by the final repeal of the 18th amendment. i have felt all along that when this was properly submitted to the rank-and-file, they would readily see that it had no place in our constitution.

>> homeland security secretary janet napolitano joined predecessors, michael chertoff and tom ridge to discuss the department in its future. former coast guard commandant thad allen moderates the event posted by george washington university. it's an hour and a half. [applause] [applause] >> good afternoon. it's a delight to welcome you to this afternoon's important discussion of the future of homeland security. it's a particularly to welcome secretary janet napolitano, michael chertoff and tom ridge

back to a campus. here at george washington we have a unique opportunity to engage the world from this nation's capital into enablers units to witness the power of knowledge and action. one of the ways we do so is by competing discussions at the urgent issues of our time and our ability to do that depends on in many ways on partnerships with the institutions and agencies that surround us. we are glad to have is one of those partners the united states security which has long supported a range of policy research and educational efforts across the university. george washington, surety policy institute leaves much of our work in this critical area. we offer training programs for first responders and graduate programs in the fields of cybersecurity, emergency management and security policy. the university hosts an array of security related initiatives. by entities as diverse as the elliott school of international affairs and the school of engineering and applied science.

today will have opportunity to learn firsthand from an exceptionally distinguished panel. i look forward to hearing their insights into the homeland security environment looking forward. i'm also delighted to note that her alumnus admiral thad allen, retired confidante of the coast guard, former national incident for the deepwater horizon oil spill and now a professor in her school of public policy and administration will moderate this afternoon's discussion. before hearing from secretary napolitano, chertoff and rich and admiral allen, will first hear from our host, frank's aloof, director of homeland security institute and mark perl, president and ceo of the homeland security and defense business council. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming, frank solely for. [applause] >> thank you, death or nap.

let me welcome you to go. it is a distinct amazing privilege to be the two cohosts today's discussion. as i was in the room out that, i literally cite decade of my life collide simultaneously. i mean come you don't get better public servants in the three joining us today and i had the privilege to work with all of them. we've had the privilege to host all of them in the past, but never simultaneously. so i know i certainly am excited to hear what they have to they have to seem thank you all for joining us today. monday also think her cohost, mark perl. he's done work in trying to translate nouns into verbs in public-private partnerships and delighted to work with them in court admiral allen. thank you and looking forward to this. [applause]